Copyright 2003 G. R. Morton This can be freely distributed so long as no changes are made and no charges are made.
The worst thing we Christians can do is to tie the infallible Word of God to a falsified Scriptural interpretation. I have presented data as to why the young-earth (YE) interpretation of the Scripture simply won't explain the geologic data.
The silence on the part of the YEers is evidence that Answers in Genesis not only has no answers for this data, but also they never show their readers such things, leaving them totally and unfairly unprepared to deal with geology.
I am going to present an alternative interpretation of the Scripture which retains the historicity of the Genesis account while not violating scientific data. It is the only interpretation I have found which allows the Biblical data and the geologic data to fit together. Contrary to what is often said about me by YEers, I am not here to destroy Christianity.
I am here to show that there is a way to interpret Scripture that doesn't violate observational data and still retains historical accuracy to the Genesis account. I share with my YE brothers the desire to have a historically accurate creation account.
There will be those who will object that their view of Hebrew doesn't support the views below. I would caution people that we can't be like the 7 blind men who examined the elephant and each described it differently. There is more to the 'elephant' than just Hebrew, although Hebrew is a part of the mix and not to be ignored. But Hebrew is not the only part of the puzzle to the exclusion of everything else. I would argue that the pictures I have presented should not be ignored either. If anyone wishes to claim that this is a new view and in theology new views are in the same class as Heresy, I will ask them to be intellectually honorable and either explain how the data in the seismic pictures I have presented fits within a global flood, or state publicly that they are ignoring that data.
I believe the historicity of the Genesis account of the Flood because the Bible does NOT teach a global flood. The word which refers to 'earth' and is used in Genesis 6-9 is the word 'eretz'. Young-earthers translate that as meaning 'planet earth'. But is that what the word really means? The word which is translated as 'earth' in Genesis 6 is 'eretz'. Abraham was told to leave his 'eretz' and go to an 'eretz' which God would show him. If 'eretz' means 'planet earth' then Abram was disobedient to God because he didn't get in a rocketship and go to Mars. Since we know Abram was obedient, and left his 'eretz', (country/land) we have no problem accepting this translation of 'eretz' as a local area but strangely YEers will argue strongly that 'eretz' in Genesis 6-9 must mean 'planet earth' rather than a localized area of the earth. This is inconsistent.
Some will argue that the phrase 'under the whole heaven' means global. The word 'heaven' has a connotation of the visible vault of the sky. Thus, even this phrase does not require a global flood.
Since the Genesis account does not require a global flood, it means that the earth can be old and still agree with Genesis. The only way to have a young-earth is to have the geological column deposited rapidly and the Global flood is the only way to do that. The evidence I have presented clearly shows that the scientific data supports an old earth. It is good that Genesis can also.
I believe the Genesis account is historically accurate because it doesn't teach that animals were offered a life without death. There has historically been an objection to an old earth and evolution because of the belief that death entered the world through Adam. Evolution and an old earth would require death before the Fall. One verse used to support such a view is Romans 5:12, "Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world {cosmos}, and death through sin and so death spread to all men, because all sinned." (NIV)
Notice that the verse says death spread to all MEN. It does not say that death spread to the animals or plants. Death was man's punishment for sin. Man was the only creature given the possibility of immortality by God. If there was to be no animal death, there would be no reason for animal sexual reproduction and yet God, from the beginning created animal reproduction. A world in which animals were offered unending life would be more efficiently made by having God create 3 billion sexless cattle because no replacements would be needed. The fact that animals reproduced is evidence that replacements were going to be needed for those animals who died. Besides that there is no place in Scripture which clearly says 'animals would not die'.
The second passage often cited in support of animals not dying is the Romans 8:20-23: "For the creation was subjected to futility, not of its own will, but because of Him who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption into the freedom of the glory of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation groans and suffers the pains of childbirth together until now."(NAS)
The creation suffers from man's sin far beyond mere death. Man's sin has upset the ecological balance, we are not being good stewards of the earth (and I don't think we even know how to be). But the above passage does not say that creation was subject to death, but to futility.
I believe in the historicity of the Genesis account because God didn't call the creation perfect. One other argument against death before the Fall is the claim that God called the creation 'good'. From Foundation, Fall and Flood, 1999, I wrote:
"What advocates of this position overlook is that God, when saying that the creation was good, specifically did not use the word 'perfect'. There is a Hebrew word for perfect and God didn't use it of the initial creation. There are two words of interest in this context: tawmiym and towb. Tawmiym means 'perfect'; towb means 'good'. When God called the creation good, He used the word towb. This is the same word Lot used when he offered his very own daughters to the crowd outside of his house. Lot said "do ye to them as is good [towb] in your eyes". What Lot offered was not perfection! What Lot offered was disgusting, but he used the word 'good' [towb]."
"There is a word in the Hebrew language that God could have used to convey the concept that the creation was perfect. This is the word tawmiym. Tawmiym is the word God used of Noah, when He said that Noah was perfect in his generation (Genesis 6:9). It is also the word use to describe the paschal lamb, the lamb without defect. So, if God had really wanted to convey the idea that the world was perfect, it would have been very easy for him to do it. All he had to do was inspire the writer to use tawmiym. The failure to use that word fits very well with Jewish Rabbi Nahmanides' view that God called the world good because a small part of it was evil. A perfect world certainly could not contain death; but a good world could. God created the world and called it 'good'. But whose death?"
So, God didn't call the creation 'perfect' why do we insist on calling it what God didn't? There was death before the Fall--death of animals, not death of men.
I believe the Genesis account is historically true because it DOES teach evolution and it does NOT teach that animal life can't evolve. A look at Genesis 1:11 shows that God did not create the plants directly.
Genesis 1:11 "And God said, 'Let the land produce vegetation....'"
The Bible states very clearly that God used a secondary cause to produce the vegetation. God used the land. Just as God used Jonah to witness to the Ninevites, he used the land to create the plants. This implies God used evolution to create the plants. They were not created as young-earth creationists often teach because the best translations of the Hebrew state differently than they teach. God commanded the land to produce the vegetation; He didn't do it directly!
To continue with verse 1:11, "The God said, 'Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds.' And it was so." The second very important point here is that contrary to almost all Christian exegesis this verse does not teach that the plants were commanded to reproduce according to their various kinds. The land was commanded to "produce plants and trees...that bear fruit...according to their various kinds." This is merely saying that there were supposed to be various kinds of fruit which is quite different from saying that fruit could only reproduce fruit after their kind. There is a big difference between the two. Young earth Christians have clearly perverted what Genesis says here. If I send you to the grocery store to "get fruits after their kind", do you think I have told you something about the reproductive potential of fruit trees? Of course I haven't. I have told you to get various kinds of fruits from the store. This is the same thing that Genesis 1:11 is saying. God created various kinds of fruits.
Genesis 1:21 says "God created the great creatures of the sea and every living and moving thing with which the water teems, according to their kinds." Look at the object of this sentence and the modifying phrase, "Creatures... according to their kind." God created creatures according to their kind. They were not commanded to reproduce according to their kind. Once again, a very different situation. Why Christians misread this I really don't know.
Genesis 1:24 "And God said, 'Let the land produce living creatures according to their kind." Once again nothing about reproduction was mentioned. The land produced creatures according to their kind. This is not the same as saying animals reproduced according to their kind. "Animals" is not the subject of the sentence, "land" is. Thus this verse says nothing about reproduction. Assuming that the translators have remained somewhat faithful to the Hebrew, the subject/verb relationships here say nothing about the reproductive abilities of animals.
The three verses which are most often used to say that the Bible rules out evolution, do not even say what young-earth creationists say they do. Their entire view is based upon a gross misunderstanding of what the Bible actually says! Nowhere does the Bible say 'animals reproduce animals after their kind.' If it said that, I would have to give up this interpretation. But it simply doesn't say that. Thus the Bible is perfectly in accord with the concept of evolution, i.e. that animals do not have to reproduce according to their kind. They are free to reproduce anyway they want.
For those who might need more convincing, consider Genesis 1:21 which says,
"And God created great whales and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, AFTER THEIR KIND, and every winged fowl after his kind:..."
Then compare that to Genesis 6:19-20 which says
"And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee; they shall be male and female. Of fowls AFTER THEIR KIND, and of cattle AFTER THEIR KIND, two of every sort shall come unto thee, to keep them alive."
What is fascinating is that anti-evolutionary Christians say that the phrase "after their kind" in Genesis 1 implies something about the reproductive capacities of animals and yet no one says that the same phrase used in a parallel fashion in Genesis 6 means something about the reproductive capacities. Thus internal Biblical evidence says that the phrase "after their kind" does not mean what the creationists say it does! The creationists have engaged in a tremendous misinterpretation of the Bible.
I believe the Genesis account is historically accurate because it teaches that the universe had a beginning, which is exactly what science has discovered after many attempts to rule it out.
I believe the Genesis account is historical because it doesn't teach an instantaneous and immediate creation of life in Genesis 1. The Bible actually doesn't say that God created things instantly in the order listed in Genesis 1. That is an interpretation of the Scripture. It MIGHT say that. But it doesn't say it unequivocally. Consider the famous verse:
And God said Let there be light and it was so
In Hebrew there is no punctuation. Does that verse mean
And God said: "Let there be light and it was so"
Which means that God said the "and it was so" part? Seems kind of a strange way to speak. Like if I were to tell my party guests, 'Let there be hamburgers and it was so" Why would I say the and it was so? The guests would think me mad.
Or does the verse say:
And God said: "Let there be light." And it was so.?
If this is the correct reading, then someone later wrote the 'and it was so' part. I believe that it was the human writer who added that phrase.
Most importantly, the Bible clearly does NOT say
And God said: "Let there be light" And it was so IMMEDIATELY.
The word 'immediately' simply isn't in the Scripture. The Bible says God created the light, but it doesn't say how, it doesn't even say WHEN in relation to the time that God spoke.
Thus, to claim as you do that the Bible teaches a quick immediately fulfilled creation is simply false. Where is the word quick, or immediate or any of that in the Scripture.
God was free to use the long periods of time to bring about our world. Just as God did not immediately bring the Messiah when he foretold Adam and Eve of him, God did not immediately bring the universe into fulfillment when He spoke of his PLANS for the universe in Genesis 1.
And I believe the Bible is historically true because it teaches a goo-to-you view consistent with evolution. God used earth (otherwise known as goo) to create Adam and then Adam to create Eve (I believe in that origin for the human race), and then used both of them to create YOU. Thus, all this criticism of the goo-to-you theory is an equal criticism of the Bible, which does teach God used goo to create us.
Novelty does get criticized. Fine. Criticize, but remember I will ask for your solutions to the problems I have put out in my "Flood" pages.
We Christians cannot afford to be like the seven blind men examining the elephant and only look at part of the data. Nor can we tie the infallible Word of God to a falsified interpretation. Why do I say falsified? Because the pages listed here show why YE views can't be true. If they can, then the YEers would be able to explain that data, but so far they are utterly silent.
We also can't be like Samuel Shenton, the president of the Flat Earth Society, who, when presented photos of the spherical earth taken from the Moon said: "It's easy to see how a photograph like that could fool the untrained eye." If Christianity is to take that approach, we will not be taken seriously in a technological world.
The pages list the issues which YE proponents need to explain or publicly say they are ignoring this data. If they think the above views are wrong, then I will ask which approach they are going to take on these issues. If you have no answers for these problems, then you are tying the Bible to a false interpretation.
No comments:
Post a Comment