Monkeying with the Meaning
April 29th, 2008
(By John MacArthur)
At this moment in history, even though most of modern society is already fully committed to an evolutionary and naturalistic world view, our society still benefits from the collective memory of a biblical world-view. People in general still believe human life is special. They still hold remnants of biblical morality, such as the notion that love is the greatest virtue (1 Corinthians 13:13); service to one another is better than fighting for personal dominion (Matthew 20:25-27); and humility and submission are superior to arrogance and rebellion (1 Peter 5:5).
But to whatever degree secular society still holds those virtues in esteem, it does so entirely without any philosophical foundation. Having already rejected the God revealed in Scripture and embraced instead pure naturalistic materialism, the modern mind has no grounds whatsoever for holding to any ethical standard; no reason whatsoever for esteeming “virtue” over “vice”; and no justification whatsoever for regarding human life as more valuable than any other form of life. Modern society has already abandoned its moral foundation.
As humanity enters the twenty-first century, an even more frightening prospect looms. Now even the church seems to be losing the will to defend what Scripture teaches about human origins. Many in the church are too intimidated or too embarrassed to affirm the literal truth of the biblical account of creation. They are confused by a chorus of authoritative-sounding voices who insist that it is possible—and even pragmatically necessary—to reconcile Scripture with the latest theories of the naturalists.
Of course, theological liberals have long espoused theistic evolution. They have never been reluctant to deny the literal truth of Scripture on any issue. But the new trend is different, comprising evangelicals who contend that it is possible to harmonize Genesis 1-3 with the theories of modern naturalism without doing violence to any essential doctrine of Christianity. They affirm evangelical statements of faith. They teach in evangelical institutions. They insist they believe the Bible is inerrant and authoritative. But they are willing to reinterpret Genesis to accommodate evolutionary theory. They express shock and surprise that anyone would question their approach to Scripture. And they sometimes employ the same sort of ridicule and intimidation religious liberals and atheistic skeptics have always leveled against believers: “You don’t seriously think the universe is less than a billion years old, do you?”
The result is that over the past couple of decades, large numbers of evangelicals have shown a surprising willingness to take a completely non-evangelical approach to interpreting the early chapters of Genesis. More and more are embracing the view known as “old-earth creationism,” which blends some of the principles of biblical creationism with naturalistic and evolutionary theories, seeking to reconcile two opposing world-views. And in order to accomplish this, old-earth creationists end up explaining away rather than honestly exegeting the biblical creation account.
A handful of scientists who profess Christianity are among those who have led the way in this revisionism—most of them lacking any skill whatsoever in biblical interpretation. But they are setting forth a major reinterpretation of Genesis 1-3 designed specifically to accommodate the current trends of naturalist theory. In their view, the six days of creation in Genesis 1 are long ages, the chronological order of creation is flexible, and most of the details about creation given in Scripture can be written off as poetic or symbolic figures of speech.
Many who should know better—pastors and Christian leaders who defend the faith against false teachings all the time—have been tempted to give up the battle for the opening chapters of Genesis.
An evangelical pastor recently approached me after I preached. He was confused and intimidated by several books he had read—all written by ostensibly evangelical authors—yet all arguing that the earth is billions of years old. These authors treat most of the evolutionists’ theories as indisputable scientific fact. And in some cases they wield scientific or academic credentials that intimidate readers into thinking their views are the result of superior expertise, rather than naturalistic presuppositions they have brought to the biblical text. This pastor asked if I believed it possible that the first three chapters of Genesis might really be just a series of literary devices—a poetic saga giving the “spiritual” meaning of what actually occurred through billions of years of evolution.
I answered unapologetically: No, I do not. I am convinced that Genesis 1-3 ought to be taken at face value—as the divinely revealed history of creation. Nothing about the Genesis text itself suggests that the biblical creation account is merely symbolic, poetic, allegorical, or mythical. The main thrust of the passage simply cannot be reconciled with the notion that “creation” occurred via natural evolutionary processes over long periods of time. And I don’t believe a faithful handling of the biblical text, by any acceptable principles of hermeneutics, can possibly reconcile those chapters with the theory of evolution or any of the other allegedly scientific theories about the origin of the universe.
Furthermore, much like the philosophical and moral chaos that results from naturalism, all sorts of theological mischief ensues when we reject or compromise the literal truth of the biblical account of creation and the fall of Adam.
God can do anything he wills to do. If it is his will to create the universe in 6 literal days, he can certainly do it. But I don’t think that was his will or what he did.
The creation account is perfectly reliable for the message it is intended to convey: God created everything ex nihilo, he created everything in an orderly way, he created everything intentionally with human beings as the highest point of his creation. Whether one believes the earth is 6,000 years old or 4.5 billion, I think conservatives can agree to this statement.
That said, I do not believe the creation account in Genesis is intended to convey any sense of how long it took God to create the universe. It is not being unfaithful to God or to the Bible to recognize that not everything in the Bible is intended to be a literal account of literal events. Miracles happen in the Bible. Amazing things that cannot be explained by science do indeed happen. But there is also quite a bit of material in the Bible that is simply not intended to be taken as strictly literal. I believe the creation account to be one of those. It teaches real fundamental, important truths, but it does not teach a timeframe for creation.
The Bible records many events carried out by God that cannot be explained by science. But on an issue this big, I do not believe God would have left things this unclear. Every investigation of reliable science points to a very old earth and universe. Are modern scientists so bad at what they do that they would miss the boat by billions of years? We are not talking about a mass of people with an anti-God agenda. There are those, sure, but there are many who are simply looking for the truth about the universe, and there are many Christians in the mix who faithfully pursue God while exploring his creation and they are almost unanimous in offering the age of the universe. A good question to ask is why would God create a universe 6,000 years old and make it look like it is billions of years old? Was it a test of faith? Is that kind of test consistent with his character? Or could it instead be that the Bible does not present a timeline of creation or of the age of the universe?
Two brief comments I should have clarified above.
First, MacArthur may address some of my questions in later posts in this series. I look forward to those comments, if so. This particular post does not contain much more than the claim that one must believe in a young earth if one is to be faithful to Scripture. Nothing in particular was offered to demonstrate this, the claim was simply put forward.
Second, my previous comment addresses the creation account alone, and does not touch on Genesis 3. I do believe the events of Genesis 3 to be literal and historical. There was a real Adam and there was a real Eve. There are problems with trying to interpret them as metaphorical or symbolic in some way.
The Bible does give a timeline for Creation. God told Israel to work 6 days because He created everything in 6 days. If the 6 days of Creation are not literal, then the command to work 6 days makes no sense at all. We have to understand the days of Creation the same way those it was originally written to would have understood it - literally. God did not leave things unclear - what He did is very clear in Scripture … and, His power is clearly seen in the Creation. Fallen man wants to deny that - see Romans 1.
I am a trained biologist and can attest the fact that the vast majority of scientists I know and was trained by, do not care what the scientific evidence really shows. They would prefer to exchange the truth of God for a lie, because they do not want to deal with a Judge Who makes demands on their lives.
The Hebrew in Gen. 1:1-2 indicates a chaos that resulted from a curse. The literal meaning is that something happened between vv. 1 & 2.
This is well known (it’s in the Scofield notes, after all, and good old J. Vernon McGee’s and Barnouse’s sermons) but Young Earth Creationism went on a rampage against this view, and that itself has resulted in chaos.
A literal, fundamental reading of all the relevant texts gives us an ancient earth, but also a recent, 6 day RE-creation.
Ironically, the Young Earth reading of Gen. 1 is less true to the Scriptures than this one. (Every time tohu a bohu is used in Scripture, it’s in a negative form).
This view starts with Scripture, and it so happens that modern science confirms it. The Cambrian Explosion, for example. And the fossil record.
Hey Chris,
I’m sure some much bigger minds will throw some better answers than mine in here but I’ll say what I can.
“Every investigation of reliable science points to a very old earth and universe. Are modern scientists so bad at what they do that they would miss the boat by billions of years?”
That statement would be argued far better by the guys at Answers in Genesis but the simple version would be 1. No it doesn’t point to the very old universe. 2. They take the evidence and use their presuppositions to determine universe’s beginnings or age. Their dating methods are incorrect and inaccurate, proven extensively. And they have far less “facts” than I think you understand. Again, try some great books at the Answers in Genesis site, books and books of proven research showing that there are very few facts that can determine age, and no facts that show billions is anything more than a theory to prove evolution.
Your right, God has worked miracles that can’t be scientifically reproduced. But in the cases where He describes how He did it, it is completely reliable. In the Genesis account He defines the word day, then creates everything in those days. The Hebrew word for day is in the Old Testament thousands of times all meaning a regular day. Why would only Genesis be wrong? The point of the articles by MacArthur is yet another to show how Christians put more weight into man’s ideas than the Bible. And when pushed to stand by the Bible, too many Christians have backed off on the literal account and went with translations of the Bible that is inaccurate and uses worldly thoughts to determine Biblical meanings. Bible must be translated using appropriate hermeneutics no matter how in conflicts!
You have to realize for you to question Genesis one, you have to question both Exodus and even Jesus’ description and understanding of creation. In Exodus 20:11 God commands the Jews to rest on the 7th day because of the creation model. He used the same word for day there as in Genesis. If it was figurative then the Sabbath would be a huge period of time, billions of years. Jesus said in the beginning God created them male and female, wouldn’t that be a lie, if man was created Billions of years after creation? Jesus also said that if you believed the words of Moses then you should believe His words. Moses wrote (Holy Spirit) both creation and Exodus.
Another point would go more to a overall Theological concern. For one the Doctrine of Clarity: “Old earth” theories never existed until the 1800’s. Until then no Biblical scholar, including the early church fathers, the heads of the reformation and the Puritans, had ever read Genesis as anything but literal. So I would have to turn around your one question and say ” Are the greatest theologians in the history of the Christian world so bad that they would miss the boat by billions of years?”
Lastly from an overall apologetics standpoint this is all based on presuppositions. If you start out with the mindset of there isn’t a creator and therefore the most “scientific” guess would have to be an old earth with billions of years old. Then the facts you perceive would say just that. If you start out with the mindset of God the creator and the inspiration, inerrancy, sufficiency and clarity of scripture, then your only choice would be to translate scripture with scripture and use hermeneutics to read a literal account of Genesis. That mindset still uses the same research and findings to support the Biblical creation account.
Hope that helps.
“but it does not teach a timeframe for creation.”
Genesis 1:8 (NASB)- “God called the expanse heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, a second day.”
Exodus 20:11 (NASB) - “For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the 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.”
Exodus 31:17 (NASB) - “It is a sign between Me and the sons of Israel forever; for in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, but on the seventh day He ceased from labor, and was refreshed.”
How was that again? Perhaps there is a new definition of “timeframe” with which we are not familiar.
Further to that, what would be the 6 evolutionary time blocks to which the Genesis account refers, if not real days?
Evolutionary theory has many many more eras/epochs and ages that 6.
Hey John,
The problem with the Gap Theory is in God calling all He made good. That couldn’t be the case for billions of dead animals and a failed theory. God would have had to started evolution, left it, realized it was in error, ended it and then restarted. Then you have to realize that in the same way that the millions of dead animals would have died before sin. What killed them? Scripture says that sin brought death into the world, sprirtual and physical. Gap theory would have a pre-sin death. Scofield and McGee were once again the first Bible theologians to have a gap theory that seems more to coexist with “science” instead of refute it. Those 2 main issues are without answer from the gap theory or Theistic evolution. As for the fossils you mentioned, fossils are created by pressure not time. The shifting sediment of the flood would easily account for fossils. Same way they can create a diamond in the lab with pressure, not the time once believed.
Some light from a bigger mind than mine:
Gleason L. Archer, Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties, pages 60-61, Baker 1982:
“ There were six major stages in this work of formation, and these stages are represented by successive days
of a week. In this connection it is important to observe that none of the six creative days bears a definite
article in the Hebrew text; the translations “the first day,” “ the second day,” etc., are in error. The Hebrew
says, “And the evening took place, and the morning took place, day one” (1:5). Hebrew expresses “the first
day” by hayyom harison, but this text says simply yom ehad (day one). Again, in v.8 we read not hayyom
hasseni (“the second day”) but yom seni (“a second day”). In Hebrew prose of this genre, the definite
article was generally used where the noun was intended to be definite; only in poetic style could it be
omitted. The same is true with the rest of the six days; they all lack the definite article. Thus they are well
adapted to a sequential pattern, rather than to strictly delimited units of time.”
David,
“You have to realize for you to question Genesis one”
Here is part of the problem in the debate. I do not question Genesis 1. I do not question the Bible. I believe it to be the infallible word of God and I trust it as the sole authoritative rule in faith and practice, deriving its authority from God who inspired human authors and preserved its transmission through the years.
In other words, I believe in the words of Scripture.
I disagree with how certain people have interpreted Genesis 1. One of the problems in this discussion is that many who believe in a 6,000 year old earth accuse anyone who disagrees of being unfaithful to the Bible. I am not faithful to your reading of the Bible, but I am quite faithful to the Bible.
As for Answers in Genesis, I am very familiar with all of their claims. For most of my life I defended young earth creationism and frequently read materials defending that claim. In the last few years my position has changed. I consider to study YEC material because I am quite open to the possibility that I might be wrong. I am studying what I can to see if anyone can make a compelling case that I am wrong. So far I have seen nothing that convinces me. This is not because I am not familiar with material. It is not because I am a fleshly person living in rebellion against God. It is not because I reject God’s authority through the Bible. It is because in my careful study of the issue I have come to read Genesis 1 in a way that differs from the traditional reading of Genesis 1.
It is true that the command for sabbath is based on the days of creation. This is not a problem. Creation is spoken of as six days with God resting on the seventh. Whether or not these days were literal, it carries over to a literal application in the seven days of our week. This is not unusual. Most of the aspects of Israelite worship were symbolic that carried over into literal fulfillment. No one’s sins were atoned for by the shedding of the blood of bulls and goats, and yet that symbolic practice pointed to a literal fulfillment.
“Are the greatest theologians in the history of the Christian world so bad that they would miss the boat by billions of years?”
This goes both ways. The 6,000 date for the world is relatively new as well. Fathers of the church did not all read Genesis in the same way. I would have to go back and study this some more, but I believe it was also in the 1800’s that the 6,000 year claim was first made. Prior to that, no firm views were uniformly held. Granted, they did not put forward a date of billions of years, but that is because the Bible itself never claims an age for the earth. 6,000 years is an age that comes about through certain readings of the Old Testament genealogies - readings which are themselves flawed, again using the Bible in ways it was not intended to be used. Dating the earth at billions of years has come about through modern science, not through theology. The claim doesn’t contradict the Bible since the Bible doesn’t make a claim as to the age of the earth.
As for the apologetics point, your claim is flawed. I hold a firm belief in God and in the reliability of Scripture. And yet I - and many other believers with the same mindset - understand Genesis to be doing something other than giving a literal account of creation. This does not undermine Scripture. It undermines how you read Scripture. You can disagree with my conclusion, but don’t accuse me of rejecting the Bible. That is disingenuous and relies on fighting a straw man rather than interacting with what I am actually saying. Hear what I am actually saying about Genesis, not what you think I must mean.
Daryl,
I don’t think it refers to any eras. I reject any gap theory, epoch theory, whatever. They overcomplicate the issue. The point of the days in Genesis is to show that creation was orderly and intentioned, contrary to the random, chaotic nature of the creation accounts in pagan cultures. This is even contrary to the random nature present in darwinian evolution. I reject any notion of chance or uncertainty in creation. Genesis makes it clear that however God did creation, he did it in an orderly, intentioned manner. Nothing happened by accident. *how* God brought it all about is something Genesis does not address.
“A good question to ask is why would God create a universe 6,000 years old and make it look like it is billions of years old?”
The day after Adam was created, he was one day old, but he was a full grown adult from day zero. He was “young” in terms of length of existence, but “mature” in terms of development.
The problem is that evolutionary dating is trying to get back to point zero, whereas everything God created was mature in its creation. That’s why creationism and evolution are incompatible.
It is not being unfaithful to God or to the Bible to recognize that not everything in the Bible is intended to be a literal account of literal events. … But there is also quite a bit of material in the Bible that is simply not intended to be taken as strictly literal.
This is true. But if you’re going to tell people that the Bible means something other than what it actually says, you need to support that with reasons from the text. That is, what motivation is there in the text of Genesis 1 and 2 that should lead me away from interpreting “and there was evening, morning, the first day” as meaning anything other than there was one day made up of evening and morning?
“The problem with the Gap Theory is in God calling all He made good.”
That’s not a problem at all. The reference is to the re-creation.
“millions of dead animals would have died before sin.”
That’s a Young Earth argument that just doesn’t work. Ro. 5:12 refers to mankind.
And the “gap theory” as you call it is as old as the Septuagint. It’s no recent invention.
The recent invention is militant Young Earth Creationism (around 1960)
Genesis was written to show us who God is.It is to show us there is only One God!was to show isreal once again not to worship what God had created in the beginning the sun the moon water ect. the false gods of eygpt. We humans think to much like humans when it comes to the limits of a all powerful God and put human limits on God who has no limits.The Bible is clear morning and evening that is one day! Who is to say God did not do it not I.
Dating the earth at billions of years has come about through modern science, not through theology.
You said it… not me.
since the Bible doesn’t make a claim as to the age of the earth.
Not only does this beg the question, but it’s false. The Bible says God created the world in 6 days. Science says that’s impossible. So THEN we say that the 6 days can’t really mean 6 days.
::ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMMMMMMMMMM::
Whoa… Sola Scriptura just flew out the window!
*how* God brought it all about is something Genesis does not address.
You’ll have to excuse me, but I have absolutely no patience for comments like this. This is a patently false claim.
Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light. - 1:3
By the word of the LORD the heavens were made, And by the breath of His mouth all their host. … For He spoke, and it was done; He commanded, and it stood fast. — Psalm 33:6, 9
Let them praise the name of the LORD, For He commanded and they were created. — Psalm 148:5
How? God spoke, and it was done. By the word the Lord. By the breath of His mouth. To say that Bible doesn’t say HOW God created is irresponsible and is tantamount to willful ignorance. Argue for old-earth all you want, just don’t use that argument.
Mike,
“Not only does this beg the question, but it’s false. The Bible says God created the world in 6 days.”
It isn’t begging the question, it’s making a point. The Bible contains no passage that says, “The earth is such and such years old at such and such a point.” What you mention isn’t the age of the earth. No one believes the earth is presently six days old. However long creation took place, the Bible makes no clear claim as to how much time has passed since then. The 6,000 year old estimate comes from certain ways of reckoning the genealogies of the Bible.
“Not only does this beg the question, but it’s false. The Bible says God created the world in 6 days. Science says that’s impossible. So THEN we say that the 6 days can’t really mean 6 days.”
That’s exactly right, Mike. These are six, literal days. That’s the best way to interpret the chapter, though it must be said that old earthers do have a good argument in how “yom” is used in Gen. 2:4.
The six literal days refer to the creation that took place after the original curse, when “the deep” covered the earth. God did that again, of course, in the days of Noah. Then covenanted not to do it again.
It has been stated here that the idea of a 6,000 year old earth is a new invention. This is not true. If we were to read the Bible without any presuppositions we would never come to the idea of millions of years. It is only when we start with a view and try to make the scriptures fit that view that we come up with millions of years.
The purpos of all the genealogies in the Bible (so and so begat so and so and lived 300 years) is to show the falicy of the evolutionary theory of millions of years is false. I challenge you to read all the passages in the Bible dealing with these genealogies, and add up the years. You will most certainly never come up with millions of years.
JohnD referred to a recreation. This also is false. Genesis 1:1 says “in the beginning.” The six day creation was the very beginning. Before that there was only God. There is no recreation. Before the six day creation, the Bible says that the earth was without form and void. It also says that there was water, but no land. This eliminates the possibility of recreation. John said (I believe) that the fossiles came from before the “recreation” but if the earth was without form and void, then this cannot be.
The gap theory is a new idea because it came after Darwin’s evolutionary theory as an effort to reconcile Christianity with evolution. However, in the Bible, whenever the word “day” is used with either “evening”, “morning”, or a number it is always a literal day. In Genesis, we see that the “evening and the morning were the first day.” Here we have all three! Evening, morning, and a number (first) are all here. If we say that these are not literal days then what about all the plants created millions of years before the sun? What about Jonah in the belly of the fish for three what? Days. If a day is only a period of millions of years, then how long was Jonah in the fish? The gap theory is not consistent with a literal reading of the Bible.
Any professing Christian that is still compromising on the literal truth of Genesis has no excuse, either Biblically or scientifically.
I’m a converted atheist (saved as a teenager) and a PhD physicist. In keeping up with this subject for the last 30 years, I find the evidence for a ‘young’ creation overwhelming. In addition to AnswersInGenesis.org, check out icr.org and buy the publications on the RATE project — recent research done by creationists that slam dunk ‘billions of years.’
Compromising on Genesis is lose-lose. You offend God by calling Him a liar (no matter how you finesse it — try that on Judgment Day), and you get no respect from the atheists you are trying to get along with. Repent.
Dear Chris,
God actually disagrees with the viewpoint that He did not clarify what a Day is in it’s fullness:
Genesis 1:5
“God called the LIGHT Day, and the DARKNESS He called Night. So the EVENING AND THE MORNING were the FIRST DAY.”
Seen as YAHWEH is a Supernatural Spiritual Being who CAN make something from Nothing; I prefer to TRUST His account of the facts; noting that many established Scientific FACTS supports His revelation in Scripture, prior to out intellectual ability to establish those FACTS, I DO trust Him. Sad to say that MANY So called “scientists” of our Day opperate out of a presumtions worldview, which has more in common with UNESTABLISHED Theology (Notebly Darwinianism - Do read “The origin of the Species”, it is frought with contradiction and theology which is built upon mere Science-Fiction). They are actually operrating their “assumptions” and theologies on what is almost an “Extra-scientific” basis, a bit like “Extra-Biblical” herectics operate.
So I guess the ultimate question is this: IS the God of the Bible, and of the reality of the Universe, able to create EVERYTHING from Nothing in less than a mili-second or is He constrained over a Billion years, to create EVERYTHING from something, which needed first to be Created in a small quantity initially, prior to be DEVELOPED over time?
How about we put God in a Box and ask Him? Foolishness of course!
Faith is the SUBSTANCE of things UNSEEN.
JohnD,
You said, “The six literal days refer to the creation that took place after the original curse, when “the deep” covered the earth.”
The original curse does not take place until Genesis 3. The creation was before the curse because it is the human race that was cursed, and man was not created until day 6.
You said, “it must be said that old earthers do have a good argument in how “yom” is used in Gen. 2:4.”
This word for day is different than the use in Genesis 1. The way the word “day” is used here is like me saying, “back in my dad’s day.” This is not the meaning of the word “day” in Genesis 1 as I showed in my previous post. If you are going to interpret the word “day” in Gen. 2:4 to be the same as the word used in Gen. 1 you are going to reveal an inconsistency. You already admitted that the creation took place in six literal days, but if the word in Gen 2:4 is the same as the word in Gen. 1, then Gen. 2:4 would mean that there was only one period of time, rather than six. The old earth people have an inconsistency here. They claim that the six days were only six periods of time, yet if they are going to use Gen 2:4 to prove this, then they are contradicting themselves because there would only be one period of time rather than six.
William,
“The purpos of all the genealogies in the Bible (so and so begat so and so and lived 300 years) is to show the falicy of the evolutionary theory of millions of years is false.”
Go look up anachronism, that is what you are doing. The genealogies have nothing to do with evolution. The purpose of genealogies is to show God’s work through the families he promised. God preserved a people through Abraham; God preserved the descendants of David; etc, etc. As well, the genealogies are often incomplete, they are not comprehensive lists detailing every generation. This is one thing that sometimes causes confusion when comparing lists of genealogies. This is why one cannot expect to arrive at an accurate number of years that have passed since the time of Adam and Eve in the garden.
“IS the God of the Bible, and of the reality of the Universe, able to create EVERYTHING from Nothing in less than a mili-second”
Absolutely. See the first line of my original comment. God can do creation any way he sees fit. If he chose to, he could have created everything five minutes ago, and created us with our memories intact. I don’t believe he did. I believe he chose to create everything a long, long time ago and brought creation to his intended end through natural processes created and guided by him.
“or is He constrained over a Billion years, to create EVERYTHING from something”
No one here is saying he created everything from something. Creation was done ex nihilo. Again, see my first comment, I mention this as well. He spoke matter into existence. Before he did this, there was nothing. He then took what he made and shaped creation out of it. This is clear from the biblical account whether one believes the earth is young or old. Genesis 1:1-2, God created a bunch of stuff that was without form and void. Genesis 1:3-31, God shaped that stuff he had made into the creation he had intended.
We also all agree that God did not speak man into being out of nothing. Rather, he shaped man from that same matter that he had made. This is why 2:7 says that God formed Adam from the dust of the ground. This cannot be used to prove evolution - but it certainly helps demonstrate at least the possibility. God created the universe and all the matter in it, and God shaped that matter into that which he wanted creation to be - including human beings. What makes us most unique and distinct from the rest of creation is that God then breathed into us the imago dei, his own image. The first beings to receive the imago dei were Adam and Eve, a literal, historical man and woman who lived in a garden set apart from the rest of the created world as a place of paradise where God would provide for humanity. When Adam and Eve fell they were cast out of paradise into the rest of creation, showing that there was already something different between Eden and everything else. Eden should not be thought of as what the whole world was like before the fall. Eden was paradise precisely because it was different from the rest of the world, and God kept it that way until the fall.
Well. That was a lot more of a response than the previous comment warranted.
I’ll keep watching comments here, but this will be my last contribution to this particular article.
However long creation took place, the Bible makes no clear claim as to how much time has passed since then. The 6,000 year old estimate comes from certain ways of reckoning the genealogies of the Bible.
Creation took place over six days. It’s painfully obvious that the Bible doesn’t say “The Earth is 6,000 years old.” But the Bible is extremely clear about how much time passed between Adam and Jacob. If you use the genealogies in Genesis, which give you the number of years each man lived, you’ll find that just under 2000 years passed between Adam’s creation and Abraham’s birth (1946, if my math was correct). Working backwards, it’s widely accepted that Abraham lived in the early 21st century BC (ca. 2075 or so), though I haven’t spent the time to confirm that biblically. From there, we know it’s about 2000 years to Christ, and about 2000 years from Christ to us.
So really the only argument for an Earth over (roughly) 6,000 years old from Scripture is that the scholars screwed up by a few billion years between Abraham and Christ. We know that this isn’t the case though. The time before that is easily confirmed by Genesis 5 and 11, and virtually everyone in the world believes it was about 2000 years from Abraham to Christ.
What if science and the Bible are both correct? Billions of years from one perspective(looking back) and thousands of years from one perspective(looking forward)? Not saying that this physicist has everything spot on(haven’t read his books nor have I clicked on all pages on his site) but he sure gives food for thought including whether the initial time frame of creation should be translated “first day” or “day one”(there is a video clip on Zola Levitt where he explains the details of this link on paper). Be interested in what the Bible teachers here think about what he shares.
Me? If one considers that the God in the Bible wrote about the paths of the sea in Psalm 8 and it has been reported Matthew Maury “discovered” ocean currents in the 1800s ~ then even more modern science has simply begun to touch on Who God is and the intricate details of what He does even when those of the science community refuse to give Him the glory.
http://www.geraldschroeder.com/age.html
“that God in the Bible”
“They overcomplicate the issue. The point of the days in Genesis is to show that creation was orderly and intentioned, contrary to the random, chaotic nature of the creation accounts in pagan cultures”
If that were true then why the 6 days? If Genesis 1-3 is only myth or intended to teach spiritual truth, then what do the 6 days represent? Nothing is in Scripture without reason, there must be some meaning to those days? What is it?
One the other hand, Genesis could just mean what it says, especially since there is not mythological language in it…
Hi Daniel…you have some surprises waiting for you. Study the words in Gen. 1:2: “without form” “void” “darkness” “deep.”
See how they are used elsewhere in all of Scripture. You will see that they are uniformily negative terms. The first two, used together, always indicate the result of a curse.
Scripture interprets Scripture. So give yourself some time alone with this. Don’t rely on commentaries. Just a concordance and the Holy Spirit.
Dear Chris,
You totally avoided the issue I raised from the Scriptures:
A REAL LITERRAL DAY is defined in Genesis 1:5, and used in the same CONTEXT within the Creation Account; much in the same manner as we define ONE Day TODAY.
To say anything otherwise is to make God a liar or at the least to nullify the Infallability of the Scripture to convey the Truth of God (Which would make the whole BIBLE void). This would be to dethrone the LORD Jesus of His very essence as the TRUTH, the Way and the Life and make Him an UNJUST Sovereign or even an Evil liar = Satan the Deceiver.
I do not know the TRUE age of the Creation, NOR do I NEED to know it. But I am convinced that my LORD God and Saviour YAHWEH is in Sovereign control over His creation and that He has assured us of His ability to keep all things in good order and under His will, to do ALL things for the good of those that Fear and Love Him. He also DOES all things to the FULL, I do not believe He does ANYTHING By HALVES, why should HE? Does He have to answer to us?
I commend to you these Scripture:
Romans 1:24-25
“Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.”
Matthew 19:4
“And He answered and said to them, “Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’”
Romans 9:20
“But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God? Will the thing formed say to him who formed it, “Why have you made me like this?”
JohnD,
Let us say, for a minute, that there was a curse before the original creation. Even with that believe, we would have to accept that God had cursed NOTHINGNESS. The Bible says that this creation was “the beginning.” This is interpreting scripture with scripture. The Bible says that this was the beginning, so what should I believe? Also, look at the order of the first two verses.
Gen 1:1-2 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. :2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
Even the void earth wasn’t there until God created it. You are trying to say that before the creation there was God+void earth. However, the Bible says that God created the heaven and the earth, and the earth (which he created a verse ago) was without form and void, and there was no light. This does not mean that the void earth was there before Genesis 1:1, because God didn’t create the void earth until verse 1.
As far as “without form,” this term is only used twice (with or without the term void) in the Bible and both refer to the creation. As far as “void,” the most common use of this word is to refer to someone “void of understanding.” It means that something is not there. In Genesis, the earth is without form and void. There is no light, and no land. This does not indicate a curse, it indicates the creation of a void earth with no light and no land. That is what the text says.
Chris,
You said, “The genealogies have nothing to do with evolution.”
I know. They show how old the earth is. Mike put it well. Working back from now, we have 2,008 years from now to the birth of Christ, and a little over 4,000 years from the birth of Christ to the creation of Adam. The Bible gives us a complete birth line all the way from Adam to Christ. However, let us entertain the thought that the genealogies are incomplete. So what then? Let us say that only a third of the people are counted. The earth would still only be a little over 14,000 years old. That said, the genealogies are complete. Here is just a sample of one.
Gen 5:3 And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth:
Gen 5:4 And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years: and he begat sons and daughters:
Gen 5:5 And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died.
Gen 5:6 And Seth lived an hundred and five years, and begat Enos:
Gen 5:7 And Seth lived after he begat Enos eight hundred and seven years, and begat sons and daughters:
Gen 5:8 And all the days of Seth were nine hundred and twelve years: and he died.
The verse says “he begat.” There is no room for even one extra person in between this.
Daniel, are you aware that the Hebrew word used in Gen. 1:2 may rightly be translated “became”?
Look it up.
Also look up Isaiah 45:18. It says God did NOT create the world “tohu” (same word as in Gen. 1:2) Scripture must interpret Scripture.
See, v. 1 says “In the beginning…” But v. 2 says the earth “became” a waste and a chaos. (Or do you think God created a waste and a chaos from the get go?)
Also, you’re incorrect about the use of the terms referring to creation.
Look up Jeremiah 4:23ff. That’s a prophecy. And it refers to a curse.
Look up Isaiah 34:11. Same thing. Neither of these refer back to creation.
Both are used in reference to a curse. Scripture must interpret Scripture, and the same usage is in Gen. 1:2.
JohnD, Isaiah 45:18 is not saying what you think… consider the full sentence:
“For thus says the Lord,
who created the heavens
(he is God!),
who formed the earth and made it
(he established it;
he did not create it empty,
he formed it to be inhabited!):
“I am the Lord, and there is no other.”
It says “he did not create it empty”. In other words, He had a purpose for the creation. He fashioned it in a way that it would be inhabitable, not empty and uninhabitable.
Also, on what grammatical basis do you translate הָיְתָה to mean “became” in Gen. 1:2?
Just to clarify in Isaiah 45:18, it’s speaking of the creation in its completed state, not just the first step in the creative process.
Gabriel, that just doesn’t work. Here’s a helpful comment by Torrey:
“[T]he Bible expressly declares that God did not create the earth “in vain” (Isaiah 45:18). But the word translated “in vain” in this passage is precisely the one translated “without form” in Genesis 1:2. In the Revised Version of Genesis 1:2 and Isaiah 45:18 the word is translated in both instances “waste.” Here then is a plain and specific declaration in the Bible that God did not create the earth “without form” (or rather “waste,” RV), so it is clear that Genesis 1:2 cannot refer to the original creation. The word translated “was” in Genesis 1:2 can with perfect propriety be translated “became.” Then Genesis 1:2 would read: “And the earth became waste and void.” In that case in Genesis 1:1 we have the actual account of creation. It is very brief but wonderfully expressive, instructive and suggestive. In Genesis 1:2 we have a brief but suggestive account of how the earth became involved in desolation and emptiness, presumably through the sin of some pre-Adamic race. Then all after verse 2 does not describe the original creation of the earth, but its fitting up anew for the new race God is to bring upon the earth—the Adamic race. Even if we allow the word “was” to stand in Genesis 1:2, and do not substitute the word “became,” it does not materially affect the interpretation.” (Difficulties in the Bible)
JohnD,
Ah, Torrey’s Difficulties in the Bible. I’ve read a number of things in that book I didn’t agree with, and this is certainly one of them.
To say, “The word translated “was” in Genesis 1:2 can with perfect propriety be translated “became.”, without substantiating it goes against the grain of all tranlators and most commentators. I would appreciate seeing actual substantation for that translation on a grammatical basis, not just another person’s unsubstantiated opinion.
Additionally, just because the word is the same in both verses doesn’t mean they are equal. While he may have an explanation, Torrey doesn’t do any exegesis on Isaiah 45:18 to prove the point. The question needs to be what does Isaiah 45:18 mean as a complete sentence, not what does one clause mean outside the context of the rest of the clauses.
There is something else going on in the Hebrew in Genesis 1:2, but I need to look into it more before stating a case from it.
JohnD,
Here is a quote from your commentary
“In Genesis 1:2 we have a brief but suggestive account of how the earth became involved in desolation and emptiness, presumably through the sin of some pre-Adamic race.”
Presumably through the sin of some pre-Adamic race??? Where did this come from the text? This commentator is adding his own extra-biblical beliefs to the Bible and coming up with a belief that the text does not merit. This is dangerous.
Here is the account of creation as taken from a simple reading of the text. No extra-biblical presuppositions added.
In the beginning (nothing before) God created the heaven and the earth. The earth was without form and void. God created light. God divides the light from the darkness. God calls the light day and the darkness night: this was the first day.
The previous paragraph from verses 1 to 5 is a brief account of day 1. All of this happened in one day. From a plain reading of the text, we see that the earth, the one that God had just created, was without form and void. It was not done yet! God called the light good, not the void earth. You cannot come to the belief in a long period of time in between verses 1 and 2 from a plain simple reading of the text. You can only, and I repeat only, come to that belief when you try to add a presupposition to the text.
Gabriel:
“To say, “The word translated “was” in Genesis 1:2 can with perfect propriety be translated “became.”, without substantiating it goes against the grain of all tranlators and most commentators.”
Give this some study. Right there in Strong’s, you’ll find these definitions: “1 to be, become, come to pass, exist, happen, fall out.”
The team of translators for the NIV put “became” as a legitimate option (in a footnote).
I’m really not sure what you mean by “Torrey does no exegesis.” It certainly is. He didn’t just translate the word, he stated the meaning. The verse states plainly that God did NOT create the world “tohu.” But you find that same word in Gen. 1:2. How can this be?
Because that’s how the earth BECAME.
Daniel:
“Presumably through the sin of some pre-Adamic race??? Where did this come from the text? This commentator is adding his own extra-biblical beliefs to the Bible and coming up with a belief that the text does not merit. This is dangerous.”
You’re overdoing it just a bit here, I think. First of all, it is, on its face, speculative. That’s what “presumably” means.
Is there any basis for it? Yes. Why did God send the flood to the earth in Genesis 6-8? Was this not judgment for sin?
Similarly, we are presented with a “deep” covering the earth in Gen. 1:2. There is a basis to presume God did the same thing.
Remember, the fall of Satan happend BEFORE Gen. 1:2. This also helps to explain what happened.
I know it’s difficult to have a paradigm challenged, esp. one that is so militant as young earth creationism has become. But I just want you to know that there is an alternative view that, for me, is more faithful to Scripture. Study out the words in Gen. 1:2 individually and allow yourself to at least contemplate the possibility…before you accuse one of the greatest Bible teachers of the 20th Century of being “dangerous.”
The whole pre-Adamic race thing doesn’t stand up well against what the Apostle Paul made of Genesis. In 1 Corinthians 15 he says this: “So also it is written, “The first MAN, Adam, BECAME A LIVING SOUL ” The last Adam became a life-giving spirit.”
Paul’s quoting Genesis 2:7: “Then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.”
Not exactly a word for word citation, right? Paul’s filling in something here, by saying that Adam is the first man. So unless you’re willing to say the Apostle Paul is a poor exegete and that the Holy Spirit of God was a slave to Paul’s militant young earth creationism, a pre-Adamic race doesn’t square.
Also, the Isaiah 45 interpretation you’re offering is really not letting that passage speak for itself. Consider the intent of that chapter. It’s not intended to be a commentary on creation; it’s supposed to be how God is calling the nation of Israel to trust in Him because of who He is, because of who He’s revealed Himself to them to be. He says, “Remember who I am. That I created all of this from nothing. Yet I didn’t intend for this creation to be some empty wasteland. I didn’t create it without purpose. In the same way, I did not set my favor on you in vain; I did not create a nation to be some empty wasteland. I intend to bring fruit from my creation (you, Israel), the same way I intended to bring fruit from all my creation (the earth).”
It’s so clear that it’s almost painful. It’s very true that it’s the same phrase, and so that does offer confusion for someone looking for it. But if we understand the intent of the passage, the traditional translation makes absolute sense, and is in tune perfectly with the intentions of the revelatory will of God.
Mike:
“Paul’s filling in something here, by saying that Adam is the first man. So unless you’re willing to say the Apostle Paul is a poor exegete and that the Holy Spirit of God was a slave to Paul’s militant young earth creationism, a pre-Adamic race doesn’t square.”
But Mike, that’s what “pre-Adamic” means!
Honestly, you’re grappling with some of the best Bible teachers of all (Torrey, Barnhouse, etc.) Don’t think that you have a simple “knock out” punch here. There might be a bit of pride in that.
I do believe that young earth creationism is closer to the text than the standard old earth views. I think you should admit that there is at least a basis for the view I am advocating. You may disagree with it, but I think you ought to do a little deeper study first. I’m not sure you’re fully aware of all that’s there. Study each key word in Gen. 1:2, as they are used throughout the Bible.
“Also, the Isaiah 45 interpretation you’re offering is really not letting that passage speak for itself. Consider the intent of that chapter. It’s not intended to be a commentary on creation; it’s supposed to be how God is calling the nation of Israel to trust in Him.”
This is a distinction without a difference. You are limiting yourself and the Bible here. You’re actually READING OUT a plain statement of Scripture. Even though it is not a “commentary on creation,” it does talk about a key fact of creation.
What you’re doing is like saying Jesus wasn’t really stating that Jonah was a literal event when he mentioned the “sign of Jonah,” because in context he was rebuking the sign seekers.
That won’t wash. ANY context can carry a number of fact statements within it. That way, Scripture truly speaks. Context is key for the overall meaning of a passage, but it does not mean a fact statement within the passage cannot have the plain meaning that it does.
Honestly, you’re grappling with some of the best Bible teachers of all
That’s a silly argument. You’re grappling with the historically orthodox understanding of creation. Who’s got the bigger nerve here?
Even though it is not a “commentary on creation,” it does talk about a key fact of creation.
That’s right. That key fact is that God did not create the earth for the purpose of being a wasteland, but He created it with a purpose of bearing fruit. Without twisting and wringing the text and context, that’s all that’s saying about creation.
What you’re doing is like saying Jesus wasn’t really stating that Jonah was a literal event when he mentioned the “sign of Jonah,” because in context he was rebuking the sign seekers.
I most certainly am doing no such thing. I don’t argue against the idea that fact statements in context are truthful. At all. If Scripture says something, it’s true.
Context is key for the overall meaning of a passage, but it does not mean a fact statement within the passage cannot have the plain meaning that it does.
But this begs the question. “The plain meaning that it does” is exactly what’s being questioned here. The plain meaning in Isaiah 45:18 is that God didn’t create the world for nothing, but to be inhabited. You’re introducing an alternative way of interpreting it, and then saying that that’s its plain meaning. It seems to me that in this passage you have to ignore the context (and content) of the passage to come up with your interpretation of a parenthetical remark.
But anyway… explain about your pre-Adamic race. Are they not humans? If they aren’t, what did they do that God would curse the earth for?
And I don’t think it’s prideful to dismiss what men say based on Scripture. I think it’s prideful to permit men’s ideas to rival Scripture’s. If Paul says Adam was the first man, I understand that to mean that there were no humans before Adam. Call me nuts, but I think that’s pretty straightforward. If someone wants to suggest that Adam was not the first human, then I have no problem calling 1Cor 15:45 a “knock out” refutation. Let’s not revere men more than we revere what Scripture actually says.
Yes, and I have laid out exactly “what Scripture actually says” several times here, only to have quick reactions, without the benefit of real study.
Please consider studying out the words, as I have suggested. Take a week, and pray for objectivity. It will benefit you, even if you keep your same view.
And the respect for gifted teachers is actually advocated in the Bible. To be so dismissive is not honoring the Word. Your scholarship in languages, I am guessing, is nowhere near Torrey’s. Am I wrong about that?
JohnD,
Isaiah 45:18 “For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the LORD; and there is none else.”
Genesis 1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
The use of the word “tôhû” in Isaiah is different than the use of the word in Genesis. In Genesis, the Bible says that the earth was “tôhû.” God had created it one verse ago (although on the same day: day one) yet it clearly was not finished. In Isaiah, the Bible says that God did not create the world “tôhû.” Genesis says that God created the earth and it was “tôhû.” Notice that in Isaiah the verse says that God created it not IN vain. You would have a very convincing argument if the verse said, “he created it not vain.” However, it says, “he created it not IN vain.” Almost every time in the Bible that the words “in vain” are used together it means without purpose, or to no avail. That is obviously the use in Isaiah simply because of the grammatical structure of the verse. It may be the same word, but since when does that fact mean that it must have the same usage? Think of the English word day for instance. I could use it to mean a literal 24 hour day, the daylight part of the day, back in my dad’s day…etc. It may be the same word, but the usage of the word in the sentence determines its meaning. In Isaiah a closer look at the sentence structure reveals that the meaning of the word “tôhû” is that God did not create the world without a purpose.
You have given a good challenge to all of us to study this out and pray about it, and I assure you, I intend to do so. That is the attitude with which we should approach all study of scripture.
“You have given a good challenge to all of us to study this out and pray about it, and I assure you, I intend to do so. That is the attitude with which we should approach all study of scripture.”
Well said. Thanks to all for the lively discussion.
John 21:25 And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen
If this is true about Jesus and His 3-year ministry, would it not be more true about God?
What arrogance, then, to think that all God did in the process of creation would be, could be, captured in a few verses. The story of creation is a vastly condensed version of something our human minds could not begin to comprehend, were we told exactly how it happened. Moses wrote it for the people who had been in bondage in Egypt, who were about to take the Promised Land and encounter all of the gods and religious myths of the local people that lived there. The purpose of the Creation story was twofold: to proclaim that there was one God, not many, and that this one God created all things and it is to Him we/they owe our/their allegience, not the gods of the heathen locals.
Do we think that the Bible tells us everything that God ever did? Do we think that the Bible tells us about everything God ever created? Do you think we are the only beings God ever created? There are millions of suns out there, some presumeably with planets. All created for us? All created only 6,000 years ago? God has existed for eternity, yet the only things He ever created were created just 6,000 years ago? Do you really believe that? Do you really believe that Moses believed that?
The Bible is not the story of God. It is the story of man, and God’s relation to him. The focus of the Bible is man’s creation, his fall, and his redemption. The Bible does not tell us what God has been doing with the rest of His life, apart from man, simply because there is no need for us to know that. But God has had a life outside of us and our problems. And I can accept that there is far more to God than what some folk’s theology seems to allow.
What if this interpretation were true: “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. [GAP, with unknown creations on this earth, which were all destroyed.] And the earth became without form, and void.” (as part of the destruction of the previous creation). And then God began the process of making the earth hospitable for the man He was about to create, the story of which is told in Genesis.
And then, what if the following were also true: the universe was created billions of years ago; there have been multiple creations on multiple planets, each creation created and destroyed according to God’s own desires, suns darkened and re-lit at God’s good pleasure; there have been one or more previous creations on planet earth, created and destroyed according to God’s own desires, before He created Adam; perhaps our sun and moon were created when Adam was created, perhaps they were already there but went dark when the last creation was destroyed, waiting for God to light them again; Adam and Eve and life as we know it were created 6,000 years on this planet, and light from the sun, moon and stars (all millions or billions of years old) was allowed to again strike the earth.
How would any of that, if it were true, alter in any way the truth presented in the Bible, from Genesis to Revelation? How does what God has done to and for other creations affect at all in any way the promises He has made to us in the Bible?
I have never thought that I was the only thing that God ever created. I have never thought that the Bible told me everything there is to know about God and what He has been doing out there in the Universe throughout eternity. And at the same time, I have never doubted for a minute His promises to me as revealed in the Bible. I find it odd that people would think otherwise. But yet it seems they do.
Finally, if the Gap theory of Genesis 1:1 were true, and there have been previous creations on this earth that were destroyed before the rest of Genesis begins, the fossil record could perhaps show evidence of these prior creations (depending on how thorough the destruction of the creation was).
Perhaps I will not add anything to this discussion but here are my thoughts:
1: The writing of Genesis by Moses occurred around 1400 BC or so. Moses was a well educated person, having received the best education the power of the day (Egypt) had to offer. In addition, he did not write Genesis because he needed something else to do. Rather, the Holy Spirit was moving him. And the Holy Spirit could have used several words to describe the time period for creation: perhaps eras, ages, years, a very long time, etc. Yet, He did not. But rather He opted for the word “day.” Perhaps it is becuase He intended to convey a particular idea, that the creation of the earth was a matter of days. As it was mentioned above, later the work week and day of rest are based on the creation pattern. Obviously assigning the same word different meaning when one is the basis for the other, would seem silly.
2: As I read the creation account of Genesis, it strikes me that Moses was careful to include “evening and morning.” If the days are other than 24-hrs days, does this mean that creation occurred in long periods of darkness and light? I am perplexed as to how the animals and plants survived these longs preriods of darkness.
3: In Gen. 2 we read that God rested on the seventh day. If the seventh day is the same length that the other days, and there is no indication that it is not, then God really took a lonnnnnnnnnnng rest. Boy I feel like I need a God-sized rest!
On the other hand, perhaps the Holy Spirit meant what He said and said what He meant. Yet, I do think that indeed there is validity to the gap theory - by that I am referring to the gap in Biblical thinking some so-called Bible believers have.
-Vince