I highly recommend Novare Science and Math’s most recent newsletter, which highlights the question “Does Genesis 1 Demand Belief in a Young Earth?”
My upcoming middle school textbook, “Earth Science: God’s World, Our Home” is being published by Novare, and will be available for the 2015-2016 school year.
GeoChristian 
Whether 1:1 is part of Day One or not, it is very unlikely it’s anything more than an introductory statement. If it’s part of Day One, it makes that day the only one of the six that Genesis doesn’t tell us God spoke at the beginning of. If 1:3 starts Day One and 1:1 is the very beginning, it would mean Genesis tells us God spoke at the beginning of each of the Six Days, but doesn’t tell us He spoke at the very Beginning! This is teaching us that Genesis isn’t about the Very Beginning and when that is combined with the rest of The Bible, it’s easy to see a lot (Lucifer’s history) happened “before” the Genesis’ relative beginning.
LikeLike
My book, BEFORE GENESIS, Mike Riter is available on Amazon, and shows Noah’s Flood was a replay of the Genesis 1:2 flood. All events, like the creation of water and angels, Ice Ages etc.; happened BEFORE GENESIS.
LikeLike
Or check out this new book http://creation.com/books/the-genesis-account/
Or any of the over 10,000 older articles at creation.com.
LikeLike
And Mike, Exodus 20:11 makes it clear that Genesis 1:1 is part of Day One.
verse 3 cannot start Day One since the days of Genesis are defined as evening (dark) and morning (light), in that order. verse 3 is halfway through Day One.
There’s no need to read extra things into the text on account of modern guesses about the past that were deliberately designed to reduce the influence of the Bible.
Does Genesis 1 demand belief in a young earth? Depends on if it is God’s word or not and whether language can be trusted to communicate clearly and whether God tells the truth.
If your answer to each of those is yes (i.e. it is God’s word, language can communicate clearly and God is truthful), then it’s very hard to avoid seeing Genesis as literal history that teaches a 6000 year old earth created in six earth days.
The only reason anyone comes to another conclusion is because of the claims of what people consider to be science but is actually a philosophy disguised as science telling an alternate version of history.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Certainly there could be an evening on Day One if it begins on 1:3. The darkness was already there and God’s speaking began HIS WORK on Day One. The same is true of the other Five Days of restoration. No night is mentioned before God spoke. The night is assumed. On Day Four no night is mentioned when God said, “Let there be lights…” Are we going to say Day Four didn’t have a night “before” God spoke? God’s speaking started His work on Day Four. In the Dallas Seminary faculty’s “The Bible Knowledge Commentary,” Allen P. Ross was chosen to handle Genesis. He said, “Some have seen a middle stage of Creation here, that is, an unfinished work of Creation (v.2) that was later developed (vv. 3-25) into the present form. But this cannot be sustained by the syntax or the vocabulary.” If 1:1 is the original creation, it would mean “the heavens” didn’t include the sun, moon and stars created (in the Young Earth belief) on Day Four. It would also mean God worked on Day One before it’s said that He spoke. He did not start working before He spoke on any of the other Five Days.
LikeLike
G’day Mike,
Verse 3 says “And (indicating a narrative connection to verse 2) God said, “Let there be light.” And there was light.”
Where is the darkness in verse 3 long enough for an evening? How long does God take to say “Let there be light”?
“Certainly there could be an *evening* on Day One if it begins on 1:3” seems like quite a stretch.
And ignores my comment about Exodus 20:11. So I’ll try again. Exodus 20:11, part of the “ten commandments” written directly by the finger of God on stone, says “For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.”
Note that in six days the LORD (YHWH) made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them.
Which verse of Genesis says that God made heaven and earth? That’s Genesis 1:1. So Genesis 1:1 is part of the “six days” of the creation week. And logically the only day that can be is Day One. The first day.
And since you’ve ignored that point, I’ll stop there for now.
LikeLike
Hey Grahame! My bad for not responding to your comment concerning Exodus 20:11. I don’t like my points to be ignored, so I shouldn’t ignore any of yours. Thanks for calling me on this. We both agree that the heavens and Earth, the sea, and all that is in them were “MADE” in six 24-hour days. This agreement is a great starting point. We need to discover what is meant by “MADE”? Firstly, we know “MADE” doesn’t mean “MADE FROM NOTHING” concerning “all that is in them”. This strongly hints that the other things mentioned weren’t “MADE FROM NOTHING” either. Before I go any further, tell me what you think was “MADE FROM NOTHING”? Well, one more point: The Hebrew word translated “MADE” in Exodus 20:11 is, “gahsah” which is also the word used in Genesis 13:4 concerning the alter Abram “MADE”. “Gahsah” always refers to making something out of existing material. So as I said, “Genesis isn’t about the original creation at all.” And again that explains why there’s plenty of room for the huge period of time before Genesis concerning Lucifer’s history.
LikeLike
“made from nothing” is not a biblical phrase so I’ll come back to this.
I think you are making too much of there being a different verb in Exodus 20:11 since the verb “bara” is used in Genesis 1:1. These two verbs are often used as synonyms.
As with everything in scripture, we must consider context, both the immediate and the broader context. God’s reference to the the making of heaven and earth in Exodus 20:11 must be informed by Genesis 1 as it would have been for the people it was spoken to.
And since the two verbs are used synonymously in other places in scripture, it is more natural to see them as synonyms in this instance. There is no reason from the text to see it otherwise.
I find it difficult to understand the logic of putting any of the creation history before verse 1 since it starts with “in the beginning”. It’s impossible to have part of the acts of creation before the start of creation.
I get a little lost as to your point in some of the rest of what you said but you appear to be proposing that verse 2 describes a ruined earth, but this is not clearly stated by the text. I do agree with your comment about unfinished, and why you have a problem with that baffles me as clearly the creation was unfinished. You then say everything else was created complete but that is not true of the heavens (which were lacking the lights we now have) or the atmosphere which was divided later, or the water and land being divided, or even of Adam who was lacking a companion/helper.
The verse following verse 2 describe the “filling” and “forming” that are mentioned as not being present in verse 2.
I hope I haven’t missed anything vital to your argument and please point it out if I have but I’ll finish with commenting on your second last sentence – how can you say “If 1:1 was the beginning, when it clearly says it is?”
And why does God need to speak? Did Jesus speak every time He did a miracle?
Oh and I said I would come back to “made from nothing”, but I’m still puzzled by the importance of this as it’s not a biblical phrase.
But for the sake of sharing my best current understanding, it seems to me that verse 1 describes the creation of the basic building blocks of our physical reality, space, time and matter. “Made from nothing” is usually understood to mean made from nothing physical that pre-existed it (I have heard what I consider to be an overly pedantic point made that “ex nihilo” is not accurate since it means “out of nothing” and God made them and He is not nothing, but that would appear to miss the point of the phrase). I’m not sure of all the things made from this nothing, but Genesis 1:1 would seem to be an obvious starting point. Whether God made anything else from nothing or not is not specified to my knowledge. It is specified that Adam was not made from “nothing”, or Eve.
I hope I haven’t misunderstood you at all.
LikeLike
As for the “And God said” in 1:3. On page 104 of “Unformed and Unfilled (A Critique of the Gap Theory)”, Weston W. Fields admits “Genesis 1:2 cannot be circumstantial to 1:3, and therefore the pluperfect, if it were allowed, would not be in relationship to verse 3. This leaves verse 1 as the only possibility. All grammarians who specifically mention this verse, as well as Unger, who apparently abandoned the traditional Gap Theory for this very reason, agree that verse 2 is circumstantial to verse 1. This means that the pluperfect, if it be allowed, would of necessity stand in relation to verse 1. Therefore, the action of the pluperfect would have to take place before the action of verse one…” This proves that it’s impossible, according to Hebrew grammar, for there to be a gap between 1:1 and 1:2. It also means that the Hebrew grammar allows for verse two to be before verse one, which is what Unger and Allen P. Ross believed and what I believe. This means both a Young Earth scholar and Old Earth scholars agree that the Hebrew grammar “allows” us to move verse two in front of verse one. Of course the Young Earth Creationist doesn’t believe that’s the grammar we should go with. Unger and Ross believed 1:1-2 as a unit were an introductory statement, circumstantial to verse three. There’s no hint that God spoke before 1:3. 1:1-2 describe a ruined Earth that was recently judged (covered with darkness and water) and after this description we find God beginning to remedy the situation, “And God said…” Everything else in Genesis One was “MADE” complete and perfect in the first place. So if Earth wasn’t just judged, why did God need to “FIX” it? Why wasn’t Earth also “Made” complete and perfect without needing further work? If 1:1 was the beginning, “WHY DOSEN”T GENESIS TELL US GOD SPOKE?” I’ve never heard a good answer to that question!
LikeLike
Hey Grahme! You must keep in mind that we (people like Allen P. Ross, Unger and many others), DO NOT BELIEVE ANYTHING WAS CREATED IN GENESIS 1:1. WE BELIEVE IT’S AN INTRODUCTORY AND SUMMARY STATEMENT. And that’s why (we think) God is not said to speak. No action! Exodus 20:11 clearly shows that EVERYTHING IN THE GENESIS SIX DAYS WAS MADE OUT OF EXISTING MATERIAL. This is not the original creation. According to you in 1:1 “The heavens and the Earth” refer to “space, time and matter.” Nowhere else in the O. T. is this true! To say the heavens and the Earth are not the heavens and the Earth but rather “space, time and matter” is to completely change what is said. It is a fabricated belief. I agree that “creation ex nihilo” is totally foreign to Genesis. Somebody should tell “Answers In Genesis.” So you have “space, time and matter”,–what about “water” “the deep” is always water in the O. T.! So if this is the original creation and not an introductory statement, water appears without ever having been said to be “MADE.”
Job 38:7 tells us that long before Genesis, the stars and angels were already there when God created the Earth. “Where were you when I laid the foundations of the Earth?…When the morning stars sang together and the sons of God shouted for joy?” Job 38:4,7.
1 John 1:5 states, “God is light, and in Him is no darkness at all.” God would never create anything covered with darkness! Not even “time, space and matter.” Darkness and water are certainly judgments in Scripture. Water was there before Genesis and that’s why it’s not mentioned as created in Genesis.
LikeLike
What you or I believe, Mike, is not the most important issue. The most important issue is what the text says and equally important is what it means. Note, not what it seems to mean or what we think it means but what it actually means.
The same is true of the communication between us. Please don’t read into what I say and accuse me falsely. That just won’t work.
For example, I did not say “the heavens and the Earth are not the heavens and the Earth”. It is completely unacceptable to jump to this conclusion on such insufficient evidence. Nor did I say ““creation ex nihilo” is totally foreign to Genesis”.
You appear to have again ignored or missed the most important parts of what I was saying so I won’t waste time with a detailed response to all the points you made. I’ll simply repeat myself in hopefully what is a more clear way..
Genesis 1:1 uses the word bara, which you seem to be ignoring and instead using Exodus 20:11 to say that the heavens and earth were made from pre-existing material.
However, bara means created and since Genesis 1:1 says “in the beginning” it means time didn’t exist before. Genesis 1:1 was the beginning. This phrase is also used in John 1:1 to teach that Jesus is God the Creator as a launching point for John’s Gospel.
And since it was the beginning (of God’s creative activity, of Creation, of time), when God created the heavens and earth, He had to have been creating space and time.
This is simply a logical extension, unless you have a textual reason to reject it.
Unless you believe that space and matter existed eternally outside of time (which is impossible because matter is movement which needs time). And it’s also impossible scientifically because of the second law of thermodynamics which would mean we were already in heat death.
But maybe I’ve missed something (probably where you say what you do believe the bible teaches about what was before Genesis 1:1). You seem to focus more on what you don’t believe than what you do.
And who ever saw this belief in scripture before geology and history were hijacked by the secularists (e.g. Hutton and Lyell) who deliberately tried to destroy the authority of scripture?
And perhaps you should step back and check scripture before being so sure of what God would or wouldn’t do.
Isaiah 45:7 I form light and create darkness, I make well-being and create calamity, I am the LORD, who does all these things.
Since Genesis is a record of what God actually did and not this Aristotelian ideal of what God would or should do, let’s trust it as His revelation! He said He created the heavens and the earth AND darkness covered the face of the deep.
Please also note that He had not yet created light so I find it really difficult to understand why you have a problem with it being dark.
I would like to remind you (or educate you since you seem to frequently ignore or be unaware of what scripture says) that God want us to come to Him as a child.
You appear to be over-intellectualising the text instead of seeing what it clearly says. I recommend you step back and examine why you have made so many mistakes as to what God says about Himself and His creation.
I would suggest that you have swallowed the invention of “deep time” or an earth and/or universe much older than is the simple, plain teaching of scripture which was widely believed for about 5,800 years by those who trusted the Bible.
This may be a bitter pill to swallow, but I sincerely pray that you will very seriously consider why you aren’t trusting God’s word, and therefore are not trusting God, at least in this area.
LikeLike
Young Earth Creationists (YEC) all have one thing in common. You all hate the literal meaning! Gen. 1:1 literally says, “the heavens and the Earth” We Summary Statement/Introductory Statement people belief “the heavens and the Earth” means “the heavens and the Earth”! We believe if 1:3 is the first place God speaks, that’s when He began to work. We don’t “imagine”, we let the Scriptures tell us what to believe. I’ve seen YEC add all sorts of things that happened way-way-way before Genesis, to Noah’s Flood. They go by their science and NOT BY THE BIBLE. I’ve seen them “ADD” incredibly huge volcanism to Noah’s Flood. There isn’t a single reference to volcanism at that time in The Bible. YEC hate the literal meaning and love their science! That’s everywhere in their literature! Whatever they need, they add to The Word of God. They add continental drift to Noah’s Flood? The plain literal meaning is that the ark didn’t rock much, keeping Noah and all aboard from being tossed around. The Bible doesn’t speak of an Ice Age (or a time of extreme cold after the flood). YEC need an Ice Age, so they “ADD” it to The Bible! They go by their science and not by the Bible, which gives no indication of a post-flood Ice Age. The reason the Ice Age or Ages aren’t in the Bible is because they happened LONG BEFORE GENESIS.
LikeLike
I agree that “darkness” here doesn’t prove my point and I won’t harp on it.
“Bara” in the Bible, everywhere else, including the creation of Adam, always refers to working on material already there. So when God is said to, in what I consider an introductory statement, to “bara” the heavens and the Earth, it’s not correct to say, “create out of nothing” in 1:1.
Genesis One is all about a relative beginning (a restoration). This is clearly what the Bible is saying. Otherwise, the stars would already be there before the Earth as in Job 38:4-7. Earth, which Job tells us was created “After” the stars long before Genesis, is “restored” before the stars are allowed to shine on Earth in Genesis. Job 38 and Genesis one are obviously talking about two different things. Job speaks of the foundation of Earth being laid, whereas in Genesis Earth is made (restored). If this isn’t true, then WHY ARE THE STARS ALREADY THERE WHEN EARTH’S FOUNDATION IS LAID, BUT THE STARS DO NOT APPEAR UNTIL AFTER EARTH IS REVEALED AFTER BEING ALTERED?
If you think the stars were “created” on Day Four, instead of being already there and only being revealed on Day Four, 1). WHY WERE THE STARS ALREADY THERE IN JOB 38 WHEN EARTH’S FOUNDATION IS LAID? Answer that question and I’ll be happy!
LikeLike
I’m not sure that you will be happy but we’ll see. Let’s work through what you said in order.
Bara: is used in Genesis 1:1, and also in verse 21 referring to the sea creatures and flying creatures, and 27 referring to the creation of man.
Even if you are right that bara in every other instance refers to creation from pre-existing material, how can it be true for the “in the beginning” instance? Once again I am repeating myself but what was pre-exisiting before the beginning? Do you believe in eternal matter?
What IS your belief? Are you only for knocking down or do you also promote what you believe to be true?
And further, I **never** used the phrase “create out of nothing”. This is a strawman of your making. This is a deceitful method of arguing. How about we just deal with what the other person affirms? Couldn’t give a toss about the issues surrounding “ex nihilo” since that is not the topic.
But if it burns within you that there might be someone who believes this and you are determined to make this a vital issue, well, we’ll see how that goes, but I’ll probably bow out since it is a senseless argument to be having.
And then you use some more poor logic, including pure assertion and jumping to unwarranted conclusions that only demonstrate circular reasoning.
Mike, you really need to improve the method you use to argue your point.
And then Job. Hmm. I have some problems with your understanding here. Firstly, Job (as a book) is quite poetic in these long speeches in it and you have to be careful taking poetic “literally” (which is a word you love to use but don’t appear to understand – another strawman).
So were the “morning stars” (and here you make another unwarranted assumptiong as most scholars think it refers to angels) before Genesis 1:1? It would be hard to say definitely based on this one verse.
And you didn’t need to point it out as it has also bothered me!
But if you are right, then Exodus 20:11 is lying since the heavens and earth ALL THAT IS IN THEM was created in six days.
I feel like I’m repeating myself. But it’s okay, I’m getting used to it.
So your interpretation of Job cannot be correct!
Everything was made in those six days. Everything.
I don’t know what “everything” means where you come from but everything includes angels and stars and even the pre-existing material that you keep blathering on about.
Your restored creation theory was only read into the Bible after “long ages” arose and was considered truth and science. It never occurred to a single human being (that I know of) before the deists (or whatever they were) Hutton and Lyell hijacked geology and history.
And now you start yelling again (do you realise that using ALL CAPS like you do is rude?).
When were the stars created? According to Genesis which you studiously seem to ignore, it was the Fourth Day. Rather than believe you, I’ll stick with what God said.
Okay, question answered. Are you happy? ;-)
LikeLike
Like thousands of the best Bible scholars, I know Job 38 proves that Genesis one isn’t about the original creation of the Earth and isn’t about the very beginning. This is why “bara” and other words about forming out of existing material are used in Genesis. In the Six Days God “MADE” “FORMED OUT OF EXISTING MATERIAL OR REVEALED WHAT WAS ALREADY THERE.” These two facts 1. God used pre-existing things and didn’t have to lay the foundation of Earth in Genesis one because, Earth was already there when He “MADE IT” “Worked on it”! That is why Job 38 must be before genesis. You have not been able to explain my question: “If Genesis One is the original creation, which it can’t be, why were the stars already there when the Earth’s foundation was laid in Job 38:4-7? The only possible answer is that Genesis is a restoration.
This time answer my question-one and only question for now. 1). Why are the stars there when the foundation of Earth is laid in Job but not in Genesis One? Why were the stars created FIRST in Job? Don’t go round and round about other things! Just answer that one simple question? Why are the stars already there in Job when the foundation of Earth is laid? That’s all I want to know from you for now.
LikeLike
Mike – as you imply, the word for what YECs frequently do with Genesis, in order to make it properly ‘scientific’ and properly ‘historic’, is eisegesis.
LikeLike
Yes, I know that word. They may make it “scientific” and “historical” but never BIBLICAL! When God created Earth it was not covered with water as in Genesis One (see Job 38). This means Moses was right to only use words that mean to work on existing material. He was right not to have any action in Genesis 1:1 (Not to have God speak). Everything points to 1:1-2 being a introductory statement. It can’t possibly be the original creation of the Earth when God didn’t allow water to cover it (Job 38: 8-11. One thing is for certain “when Earth was created, the stars were already there!” (Job 38: 4-7). It is unbiblical to say a record of the creation of Earth is in Genesis One! Everything points to a restoration! The water had to “be gathered into one place” before “the dry land” appeared. This was a Flood Judgment that required God to restore Earth to the condition He created it in, in Job 38. I’m glad to see you’re following this debate and hope you’ve been learning. Plain, logical, sane science tells us the stars were made before Earth and so does Job 38.
LikeLike
Dear Ashley, I misread “eisegesis” as “exegesis”! I hadn’t heard of “eisegesis”, but you’re right, YEC add whatever they can invent to force the Scriptures to agree with their science. If the Bible doesn’t have “volcanism” during Noah’s Flood, they add it. If the Bible doesn’t have an Ice Age, they add it. If the Bible doesn’t have continental drift, they add it. If the Bible doesn’t have hundreds of thousands of meteorites, they add them. If the O. T. doesn’t have a “creation-out-of-nothing”, they add it. The creation-out-of-nothing does exist in John One, where no mention is made of the Six Days or Day One. Genesis 1:2 tells of how things were in 1:1, and all who’ve looked into it agree that there cannot be a gap between them. YEC know this and if you debate them using the Gap Theory, they will know you’re wrong. Yes there was obviously a destruction and restoration. but the Hebrew grammar doesn’t let you get there using the Gap Theory.
One thing we cannot allow is for YEC “science” to tell the Bible what happened, which they constantly do, instead of letting the Bible tell them. It’s painfully obvious that all the volcanism, continental drift, meteorite craters and mountain uplifts happened before Genesis. The GeoChristian knows all about this and has done great research that he’s thankfully shared here. I’m looking forward to his book!
LikeLike
Mike says “I misread” for the first true thing he said for a long time.
Either he’s a comedian or severely deceived. I’ll waste no further time responding to his utter nonsense and super inaccurate posts.
LikeLike
Goodbye Graham.
LikeLike
Graham, c’mon, have more patience with Mike. (You know the Lord would want you to)
I’ll take a whack at your question concerning Job 38, Mike.
First of all, Job 38 isn’t referring to stars – distant suns – and so does not offer the least bit of evidence there was preexisting matter before Genesis 1, let alone a devastated Earth needing restoration. Isaiah 14:12-15 begins “How you have fallen from Heaven, O morning star, son of the dawn! Here is a reference to Satan who is called a “morning star”. I’ve seen commentaries wanting to say this is a reference to the Antichrist, but that one never fell from Heaven. In Luke 10:18 Jesus says He saw Satan fall like lightning from Heaven. Isaiah 14 goes on to say “You have been cast down to the Earth….” Clearly this is a reference to Satan. The Antichrist can’t be cast down to the Earth, he will have been born here. So Satan is called a “morning star”.
Jesus is also called “the Bright Morning Star” in Rev 22:16 and other places. I don’t have a problem with the Lord being called The Bright Morning Star, and Satan also referred to as a “morning star”. I’m seeing this term as being applied to angels, with the Lord being the Bright Morning Star, or the chief and most preeminent morning star.
I’ve seen a commentary that says the morning stars mentioned in Job 38 are generally the stars. For instance : “Verse 7. – When the morning stars sang together. The stars generally, or the actual stars visible on the morn of creation, are probably meant. They, as it were, sang a song of loud acclaim on witnessing the new marvel. Their priority to the earth is implied, since they witness its birth. Their song is, of course, that silent song of sympathy,……”
What sentimental rubbish. Stars are not sentient beings with sensory organs. They don’t “witness” anything. Not being self-aware, they aren’t aware of anything. They certainly didn’t “sing a song of loud acclaim”. You may have read similar stuff yourself with the particular interpretation of Job 38 you have. Don’t be impressed with such commentary and interpretation which seems to be more about the commentator trying to sound impressive with his literary analysis skills then actually knowing what he’s talking about. So…..
Morning stars is a term referring to angels. We also see in Job 38 the phrase “and all the sons of God shouted for joy” in conjunction with the term “morning stars”. Sons of God is a term known by theologians to apply to angels. We have nothing more in Job 38:7 but a statement that the angels, having already been created on Day 1 witnessed God create the Earth and lay it’s foundations, separating the waters covering it from the land he raised up, and sang songs of praise to God.
If you want to believe in matter preexisting Genesis, you will either have to believe in eternally existing matter, or, there was another “beginning” before Genesis which is not what scripture teaches. Eternally existing matter means God could not have created it, it’s eternally self existent like Him. Again, not what scripture teaches. Hope I’ve answered your question.
LikeLike
Hey Scott, Music of the stars is known as “stellar seismology.” You can hear the music on youtube, “Music of The Stars”. You can read about it by typing in, “Structure of stars revealed by ‘music’ they emit”. (the journal Science). You don’t have to worry about me accepting any commentary without carefully studying what has been said. Yeah! Antichrist would be way off for Isa.14:12! It is certainly talking about Satan! But “morning star” here is in no way connected to the “morning stars” in Job 38:7. The Hebrew words are: “kohchahv” in Job and “hehlehl” in Isa. (the only time it is used in the O. T.). The word translated “stars” in Job doesn’t mean “angels” in any of the other places it’s used in the O. T.! It’s also doubtful God would call the same entities “sons of God” and in the next breath, “mourning stars”. So the evidence here points heavily towards the “STARS WERE CREATED BEFORE THE EARTH”!
Furthermore, in the record of God creating the Earth in Job, at no time are the waves allowed to cover the Earth. Unlike the destroyed Earth we find in Genesis 1:2, Job’s creation doesn’t need the water to be gathered into one place so the dry land could appear. In the destroyed Earth of 1:2, “the deep” is unrestrained as far as having boundaries that restrain the waves.
And as has already been shown, there are no words in Genesis that mean, “created-out-of-nothing.”
And God is not said to speak in 1:1, making it a summary-introductory statement, with the action to repair the judged Earth beginning with, “And God said” in 1:3, bringing in light to dispel the darkness.
The beginning in 1:1 is a “summary-introductory statement” concerning what God would do in the Six Days. If this was the original creation of the Earth, it wouldn’t need the deep (the water) to be gathered into one place.
LikeLike
There’s no Spirit of God hovering over the deep in Job 38. There’s no sons of God shouting for joy in Genesis One.
LikeLike
If Genesis One included the original creation of the Earth, Job 38 would’ve had to tell us something like: “I said to the proud waves, ‘Be gathered to one place and let the dry land appear!'” This wasn’t in Job because, Job was about the original creation of the Earth. In Job we have “the foundation of the Earth” laid in verse four and no mention of the sea until verse eight. In Genesis One the sea (the deep) is seen first. There’s no need to measure the Earth in Genesis because, as Genesis opens the just judged Earth was at least still the basic size it was when God originally created it in Job 38. In Job 38:10, God placed boundaries on the sea to begin with. Again, no need for, “let dry land appear.”
LikeLike
I stand corrected, Mike, on the two different Hebrew words. Thanks. I’m still digesting the rest of this.
LikeLike
If stars here meant angels, God would be saying, “when the angels sang together and all the angels shouted for joy”, which wouldn’t be a logical sentence.
LikeLike
How much more sense it would’ve made to say, “when all the angels sang together and shouted for joy.”
LikeLike
There are a couple of other things said in Job that throw or might throw light on this subject. 9:7 says “Who commands the sun not to shine, and sets a seal upon the stars.” I think that’s a description of Genesis before Day Four.
26:7 says, “He stretches out the north over empty space and hangs the Earth on nothing.” I wonder if there can be a “north” if there’s just empty space?
LikeLike
Concerning Job 9:7 above, the Hebrew word for “made” (gahsah) on Day Four is translated “show” as in “show kindness” in Gen. 20:13, 2 Sam. 9:1,3,7;10:2 and 1 Chron. 19:2. I think Day Four is God “showing the Earth”, “two great lights” and “the stars” that were already there.
LikeLike
If 1:1 is the first part of Day One as YEC demands, it would mean Earth (in their ever-changing meaning of what is meant be “Earth”), was created at night (before “let there be light.” Whereas when the foundation of Earth was laid in Job, it was the “morning” stars that sang together over the event.
LikeLike
THE OLIVE LEAF AND NOAH’S FLOOD
On page 40 of “Biblical Creationism”, the co-author of “The Genesis Flood”, Henry M. Morris, said, “The returning dove had found that plant life had begun to grow on the land again, presumably from seeds or cuttings carried by the waters until deposited on the earth’s surface, so Noah knew the animals could find food to eat…” It seems to me, since seven days earlier, “water was on the surface of all the earth” (Gen.8:9), the dove with “a freshly picked olive leaf” “in her beak” (8:11), shows us it didn’t come from, “seeds or cuttings.” This points to a pre-flood tree, still growing where it was before the flood. We also need enough growth to feed all the plant-eaters that left the ark two months later (8:14). This could only take place if the shrubs and trees were already there with their with their root systems intact and a multitude of grass seeds were already planted from the previous year. A scattered seed here and there wouldn’t be enough.
Page 22 of “The Genesis Flood” says, “Great volcanic explosions and eruptions are clearly implied in the statement, ‘all the fountains of the great deep [were] broken up.’ … there must also have been great earthquakes and tsunamis…generated throughout the world.” Page 39 of “Biblical Creationism” says, “The great flood, with its accompanying outpourings from the great deep and torrents from the skies changed the face of the earth in the most drastic way imaginable.”
LikeLike
Actually, upon further thought, all grasses that I know of, in addition to seeds, grow from established roots from previous years. Sure the flood was a huge event, but it was gradual enough so that it never rocked the ark hard enough cause harm. It certainly couldn’t account for all the super-gigantic catastrophes YEC force into it. Isaiah 30:33 speaks of “a stream of fire and brimstone.” No such stream is spoken of in conjunction with Noah’s Flood. The Hebrew word “magyahn” translated “fountains” in Genesis 7:11 and 8:2 appears 23 times in the O. T. and water is the only physical substance ever connected with it. There is no Biblical authority to insert volcanism into this context. All the huge volcanism we find on Earth absolutely couldn’t have happened during or since the Six Days. The reason YEC insert it into Noah’s Flood is because they can’t find anywhere else that explains it. I can–before the Six Days!
LikeLike
THE RAVEN AND THE DOVE
Genesis 8:7-12 says “And he sent out a raven, and it flew here and there until the water was dried up from the earth. Then he sent out a dove from him, to see if the water was abated from the face of the land. But the dove found no resting place for the sole of her foot, so she returned to him into the ark, for the water was on the surface of all the earth. Then he put out his hand and took her into the ark to himself. So he waited yet another seven days; and again he sent out the dove from the ark. The dove came to him toward evening, and behold, in her beak was a freshly picked fig leaf. So Noah knew that the water was abated from the earth. Then he waited yet another seven days, and sent out the dove, but she did not return to him again.”
The raven represents restless people who seek satisfaction everywhere except for the one place it can be found–in the center of God’s will! The raven was probably sent out first because, it was by the window longing to be somewhere besides where it was. The fact that the raven found no place to rest, didn’t stop it from searching and searching and searching! Determine to do your own will and see where that takes you? It always leads to a wasted and wicked life full of regrets and despair. Isaiah said, “the wicked are like the tossing sea” (57:20). Solomon said, “The way of the wicked is like darkness; they do not know over what they stumble.” (Proverbs 4:19). Job 20:5 says, “The triumphing of the wicked is short, and the joy of the Godless momentary.”
The dove represents those who’ve learned, like Noah, to trust God, Who always takes care of us in every way. I’m sure Noah longed to feel the sunshine on his body, the good earth under his feet and the cool wind against his face; but he had learned to wait patiently for God’s timing in everything. No wonder, “Noah found grace (favor) in the eyes of the Lord.” (Gen. 6:8).
Though Noah was in a difficult situation; being cooped up and having a lot of animals to care for, yet he was in the best place in all the world! Are you in the best place in all the world at the moment? If you don’t think so, then you must think: either God doesn’t know what He’s doing or He doesn’t love you. Are your eyes opened to see “that all things work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose.” (Rom. 8:28). Many are like Jacob, who said, “Surely the Lord was in this place, and I did not know it.” (Gen.28:16).
Can it be that you expected a nice easy, peaceful life, while Jesus and the Apostles had many trials and troubles? Jesus said, “These things I have spoken to you, so that in Me you may have peace. In the world you shall have tribulation, but take courage; I have overcome the world.” (John 16:33). The Apostle Paul said we should be “rejoicing in hope, persevering in tribulation, devoted to prayer.” (Rom. 12:12).
Noah, being human, had his off days–days he felt rather down and uninspired. I’ve read books by the most spiritual people of the last 100 years, and one thing they all said, “Work on whether you “feel” like it or not.” Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord because he was dependable. He never used “I don’t feel like it” as an excuse. When Paul told the Philippians “Rejoice in the Lord always” (4:4), he knew they didn’t “feel” joyous. If they “felt” joyous, he wouldn’t have to tell them to rejoice as it would be automatic. This is not to say we shouldn’t enjoy the “feeling” of God’s presence now and then. But we must leave when it comes and goes in His hands. This is “living by faith and not by feeling”. Paul said, “be ready in season and out of season” (2 Tim. 4:2). So if you don’t feel like witnessing, reading The Bible, memorizing verses or rising early to pray and seek the Lord with all your heart, do it anyway and you will soon find “grace in the eyes of the Lord.”
LikeLike
Both The Gap Theory and Progressive Creationism, demand about a nine billion-year-long beginning. They both believe the stars and the Earth were created in the beginning in 1:1 and both believe Earth was created about nine billion years after the first stars. So “in the beginning” is mighty long for both and may stretch the meaning of word “beginning” to the breaking point?
LikeLike
One big problem I have is that you can’t contain the ‘acceptable non-literal translation’ to Genesis 1. It spills out to the rest of the Bible. For instance Science has proven there was never a global flood, therefore Noah and the flood must be ‘non-literal’ as well. By extension we must take Peter’s epistles in some way to be non-literal as he clearly supports Noah’s global flood. The Tower of Babel is farcical to Science as well, so Genesis 11 must be taken non-literally. No woman can give birth at 100 so Genesis 21 must be non-literal literature. Exodus 20 says in 6 days God made the heavens and earth, so that must me taken non-literally as well. So the 10 commandments are written in a non-literal genre.
And of course even more concerning is that Science has disproven miracles or anything supernatural. Therefore everything from the exploits of Sampson to the virgin birth the the resurrection of the dead et. al. are nonsense. A perplexing issue for me is that old earth proponents use Science as the primary source to prove they are right, then turn around and say Science is completely wrong on these accounts.
A question, I’m guessing that most who hold the old-earth position do believe in a global flood of Noah, what evidence would we expect to find from such a massive geological event, the judgment of God on the earth? And why can’t Science find any evidence of it on 90% of the planet?
For those who believe it is a myth, or only a regional flood, please explain 2 Peter 3:6 (and it’s entire context).
LikeLike
Groovyman67-
Actually, most who hold to an old Earth position reject a global flood. As well as a literal reading of most anything else in Genesis 1-10 They, like the host of this site, believe in a localized flood, perhaps limited to the Mesopotamian region.
I came to this controversy over young Earth vs. old Earth 3 years ago, and had been a Christian for many years at that point. Though I rejected evolution, I was open to the idea of an old Earth. I have since spent about 2000 hrs of study on this issue. I am utterly convinced an old Earth view destroys the scriptures and thus our faith – if one is logically consistent with it. Further, if billions of years and evolution have occurred (and they are inseparable), the logical inevitable conclusion is our God, the God of the Bible, does not exist.
But you are exactly right. The problems with an old Earth belief do spill out over the rest of scripture. Old earth Christians don’t necessarily reject miracles, or miraculous events recorded in the Old Testament, however, but are increasingly holding to heretical beliefs if certain articles written on the Biologos web site are any indication. But again, the views espoused there are logically consistent with an old Earth view.
Oh, one more thing. Most scientists will tell you science doesn’t actually “prove” anything. Yet they behave and speak as if it does. So, no, science hasn’t “proven” a global flood didn’t happen. When a method for investigating the creation is often practiced by atheists driven by ideology, grant money, and a certain malevolent spirit, and when they control institutions of higher learning, we shouldn’t expect their “findings” to agree with scripture. And then there’s just plain being mistaken about stuff.
LikeLike
groovyman67 — Thanks for your comment.
If you look closely at young-Earth creationist’s writings, you will see that they have a similar problem of where to draw the line between figurative and non-figurative in the opening chapters of Genesis. For instance, is the moon literally a light? Genesis 1:16 states “And God made the two great lights—the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night—and the stars.” If we were take this verse literally, it says that God made two lights, which are the sun and the moon. Genesis does not say that God made a light (sun) and a reflector of light (moon), but I know of no YECs who insist that the moon emits its own visible light. Why not? Because in this instance, even YECs are willing to let their science (the moon reflects light from the sun) drive their interpretation of Scripture. And there is nothing wrong with this.
The difference between you as a YEC and myself as an old-Earth Christian is that we draw the line between figurative and literal in different places in the opening chapters of Genesis.But we old-Earthers do not do this randomly. There are plenty of indicators in the text itself that “day” is not to be considered to be “literal.” Consider the following:
— The first use of the word “day” in Genesis one does not refer to a 24-hour day but to the period of light (v. 5).
— The phrase “there was evening, and there was morning” does not refer to a complete 24-hour day. A Hebrew 24-hour day would be from sunset to sunset, which is not the same thing as “evening and morning.”
— Bible scholars have been pointing out for almost 2000 years that the first three days are not necessarily literal 24-hour days because days are marked by the movements of the sun across the sky, and the creation of the sun is not mentioned until day 4.
— The word “day” is used in a non-literal sense in Genesis 2:4, referring to the entire creation week. If “day” can be used figuratively in 2:4, couldn’t it also be used in a figurative sense throughout the passage?
— There are a number of analogies in Genesis 1:1-2:3, such as:
God’s speech is similar to, but not identical to, human speech.
God’s work is similar to, but not identical to, human work.
God’s rest is similar to, but not identical to, human rest.
Doesn’t it make sense, then, that God’s days are not necessarily the same as human days?
Grace and Peace
LikeLike
Scott Bradshaw,
You have spent 2000 hours studying this issue. Have you read from non-YEC sources as well as YEC sources? Have you read any of these?
–The notes in the ESV Study Bible?
—Seven Days that Divide the World by John Lennox?
—Genesis 1-4 by John C. Collins?
I read both sides (and was once a YEC myself). Do you?
I get concerned when YECs teach that acceptance of an old Earth “destroys the scriptures and thus our faith,” as you put it. This leads to tragic results among our young people. They are raised on materials from AiG, ICR, and Dr. Dino, and when they figure out that much of what these organizations teach does not hold water scientifically, many of our young people reject their Christianity along with their YEC.
As an old-Earth Christian, I accept all of the core doctrines of the Christian faith.
I believe in the Bible as the inerrant Word of God.
I believe that the universe was created from nothing by the triune God of the Bible.
I believe that God created all of life and ultimately, created the first humans.
I believe in a real Adam in a real garden committing a real sin that led to his immediate spiritual death and ultimately to his physical death.
I believe that all have sinned in Adam, and that all have their own sin as well.
I believe that Jesus Christ is the eternal Son of God, that he was born of the virgin Mary, that he died on the cross for our sins, that he rose from the dead and ascended to the Father.
None of these beliefs hinge on Earth being only 6000 years old.
LikeLike
Scott,
One more thing. I suppose there is a sense in which science never proves anything. Science has not proven that gravity works. Perhaps tomorrow you will drop a glass and it will float in the air rather than falling to the floor and breaking.
You are right, science has not “proven” that a global flood never happened. Just like science cannot “prove” that you didn’t pop into existence a minute ago complete with memories of having lived longer. Scientific does not work like a proof in geometry.
So what does it make to “prove” something in science? In laboratory science, one can run experiments over and over (dropping an object one million times and it falls every single time, at a rate that follows Newton’s laws). We consider Newton’s laws to be “proven” (at least at the scale of dropping objects in a laboratory) because we have never observed deviations from the law. Of course, Newton’s laws are just a subset of deeper laws, such as relativity.
Philosophers of science recognize that a historical science like historical geology does not always work in the same way as a laboratory science such as Newtonian physics. Within historical geology, however, one can make good stories to explain our observations of rocks, or one can make bad stories. Most YEC attempts to explain Earth history fall into this “bad stories” category. A great example is YEC attempts to explain features of the fossil record. Dinosaur eggs, to be more specific, are only found within certain sediments (terrestrial layers) at a certain level (Mesozoic) within the geologic record. There are no dinosaur eggs or nests in earlier rocks; and none in later rocks. No combination of hydraulic sorting, pre-flood ecological zonation, floating islands, or debris mats can explain the existence and distribution of dinosaur nests and eggs.
It is important to emphasize that this is not a matter of “world view.” The wild YEC explanations do not work within a Christian world view any more than they do in any other world view. They simply do not work as explanations for the world that we observe. Once again, bad science is bad apologetics that drives people away from the gospel (including many of our youth, who are “Already Gone” in part because of YEC teachings).
Please note that this is not an attack on the Bible. The Bible does not teach that Noah’s flood created the geologic record.
LikeLike
geochristian said “If you look closely at young-Earth creationist’s writings, you will see that they have a similar problem of where to draw the line between figurative and non-figurative in the opening chapters of Genesis. For instance, is the moon literally a light? Genesis 1:16 states “And God made the two great lights—the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night—and the stars.” If we were take this verse literally, it says that God made two lights, which are the sun and the moon. Genesis does not say that God made a light (sun) and a reflector of light (moon), but I know of no YECs who insist that the moon emits its own visible light. Why not? Because in this instance, even YECs are willing to let their science (the moon reflects light from the sun) drive their interpretation of Scripture. And there is nothing wrong with this.”
You are attempting to apply a wooden literalism to reject a natural understanding of the text. This is a strange hermeneutic to use. By any reasonable standard the moon could be said to be a light in the sky. It does produce light! We now know it’s by reflection but I don’t see how that’s relevant to it being considered a light.
You are creating a dichotomy that does not exist in the minds of most people and reading that unusual dichotomy back into scripture to make an obscure point to support an unnatural interpretation of scripture.
“The difference between you as a YEC and myself as an old-Earth Christian is that we draw the line between figurative and literal in different places in the opening chapters of Genesis.But we old-Earthers do not do this randomly. There are plenty of indicators in the text itself that “day” is not to be considered to be “literal.” Consider the following:”
Since you use a definition of literal that is not the definition used in the past, how about we distinguish between natural and unnatural or plain and obscure? Plain or natural is the original meaning of literal and you are using “literal” in a sense that I know of no-one expecting of the text. After all, the intricate details of science and the technical meanings of words that we use today, weren’t how they were used for most of human history, or even by most humans today! And the Bible is designed to be understood by everyone.
— [this and following dashes indicate a quote from “geochristian”.] The first use of the word “day” in Genesis one does not refer to a 24-hour day but to the period of light (v. 5).
[this and following interjections indicate a response by me.] Right and it was clearly defined and every single following usage of day that means 24 hour period is also clearly defined as such.
— The phrase “there was evening, and there was morning” does not refer to a complete 24-hour day. A Hebrew 24-hour day would be from sunset to sunset, which is not the same thing as “evening and morning.”
Incorrect. Evening is clearly referring to the beginning of the period of darkness and morning to the beginning of the period of light. a period of darkness following by a period of light, in other words, a 24 hour day.
Children reading the bible clearly understand it this way unless they have been indoctrinated to understand origins otherwise, and even then still often see the Bible contradicting what most schools teach.
— Bible scholars have been pointing out for almost 2000 years that the first three days are not necessarily literal 24-hour days because days are marked by the movements of the sun across the sky, and the creation of the sun is not mentioned until day 4.
This is just simply not so. Very few bible scholars (until the rise of modern deistic and secular geology) questioned the six “literal” 24-hour day creation period. One of the few was Augustine who believed it all happened in an instant due to a misunderstanding of the Latin translation and his dependence of Greek philosophy (much like you but different Greek philosophers).
The sun is not required for a day. All that is required is a light source which Genesis clearly states existed and the rotation of the earth which also clearly existed since there are periods of light and dark on the face of the earth. Sorry, dark and light to get them in the right order!
And the Bible indicates no difference at all between the first three days and the second three days in defining them. They all had evening and morning and a number (although the first day was Day One rather than having an ordinal number.
— The word “day” is used in a non-literal sense in Genesis 2:4, referring to the entire creation week. If “day” can be used figuratively in 2:4, couldn’t it also be used in a figurative sense throughout the passage?
Again, simply not so. You need to check the Hebrew more closely. It is not the Hebrew word for “day” (“yom”) but a compound word of the Hebrew word day (“beyom”) that means “when”. The word is often translated “in the day that” which is overly woodenly literal since the word never means day in scripture. So you are comparing apples with oranges.
From http://creation.com/special-feature-hugh-ross-expose
7. In Genesis 2:4 the word for “day,” Yom, refers to the entire creation week, demonstrating its flexible usage.
This argument must be rejected because in this verse we find Yom used with the preposition ‘in’ (beyom in Hebrew, which in many translations is appropriately rendered as ‘when,’ rather than as ‘in the day that’). So in Genesis 2:4 beyom refers to the whole Creation Week. On the other hand, in Genesis 1 we find Yom used with a number and with evening and morning, referring to literal days. These are two very different uses of Yom See a similar literal and non-literal use of Yom in Numbers 7:10-84, where beyom appears in v. 10 and v. 84 referring to the whole 12 days of sacrifice and then at v. 12, 18, 24, 30, etc., Yom is used with a number referring to each literal day of sacrifice. No young-Earther says that Yom always means a literal day. But the context always makes it clear when it is literal and the few times when it is figurative of a longer (generally) indefinite period of time. Genesis 1 uses literal Yom; Genesis 2:4 uses the non-literal beyom.
— There are a number of analogies in Genesis 1:1-2:3, such as:
God’s speech is similar to, but not identical to, human speech.
God’s work is similar to, but not identical to, human work.
God’s rest is similar to, but not identical to, human rest.
Doesn’t it make sense, then, that God’s days are not necessarily the same as human days?
I’m not sure how any of that is relevant but what sort of days does God have? How are these “God’s days” except in the sense that He created them? No, they are earth days and God isn’t bound by time since He created time, “in the beginning”.
But God defines these days quite clearly as “24-hour” days anyway, so it doesn’t matter if God had different days.
For more information
http://creation.com/the-meaning-of-yom-in-genesis-1
http://creation.com/robert-mccabe-old-testament-scholar-genesis
(And thousands more articles can be found on their website)
One final thing, I notice you don’t list CMI as one of the YEC organisations. Maybe that’s why you’re not convinced. I would struggle to be convinced by Dr Dino and AiG too.
LikeLike
And you boldly claim “No combination of hydraulic sorting, pre-flood ecological zonation, floating islands, or debris mats can explain the existence and distribution of dinosaur nests and eggs.”
Click to access j19_2_21-22.pdf
http://creation.com/dinosaur-eggs
Click to access j13_2_3-4.pdf
Click to access j19_3_66-72.pdf
http://creation.com/the-extinction-of-the-dinosaurs
These may not directly address your claim but feel free to use the search function on creation.com and if still unsuccessful, try asking them. They have a number of qualified geologists on staff.
As to telling stories, that’s all both sides can do since we don’t have a world or universe we can stick in the lab to experiment on. Both sides are seeking to use educated guesses about the past but one side will only accept naturalistic explanations that conform to their presuppositions about history. Hmm, actually, both sides do that. And one side have an infallible source for their presuppositions. ;-)
LikeLike
Grahame — I didn’t list CMI because it is in a distant third place in terms of its influence here in the United States.
CMI’s Journal of Creation has had some geological articles that have been downright fanciful. Here is my response to one of them:
The Journal of Creation later posted a rebuttal to my critique, but it really didn’t address most of the issues I raised. I never got around to writing a rebuttal to their rebuttal of my rebuttal.
http://creation.com/clarifying-magmatic-model-origin-salt-deposits
This article on salt magmas was not only far fetched, it had a number of errors that should have been caught by CMI’s editors and reviewers. There were geological terms that were used incorrectly; mistakes that would have been caught by any good undergraduate student in geology. This demonstrated that YEC claims that they have their own peer-reviewed journals are rather questionable.
LikeLike
Graham — I have spent plenty of time at creation.com, and looked at your creation.com articles on dinosaur eggs. I think YEC explanations for the placement of dinosaur eggs and nests in the fossil record are quite simply nonsense, and should not be used as Christian apologetics.
Why are eggs often found together instead of widely scattered? One would certainly expect a worldwide flood to scatter eggs rather than keep them together.
Why are dinosaur eggs only found in Mesozoic rocks? Why were none accidently dropped in with Paleozoic fossils? Or with Cenozoic fossils?
— Hydraulic sorting would not place eggs in the same layers as the dinosaurs the eggs came from.
— Ecological zonation would not keep dinosaur eggs in the same layers as dinosaur bodies, as floodwater would carry the eggs or egg fragments to a different location.
— Having dinosaurs living on floating islands until just the right time would not put their eggs in the same layers as their bodies.
— Having dead dinosaurs floating as part of debris mats would not put dinosaur eggs in the same layers as their bodies.
— Combining the four suggested YEC means of creating the fossil record wouldn’t make it all work either.
P.S. I forgot about differential mobility, another useless YEC attempt to describe the fossil record. Dinosaurs and dinosaur eggs do not run at the same pace, so this does not help to explain the occurrence of dinosaur eggs and nests in the fossil record.
LikeLike
“Why are eggs often found together instead of widely scattered? One would certainly expect a worldwide flood to scatter eggs rather than keep them together.”
This is the problem. You actually think you can know, and know to a certain high degree of precision, even the smallest details of just what actually happened during the second greatest catastrophe to ever strike the Earth. ( The first being the Fall). And you just can’t. You can’t possibly know all of the dynamics, hydraulic or otherwise, and all of the circumstances playing out over the face of the entire Earth.
How many times have geologists been wrong about anything? You tell me. Ever heard of J. Harlen Bretz? And his is just one example.
You will believe what you believe until confronted with rock solid scientific evidence to the contrary Kevin. And this, THIS, is the problem. Allowing what you think you see in the Earth to trump the Word of God itself. And when geologists change their understanding then what? Change the Bible again? Throw it out?
Early in my study of these issues yes I read both sides of the issue. Old Earth blogs (obviously yours for one. What do you mean have I read both sides?!), YEC websites, etc, etc.
Once I became convinced the scriptures throughout the Bible proclaim, verify, support, and insist the Earth and Universe are young, I had hoped for some good solid science to support that contention. And there is some. But….. I became convinced after a few months that this was the wrong direction to go in if we want to understand the truth of the Word of God. Because, quite simply, science….is….NEVER SETTLED. It must never be used as a hermeneutic for understanding the Word. NEVER. (sorry for the caps. I’m not yelling, I just don’t know how to bold the type. lol )
When I was 2 years old, the reigning cosmological model for the Universe was overthrown. The Steady State Theory was discarded in favor of Big Bang once the CMB was discovered. Think of that. One day scientists proclaiming the Universe was invested with an attribute only God possesses, ( eternal self-existence), the next they were saying (church mouse voice)- “Never mind”. LOL And Big Bang has many problems and defies physics and isn’t good science. There’s a good chance it will be changed in my lifetime. Again. Science- your area of expertise or any science- must never be used as a hermeneutic.
You want to go on about the sorting of dinosaur eggs and are soooo myopic about these details you can’t appreciate how the entire scenario involved with an ancient billions of years old Earth absolutely contradicts the Holy, Righteous, Loving, All Good, Exquisitely Gentle, Beautiful character and nature of God. You can go on all you want from now until the Judgment about what you believe Kevin. You don’t believe God about Genesis. Your view maligns His character if- IF- your logical and consistent with your thinking. Again, I insist if billions of years and evolution happened…..OUR GOD DOESN’T EXIST!
One thing I appreciate about AIG – and this is for you too Grahame – they have had some downright excellent apologetics defending a young earth view with excellent comments on the Hebrew and comparisons of scripture with scripture that had nothing to do with science.
May God help us all
LikeLike
Scott,
The idea that the Fall changed the laws of nature, or that it radically changed the Earth’s surface, is something YECs read into the Scriptures. The Bible itself teaches no such thing; it only teaches that the Fall affected the relationships between man and God, man and man, and man and nature.
Yes, I am quite familiar with the work of J Harlen Bretz (no period after the J), being that my research for my Master’s degree was in the Channeled Scablands of eastern Washington. The stratigraphy of the loess stripped off of the Columbia Plateau is far to complex to be a post-flood deposit. The loess was built up over a long period of time, as indicated by numerous paleosols within the loess. YECs would have us believe that this silt deposit was laid down over thousands of meters of recently-cooled lava, in just a few years and then partially stripped off by a single flood during an extraordinarily short ice age. Like much of YEC geology,this ignores the complexity of the deposits, and tries to cram too many events in a short time frame.
What I see in the Earth does not trump what I read in the Bible. It is just that the Bible does not say that Noah’s flood is about the formation of the geological record. That is something YECs read into the text, and then say all sorts of outrageous things to back up their eisegesis.
Like science, hermeneutics is a human enterprise. Humans can be wrong about science; humans can be wrong about the Bible. I think YECs are dogmatic about many things that they cannot be dogmatic about. The Bible simply does not teach us about stratigraphy, paleontology, speciation, or stellar evolution.
I agree that science should not drive hermeneutics. But science should be allowed to suggest we take a second look at our Biblical interpretation. The Copernican revolution is one example. No one took a second look at the “earth does not move” passages until science forced them to.
When you say, “If YEC isn’t true, the God of the Bible doesn’t exist,” you are only setting people, especially our young people, up for a fall. When they see the weakness of YEC arguments about the fossil record, speciation, distribution of species, the rock record, and dozens of other topics; many of them will discard their Christianity along with their YEC. This is especially tragic because much of what YECs teach is not in the Bible at all!
There are things I appreciate about AiG as well (and ICR and CMI). They usually get the gospel right. Here is something Ken Ham wrote about a post I wrote on The GeoChristian:
https://answersingenesis.org/blogs/ken-ham/2010/11/03/do-old-earthers-and-young-earthers-agree-on-anything/
Many YEC followers, however, distort the gospel by adding belief in YEC as a requirement for being saved.
LikeLike
geochristian, I’m disappointed that you are ignoring the more important issues of the meaning of “day” and your claims that YECs are inconsistent and your implication that we are inaccurate and my counter claims that you have erred at a number of points and made irrelevant points at others, and decided to focus on claims about dinosaur beds and eggs that cannot be tested or proven.
What earth do you have available to you to prove your claim that YEC explanations of dinosaur beds and eggs are “quite simply nonsense” (language which would be abhorrent if I had made the same claims about what you said, but okay, if you are happy with that being the standard for debate, then I hope you don’t object if I now use that sort of language).
But let’s focus on the nonsense you spoke about Genesis 1 and 2 which I’ve called you out on and you are now ignoring.
and perhaps I’m being hasty and you are preparing a response but neglected to mention it.
Genesis 1 and 2 (and through to chapter 11, and indeed the rest of the Bible) is water-tight in expecting us to believe that the universe and earth was created in six (earth, “solar”) days about 4000 BC, give or take, at best a few centuries. Nothing like the millions or indeed billions of years claimed by most scientists today.
One evidence of this is the almost no bible scholars until after the rise of uniformitarian geology saw “long ages” in scripture. Once it became accepted as science that the earth was older than the Bible says, then bible scholars started to see the “need” to rescue the Bible from being disbelieved.
Numerous problems exist here. One is putting man’s fallible interpretation of nature over the clear teaching of scripture. Two is the need for a different hermeneutic to apply to origins than applies to the virgin birth and the resurrection of Jesus (to mention just two other miracles denied by “science”). Three is the ignorance of history that has occurred and deliberate attack on God’s word that has successfully invaded “science” and now seeks to use science to beat the obvious teaching of scripture to death. Four, well, I can’t remember but there were many more.
Why we trust the unrevelatory teachings of nature over the revelatory teachings of scripture astounds me.
And that you would misrepresent what scripture says is another MAJOR concern.
Oh and “science” can’t truly deal with the past anyway. As you have admitted earlier, historical science is a different field than science that can occur in the laboratory (true science, with which NO young earth (i.e. biblical) creationist has a problem in in fact most fields of science were started by biblical creationists)).
Origins science is at best guesswork and story telling. If you reject the clear teaching of scripture, you will think that YEC’s stories are “quite simply nonsense”. YEC scientists and bible scholars think the same of OEC story-telling.
Once you leave what can be experimented on in the laboratory, you enter more and more into philosophy, history and other fields of endeavour and when it comes to how old the earth is and etc, the best source is the words of the Eyewitness who not only can tell us the truth of what He saw, but what He did.
I wish you would switch off all the biases you bring to God’s word on this topic and just read it with the simplicity of a child trusting His Father to know the truth. Start with that and it will all start to make sense to you.
Start with what you think you know from science and you will continue to wander lost and confused and deceived.
By the way, on what earth have you experimented with a global flood to prove that YEC claims are “nonsense”? You seem to think that because you cannot see how it could happen that it therefore couldn’t. This is a logical fallacy. You seem to miss major points about what a global flood might do and exactly what YECs are claiming. But if you really want to pursue this, have you sent your objections to CMI?
But again, the more important issue is your flawed claims about what God’s word says. This is a major concern.
LikeLike
Scott and Graham — Which of the YEC explanations for the deposition of dinosaur eggs do you feel is the strongest? Why are these eggs only found in the same layers as the dinosaur species who laid the eggs? Why are dinosaur bones and dinosaur eggs only found in mid-flood deposits (Mesozoic), without any accidentally being deposited in earlier or later rocks?
LikeLike
“Many YEC followers, however, distort the gospel by adding belief in YEC as a requirement for being saved.”
who cares? there are nutcases and fools within every group, and people who make mistakes. Is the level of “many followers” really the level you want to debate at?
Every single YEC organisation and minister I know of says that agreeing with YEC is not necessary for salvation. Any person who says this does not understand salvation, the gospel or the grace of God.
If people stubbornly and rebelliously continue to reject God’s word, it may indicate they are not a child of God, but disbelieving God and being deceived on lesser points does not prove you are not saved.
LikeLike
“I agree that science should not drive hermeneutics. But science should be allowed to suggest we take a second look at our Biblical interpretation. The Copernican revolution is one example. No one took a second look at the “earth does not move” passages until science forced them to.”
More false claims. No, it was Greek philosophy (e.g. Aristotle and Ptolemy) who proposed that the earth was the centre and everything revolved around the earth.
Scripture was then reinterpreted to fit a belief external to the Bible, just as is occurring today in the field of origins.
No bible scholar took scripture alone and saw it teaching geocentrism. It was read in because of “science”. The passages that talk about the earth “not moving” are clearly figurative and not to be taken as a literal physical teaching.
In fact, David uses the same phrase referring to himself!
So the situation is the exact opposite of what you are claiming and a closer look at the reality of what occurred in history condemns the same compromise with the clear teaching of scripture that non-YECs are doing today.
LikeLike
“Scott and Graham — Which of the YEC explanations for the deposition of dinosaur eggs do you feel is the strongest? ”
Unbelievable that you would ask this question. On what world can any of us experiment with a global flood or millions and billions of years of uniformitarianism, or neo-catastrophism to see what best explains the evidence?
And why bother with this guesswork when you want to ignore what God’s word says and lie about it and ignore that you lied?
Seriously mate. Focus on the FAR more important issues.
And you wonder why YECs says non-YEC reject God’s word and have a faulty worldview! Here is major proof of that claim. Naturalistic guesswork about the past if far more important to you than debate about the words of God.
Sigh.
LikeLike
Graham,
You are right in saying that almost no Christian scholars believed in an ancient Earth before the advent of modern geology. I wouldn’t say before the advent of uniformitarianism like you said, because the vast antiquity of Earth was widely accepted a number of decades before Lyell.
I do not believe that the Bible teaches that Earth is billions of years old. But I do not believe it requires a young Earth either.
Likewise, I do not believe the Bible teaches heliocentrism. All that had to be demonstrated was that the Bible doesn’t require geocentrism. I believe the parallels between the Copernican controversy and the age of the Earth controversy are valid and should force us to take a closer look at what the Bible teaches and doesn’t teach about origins.
I believe the strongest argument that “day” is not necessarily meant to be taken literally is the analogical days interpretation. I won’t outline the entire argument again here. I encourage you to read either Seven Days that Divide the World by John Lennox or Genesis 1-4 by John C. Collins. Don’t just read a CMI review of these books; read one or both of the books for yourself. You might still end up being a YEC after reading these, but I hope that you would at least see that these scholars love and respect the Bible, and are making an honest attempt to discern what is essential and what is non-essential in our interpretations of the text.
The difference between laboratory science and historical science is not that laboratory science is true science and that historical science is false. Laboratory science can lead to error, and historical science can lead to true knowledge. Something really happened in the past, and we have tools to help us investigate that history. Scientists using historical science make hypotheses, and test those hypotheses using models, and by making further field investigations. Their additional findings may strengthen their initial hypothesis, or refute it. To say that we cannot figure out some things about the past verges on postmodernism.
Even if YEC is true, YEC explanations about things like the fossil record are not clear teachings of Scripture. The Bible does not tell us how the fossil record formed.
The Eyewitness gave us a very brief narrative about Creation. Most YEC teachings are extrapolations of extrapolations of this narrative.
I have had some correspondence with CMI, especially when I wrote the article about salt magmas. I wrote a lengthy answer to Taz Walker and Stef Heerema about this, and they ignored almost everything I wrote when they wrote their rebuttal. Perhaps they did not get the email. In other correspondence, I usually get a note that says that my objection has been thoroughly answered in article such and such, and I go to that article and it doesn’t address what I asked about.
I am concerned about the flawed claims that YECs make about the Bible. They read far more into Genesis than what Genesis actually states, and then they hold these things forth as a standard for Christian orthodoxy. This is a major concern.
I suspect that you and I agree about many things in the Christian faith. The timing of origins is minor compared to these other things.
LikeLike
Graham — If you support an organization such as CMI, then your comment #49 makes no sense. A major focus of CMI is to come up with “scientific” answers to questions such as “Which of the YEC explanations for the deposition of dinosaur eggs do you feel is the strongest?” The Journal of Creation is devoted to providing answers to questions such as mine. YEC scientists do experiments with lizards in water tanks to prove that dinosaurs could have made tracks in sedimentary rocks during Noah’s flood. They come up with explanations such as floating islands and ecological zonation to explain the order of the fossil record.
If you really believe what you wrote in #49, you ought to throw away almost your entire YEC library, because your YEC library is filled with books that attempt to provide scientific explanations based on known laws of nature (awfully close to uniformitarianism, believe it or not) to explain Earth history.
LikeLike
Graham — I apologize for using the word “nonsense.” That is stronger language than I normally use, and it did not contribute anything to the conversation.
LikeLike
Graham and Scott — We could go around and around on this, and we will not come to a point of agreement. You are convinced that I am missing the “plain reading” of the text. I will say that you are reading more from the text than what is actually there.
This is no different than other issues Christians disagree about, such as gifts of the Holy Spirit, end times prophesy, and whether to baptize infants or only those old enough to make a profession of faith. On all of these issues, one can point to verses and say that the other side is missing the plain reading of Scripture. All of these issues are important. In each case, I could say that those who disagree with me are denying the authority of Scripture (the YEC argument), but I don’t resort to that.
In the end, you and I both believe (I assume) in the core doctrines of the Christian faith, such as creation from nothing, sin, judgment, the deity of Christ, his virgin birth, death, resurrection, and ascension; justification by grace through faith in Christ, and the coming kingdom. I love you as my brothers.
Grace and peace
LikeLike
I don’t know how you made the leap to your comment #51 except to misunderstand my point. I never said naturalistic explanations are never allowed.
On the other hand my point was that “science” today only allows naturalistic explanations.
and you appear to have completely missed the even bigger point that neither you nor I nor anyone else has an earth to experiment on to test the biblical claim that there was a global flood that covered the tops of all the high mountains under the whole heaven, and what dinosaur eggs and nests etc may have looked like under that model, or (“long age”) uniformitarian or neo-catastrophic models that reject the record of scripture.
I could spend time debating the flaws in the details of your claim about dinosaur eggs etc but it would achieve nothing because the major disagreement is in the big picture, not the details.
And my major concern still remains that you make inaccurate claims about what God’s word says and still have not responded to my “beyom” counter-claim to your claim that day is used for the whole week in Genesis 2, so therefore we can’t think that “day” (“yom”) means “day” in Genesis 1. It’s an entirely different construction of the grammar, in a number of ways. 1. A compound word. 2. No mention of morning and evening which universally means an earth/solar day in scripture. 3. No ordinal or cardinal number, which also universally means earth/solar day.
Thanks for apologising for using the word “nonsense”.
Day has a similar breadth of meaning in Hebrew as in English. I can use “day” to mean the period of light, the “24 hour” period or a more figurative meaning.
This article illustrates the point very well. http://creation.com/in-my-fathers-day
and the crux of determining the meaning is to look at the context. The context makes it clear in Genesis one that God made the world and all things in it in six days of rotation of the earth through periods of light and dark.
LikeLike
Grahame-
I may be wrong, but, when he ends with Grace and Peace, I think that he’s indicating he’s done with the debate.
Kevin-
I would like to clarify my statement above about J Harlen Bretz. He believed massive flooding caused certain geological features in the Columbia River plateau and was laughed to scorn by the luminaries of the day in geology. 30 years later he was vindicated. Kevin, it seems you are saying you reject post diluvial flooding as a cause of the Channeled Scablands features. Is this true? This would seem to overturn what geologists found concerning the Scablands in the 50’s. I started to study about these features last year, but my study was derailed before I learned much of anything.
My main point is going to be if we understand what God says of Himself in scripture and the entire scenario involved with a billions of years view, one consequence will be we will see a scenario that could not have been created and directed by God. The events involved, and which include four mass extinction events, could not have been orchestrated by Him as they are in complete contradiction to His character, nature, wisdom and intelligence. In other words, if these events happened, our God doesn’t exist. But of course, He does. An old Earth view maligns God’s character.
LikeLike
Scott — No, I certainly do not reject flooding as the cause of the Channeled Scablands. There is abundant evidence, however, that the Scablands were carved by multiple flood events separated by sufficient time for the deposition of volcanic ash deposits and development of paleosols (ancient soils). YECs don’t have time for multiple Scabland flood events separated by time, so they brush away the evidence.
The Channeled Scablands provide an excellent example of the landforms that are formed by drainage of large quantities of water on Earth’s surface. If YEC flood geology were true (and the Bible does not say that it is), then one would expect that Scabland-like features would be the dominant landforms on Earth’s surface. The reality, however, is that these types of landforms occur only in limited areas. This is one of the many reasons that I reject YEC flood geology. It isn’t in the Bible, and it doesn’t explain what we observe in the creation.
Earth’s geological features testify that Earth has a history. One could say that YEC flood geology maligns God’s character by forcing explanations for Earth history that simply do not work. God has revealed himself in his Word. God has revealed himself in his creation. Both are true revelations. If there seems to be a contradiction between these two revelations, then either we do not correctly understand God’s Word, or we do not correctly understand God’s world. We should not distort either in order to make the two fit together. You would say that I distort God’s Word; I would say you overread God’s Word. And I certainly think YECs distort God’s world. I don’t believe there is as much tension between our understanding of God’s Word and God’s world as either YECs or skeptics claim. If we were to have correct understanding of both God’s Word and God’s world, there would be no tension.
LikeLike
“If YEC flood geology were true (and the Bible does not say that it is), then one would expect that Scabland-like features would be the dominant landforms on Earth’s surface. The reality, however, is that these types of landforms occur only in limited areas. This is one of the many reasons that I reject YEC flood geology. It isn’t in the Bible, and it doesn’t explain what we observe in the creation.”
Dear Kevin, it’s easy to claim that the Bible doesn’t say something when you ignore what it says.
The Bible makes it crystal clear that there was a global flood that covered the whole earth
Firstly, the reasons scripture gives for the flood.
Genesis 6:5 The LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. 6 And the LORD regretted that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart. 7 So the LORD said, “I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the land, man and animals and creeping things and birds of the heavens, for I am sorry that I have made them.” 8 But Noah found favor in the eyes of the LORD.
9 These are the generations of Noah. Noah was a righteous man, blameless in his generation. Noah walked with God. 10 And Noah had three sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth. 11 Now the earth was corrupt in God’s sight, and the earth was filled with violence. 12 And God saw the earth, and behold, it was corrupt, for all flesh had corrupted their way on the earth.
13 And God said to Noah, “I have determined to make an end of all flesh, for the earth is filled with violence through them. Behold, I will destroy them with the earth. 14 Make yourself an ark of gopher wood. Make rooms in the ark, and cover it inside and out with pitch. 15 This is how you are to make it: the length of the ark 300 cubits, its breadth 50 cubits, and its height 30 cubits. 16 Make a roof for the ark, and finish it to a cubit above, and set the door of the ark in its side. Make it with lower, second, and third decks. 17 For behold, I will bring a flood of waters upon the earth to destroy all flesh in which is the breath of life under heaven. Everything that is on the earth shall die. 18 But I will establish my covenant with you, and you shall come into the ark, you, your sons, your wife, and your sons’ wives with you. 19 And of every living thing of all flesh, you shall bring two of every sort into the ark to keep them alive with you. They shall be male and female. 20 Of the birds according to their kinds, and of the animals according to their kinds, of every creeping thing of the ground, according to its kind, two of every sort shall come in to you to keep them alive. 21 Also take with you every sort of food that is eaten, and store it up. It shall serve as food for you and for them.” 22 Noah did this; he did all that God commanded him.
Clearly a global flood covering the whole earth under heaven to destroy all creatures with nephesh chayyah. Everything on earth shall die, God says. All flesh on earth, God says a number of times in this chapter, before the flood.
Second, why on earth build an ark for a local flood? Especially one that could survive a global flood with provisions for at least two of every nephesh chayyah creature (plus the eight in Noah’s family) for a year?
Why would God not just instruct Noah to move, and move all the animals?
But the text takes great pains to emphasise that it is a global flood.
Next, descriptions of the flood during the flood.
Genesis 7:19 And the waters prevailed so mightily on the earth that all the high mountains under the whole heaven were covered.
Again, necessarily global. Even if only one “low” mountain was covered it would constitute a “low” global flood. But the Bible goes further than that.
Genesis 7:20 The waters prevailed above the mountains, covering them fifteen cubits deep.
(And remember, it’s talking about all the high mountains under the whole heaven)
Genesis 7:21 And all flesh died that moved on the earth, birds, livestock, beasts, all swarming creatures that swarm on the earth, and all mankind.
(Here’s the real reason the world wants to reject the flood. Because God condemns sin. And He will destroy this earth again by fire.)
Genesis 7:22 Everything on the dry land in whose nostrils was the breath of life [nephesh chayyah] died. 23 He blotted out every living thing that was on the face of the ground, man and animals and creeping things and birds of the heavens. They were blotted out from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those who were with him in the ark.
Genesis 7:24 And the waters prevailed on the earth 150 days.
40 days and nights of rain and then 150 days of peak flooding (prevailing flood water)..
Genesis 8:1 But God remembered Noah and all the beasts and all the livestock that were with him in the ark. And God made a wind blow over the earth, and the waters subsided. 2 The fountains of the deep and the windows of the heavens were closed, the rain from the heavens was restrained, 3 and the waters receded from the earth continually. At the end of 150 days the waters had abated, 4 and in the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the month, the ark came to rest on the mountains of Ararat.
It’s not over yet. 150 days of prevailing water. At the end of the 150 days (which was after 40 days and nights of rain), the waters abated.
Genesis 8:5 And the waters continued to abate until the tenth month; in the tenth month, on the first day of the month, the tops of the mountains were seen. 6 At the end of forty days Noah opened the window of the ark that he had made 7 and sent forth a raven. It went to and fro until the waters were dried up from the earth.
I grew up in an area with regular local flooding. about every second year we would get chest high water under our house and the whole district would be mostly shut down.
The flooding usually lasted two days or so. And receded in a day.
This flood lasted 150 days (after 40 days and nights of rain) and then took over 100 more days for the water to recede.
In fact, check out the timeframe from beginning to end.
Genesis 7:11 In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month, on that day all the fountains of the great deep burst forth, and the windows of the heavens were opened.
Genesis 8:13 In the six hundred and first year, in the first month, the first day of the month, the waters were dried from off the earth. And Noah removed the covering of the ark and looked, and behold, the face of the ground was dry. 14 In the second month, on the twenty-seventh day of the month, the earth had dried out. 15 Then God said to Noah, 16 “Go out from the ark, you and your wife, and your sons and your sons’ wives with you. …”
A whole year.
But lastly, God said never again.
Genesis 8:21 And when the LORD smelled the pleasing aroma, the LORD said in his heart, “I will never again curse the ground because of man, for the intention of man’s heart is evil from his youth. Neither will I ever again strike down every living creature as I have done. 22 While the earth remains, seedtime and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, day and night, shall not cease.”
Gen 9:8 Then God said to Noah and to his sons with him, 9 “Behold, I establish my covenant with you and your offspring after you, 10 and with every living creature that is with you, the birds, the livestock, and every beast of the earth with you, as many as came out of the ark; it is for every beast of the earth. 11 I establish my covenant with you, that never again shall all flesh be cut off by the waters of the flood, and never again shall there be a flood to destroy the earth.”
12 And God said, “This is the sign of the covenant that I make between me and you and every living creature that is with you, for all future generations: 13 I have set my bow in the cloud, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between me and the earth. 14 When I bring clouds over the earth and the bow is seen in the clouds, 15 I will remember my covenant that is between me and you and every living creature of all flesh. And the waters shall never again become a flood to destroy all flesh. 16 When the bow is in the clouds, I will see it and remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is on the earth.”
17 God said to Noah, “This is the sign of the covenant that I have established between me and all flesh that is on the earth.”
Actually, that wasn’t the last one.
Luke 17:26 Just as it was in the days of Noah, so will it be in the days of the Son of Man. 27 They were eating and drinking and marrying and being given in marriage, until the day when Noah entered the ark, and the flood came and destroyed them all.
Pretending the flood wasn’t global makes nonsense of Jesus’ warning about His coming
And I just had another thought, even if it was local, why didn’t they just run away from the flood. Why did “all flesh with the breath of life” die in a local flood?
No, it also serves as a warning against the coming greater judgement which will end the earth.
Hebrews 11:7 By faith Noah, being warned by God concerning events as yet unseen, in reverent fear constructed an ark for the saving of his household. By this he condemned the world and became an heir of the righteousness that comes by faith.
The world? Or just some people?
2Peter 2:1 But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction. 2 And many will follow their sensuality, and because of them the way of truth will be blasphemed. 3 And in their greed they will exploit you with false words. Their condemnation from long ago is not idle, and their destruction is not asleep. 4 For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell and committed them to chains of gloomy darkness to be kept until the judgment; 5 if he did not spare the ancient world, but preserved Noah, a herald of righteousness, with seven others, when he brought a flood upon the world of the ungodly; 6 if by turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to ashes he condemned them to extinction, making them an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly; 7 and if he rescued righteous Lot, greatly distressed by the sensual conduct of the wicked 8 (for as that righteous man lived among them day after day, he was tormenting his righteous soul over their lawless deeds that he saw and heard); 9 then the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from trials, and to keep the unrighteous under punishment until the day of judgment, 10 and especially those who indulge in the lust of defiling passion and despise authority. Bold and willful, they do not tremble as they blaspheme the glorious ones, 11 whereas angels, though greater in might and power, do not pronounce a blasphemous judgment against them before the Lord.
2 Peter 3:1 This is now the second letter that I am writing to you, beloved. In both of them I am stirring up your sincere mind by way of reminder, 2 that you should remember the predictions of the holy prophets and the commandment of the Lord and Savior through your apostles, 3 knowing this first of all, that scoffers will come in the last days with scoffing, following their own sinful desires.
4 They will say, “Where is the promise of his coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all things are continuing as they were from the beginning of creation.”
5 For they deliberately overlook this fact, that the heavens existed long ago, and the earth was formed out of water and through water by the word of God, 6 and that by means of these the world that then existed was deluged with water and perished.
7 But by the same word the heavens and earth that now exist are stored up for fire, being kept until the day of judgment and destruction of the ungodly.
8 But do not overlook this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
9 The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance.
10 But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, and then the heavens will pass away with a roar, and the heavenly bodies will be burned up and dissolved, and the earth and the works that are done on it will be exposed.
11 Since all these things are thus to be dissolved, what sort of people ought you to be in lives of holiness and godliness, 12 waiting for and hastening the coming of the day of God, because of which the heavens will be set on fire and dissolved, and the heavenly bodies will melt as they burn!
13 But according to his promise we are waiting for new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells.
Again, this makes no sense if the flood was not global. In fact, God warns through Peter in this passage that people will come and deny the clear teaching of His word that the world God had created was deluged by water and *perished*!
Are you a false prophet? And I don’t ask that question for you to answer to me. You don’t answer to me. You answer to God on the basis of His word which you clearly seem to ignore.
I advise you to step back from what you think you know and examine God’s word without regard to any external influences except the leading of the Holy Spirit. What does God say?
Now maybe you have geological objections to certain claims that YECers make, but that not the issue. The issue firstly must be which big picture is correct, not who has the details correct. Once you get the big picture correct, we can keep working on sorting out the details.
And I continue to respond to you *because* I believe you are my brother in the Lord. I have no yet seen sufficient evidence to not give you the benefit of the doubt on this point. Whether you are or not is not up to me to determine anyway (unless I have to follow scriptural guidelines about treating someone as though they are an unbeliever, which seems irrelevant since I don’t know your personal life).
Lastly (for real this time), thank you for offering grace and peace.
Ephesians 3:14 For this reason [Paul had a different reason than me] I bow my knees before the Father, 15 from whom every family in heaven and on earth is named, 16 that according to the riches of his glory he may grant you to be strengthened with power through his Spirit in your inner being, 17 so that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith—that you, being rooted and grounded in love, 18 may have strength to comprehend with all the saints what is the breadth and length and height and depth, 19 and to know the love of Christ that surpasses knowledge, that you may be filled with all the fullness of God.
LikeLike
Grahame said-
“And I just had another thought, even if it was local, why didn’t they just run away from the flood. Why did “all flesh with the breath of life” die in a local flood?”
Yeah, exactly.
And not only that, but the birds!. How in the world would bird species perish in a local flood. It makes no sense. The Flood is very clearly said by God to be on the whole Earth “under heaven” which is the whole entire atmosphere around the Earth. Paul making it clear in the new testament there are 3 heavens, one of which is the atmosphere.
Kevin, if the flood was local to the Mesopotamian region, or Middle East in general, what do you think would prevent drainage so that “every high mountain” could be covered to a height of 15 cubits? What geological feature could account for this?
LikeLike
Kevin-
I believe I understand what your saying about the Scablands features. A global flood would of necessity have massive drainage of water off the continents and this, your saying, should cause these types of features to be more prevalent. Am I correct? (admittedly my understanding of geology is extremely limited, so please be patient)
Are these features prevalent elsewhere in the world? And if the Flood was local, do we see these features in the Middle East? There was a Flood, so if what you’re saying is true, and these features should be dominant, they should at least be there. Or would other conditions limit their formation?
LikeLike