One Last Post on Genesis
May 6th, 2008
(By John MacArthur)
I’m convinced the opening chapters of Genesis are not optional. They establish the vital foundation for everything we believe as Christians.
Sadly, it is a foundation that is being systematically undermined by the very institutions that should be most vigorously defending it. More and more Christian educational institutions, apologists, and theologians are abandoning faith in the literal truth of Genesis 1-3.
I recall reading a survey a few years ago which revealed that in one of America’s leading evangelical accrediting associations, whose membership boasted scores of evangelical Bible colleges and universities, only five or six college-level schools remain solidly opposed to the old-earth view of creation. The rest are open to a reinterpretation of Genesis 1-3 that accommodates evolutionary theories.
Scores of well-known Bible teachers and apologists see the whole question as moot, and some even aggressively argue that a literal approach to Genesis is detrimental to the credibility of Christianity. They have given up the battle—or worse, joined the attack against biblical creationism.
I’m thankful for those who are still faithfully resisting the trend—organizations like Answers in Genesis, the Creation Research Society, and the Institute for Creation Research. These organizations and others like them involve many expert scientists who challenge the presuppositions of evolutionists on technical and scientific grounds. They clearly demonstrate that scientific proficiency is not incompatible with faith in the literal truth of Scripture—and that the battle for the beginning is ultimately a battle between two mutually exclusive faiths—faith in Scripture versus faith in anti-theistic hypotheses. It is not really a battle between science and the Bible.
As Christians, we believe the Bible is truth revealed to us by God, who is the true Creator of the universe. That belief is the basic foundation of all genuine Christianity. It is utterly incompatible with the speculative presuppositions of the naturalists.
In Scripture the Creator Himself has revealed to us everything essential for life and godliness. And it starts with an account of creation. If the biblical creation account is in any degree unreliable, the rest of Scripture stands on a shaky foundation.
But the foundation is not shaky. The more I understand what God has revealed to us about our origin, the more I see clearly that the foundation stands firm. I agree with those who say it is time for the people of God to take a fresh look at the biblical account of creation. But I disagree with those who think that calls for any degree of capitulation to the transient theories of naturalism. Only an honest look at Scripture, with sound principles of hermeneutics, will yield the right understanding of the creation and fall of our race.
The Bible gives a clear and cogent account of the beginnings of the cosmos and humanity. There is absolutely no reason for an intelligent mind to balk at accepting it as a literal account of the origin of our universe. Although the biblical account clashes at many points with naturalistic and evolutionary hypotheses, it is not in conflict with a single scientific fact. Indeed, all the geological, astronomical, and scientific data can be easily reconciled with the biblical account. The conflict is not between science and Scripture, but between the biblicist’s confident faith and the naturalist’s willful skepticism.
To many, having been indoctrinated in schools where the line between hypothesis and fact is systematically and deliberately being blurred, that may sound naive or unsophisticated, but it is nonetheless a fact. Again, science has never disproved one word of Scripture, and it never will. On the other hand, evolutionary theory has always been in conflict with Scripture and always will be. But the notion that the universe evolved through a series of natural processes remains an unproven and untestable hypothesis, and therefore it is not “science.” There is no proof whatsoever that the universe evolved naturally. Evolution is a mere theory—and a questionable, constantly-changing one at that. Ultimately, if accepted at all, it must be taken by sheer faith.
How much better to base our faith on the sure foundation of God’s Word! There is no ground of knowledge equal to or superior to Scripture. Unlike scientific theory, it is eternally unchanging. Unlike the opinions of man, its truth is revealed by the Creator Himself! It is not, as many suppose, at odds with science. True science has always affirmed the teaching of Scripture. Archaeology, for instance, has demonstrated the truthfulness of the biblical record time and time again. Wherever Scripture’s record of history may be examined and either proved or disproved by archaeological evidence or reliable independent documentary evidence, the biblical record has always been verified. There is no valid reason whatsoever to doubt or distrust the biblical record of creation, and there is certainly no need to adjust the biblical account to try to make it fit the latest fads in evolutionary theory.
Again, a biblical understanding of the creation and fall of humanity establishes the necessary foundation for the Christian world-view. Everything Scripture teaches about sin and redemption assumes the literal truth of the first three chapters of Genesis. If we wobble to any degree on the truth of this passage, we undermine the very foundations of our faith.
If Genesis 1-3 doesn’t tell us the truth, why should we believe anything else in the Bible? Without a right understanding of our origin, we have no way to understand anything about our spiritual existence. We cannot know our purpose, and we cannot be certain of our destiny. After all, if God is not the Creator, then maybe He’s not the Redeemer either. If we cannot believe the opening chapters of Scripture, how can we be certain of anything the Bible says?
To those who will inevitably complain that such a view is credulous and unsophisticated, my reply is that it is certainly superior to the irrational notion that an ordered and incomprehensibly complex universe sprung by accident from nothingness and emerged by chance into the marvel that it is.
Scripture offers the only accurate explanations that can be found anywhere about how our race began, where our moral sense originated, why we cannot seem to do what our own consciences tells us is right, and how we can be redeemed from this hopeless situation.
Scripture is not merely the best of several possible explanations. It is the Word of God.
“To many, having been indoctrinated in schools where the line between hypothesis and fact is systematically and deliberately being blurred, that may sound naive or unsophisticated, but it is nonetheless a fact.” I remember growing up in Public school, and its true… My teachers were not axe grinding naturalists, but evolutionary assumptions were just the de-facto answer. It took careful examination of the details in that gap and still I lacked the faculties to resist the only tabled option… Jesus is my Hero but this guy is great! And so consistent! Glory to God, thank for Dr MacArthur.
“There are only two possibilities as to how life arose. One is spontaneous generation arising to evolution; the other is a supernatural creative act of God. There is no third possibility. Spontaneous generation, that life arose from non-living matter was scientifically disproved 120 years ago by Louis Pasteur and others. That leaves us with the only possible conclusion that life arose as a supernatural creative act of God. I will not accept that philosophically because I do not want to believe in God. Therefore, I choose to believe in that which I know if scientifically impossible; spontaneous generation arising to evolution.” (Wald, George, “Innovation in Biology,”: Scientific American, Vol. 199, Sept. 1958, p. 100).
By the way, Dr. Wald was awarded the Nobel Prize in Medicine in 1967.
The above was written 50 years ago, and it still the same today. It is not a matter of evidence - it is a matter of the heart.
Amen. It’s sad to have to spend so much time defending Scripture from attacks launched by people who say they believe it–they just don’t believe it means what it says.
I was born and raised in the world of so-called science. I wish my brothers who reject the young earth could realize that the foundations of their thinking are from the world of those spiritually blind. The cart and horse have to be in the proper order: First, the authority and inerrancy of Scripture, then the investigation of the material universe.
Thanks for this series.
How about a seies on Hermaneutics and False interpretations of the Biblical Truth?
I know that Pastor John wrote in the Study Bible some foundational truths concerning Accurate and Honest BIBLE ANALYSIS regarding HOW we approach the texts. Also I foud some very good materials in his writing of Charismatic Chaos…?
I am SURE that the world’s idea that ALL Religions are wrong based on THEIR OWN interprestations of Scripture is a valid observation; yet I am TOTALLY convinced according with truth and the Spirit, that we are to have a CORRECT Hermaneutic without any pre-suppositions, when Translation the Scriptures accurately and with a honerable intent.
After all the Scriptures are the ONLY authority by which the LORD our God speaks directly to all matters of human life.
I beg you please to do a series on Translations and Hermaneutics and a Christian’s responsibilities in Study.
I agree that the bible must be put first, and I appreciate this series of posts and plan to look carefully at the biblical arguments. That said, just because a conclusion is true does not mean arguments put forth to support it are valid. I have looked at length into the arguments claiming to either undermine or support evolution and the earth’s old age from a scientific point of view and I can’t find any against that I find persuasive, while the arguments in support I find very strong. And so I conclude that it very much *appears* that evolution occurred, and that the earth is old. As you say, science cannot finally prove anything, indeed it cannot even prove that the universe existed yesterday, and certainly God could have done anything, so I have no problem with the tension between theology and science.
Hey Phillip,
The issue would be what does scripture say? Using science to validate science is tough because all of the arguments for/against are using the same evidence just looked at in different lights. The point of the series is that scripture commands a literal 6 day creation. If your viewpoint on creation is to come from scripture then you already know how long it took and how it happened. Your pre-supposition will make all the difference. The thing is with most people they miss out on just that. EVERYONE has presuppositions. That will influence any “facts” or “finds”. According to scripture ALL unsaved are at emnity with God so there isn’t even a neutral possibility.
I am not a scientist, but I am very comfortable saying that there is no tension between theology and science. God has placed His signature in His creation, just like any painter or composer would do. Man was created in God’s image. So we bear the evidence of a creator in ourselves (Rom. 1). True science and honest scientists recognize God’s signature. Even anonimous works indicate a creator.
The tension exist only when two oposing views are forced to coexist - God and evolution.
“Faith” is simply taking God at His word. There is no tension there.
Do we have any agreement on the following points?
How long it took God to create in Genesis 1 is not logically connected to the age of the earth. We can accept that God created everything in 6 24-hour periods and that still does not tell us how long ago God did this. I’m not arguing for old or young earth here. Just making the point that the days of creation and the age of the earth are two separate issues.
The Theory of Evolution does not seek to explain how life arose from non-life. Darwin’s question was, and still is: “given life, can we explain the variety of life we see by using natural causes?” Darwin thought the answer was “yes”, but he knew nothing of genetics. As science uncovers more about genes and chromosomes and DNA and RNA, and the defense mechanisms that protect DNA from being damaged by mutations, I believe that science itself will one day answer “no” to Darwin’s question.
From the end of John MacArthur’s comments above: “If Genesis 1-3 doesn’t tell us the truth …”. My questions is, which truth? Genesis 1-3 only tells us what God wanted us to know. It does not tell us everything there is to know. Therefore, Genesis 1-3 does not tell us the truth … about all things. Genuinely Christ-centered men can agree on what Genesis 1-3 does say - that one God created all things - and still honestly disagree about what Genesis 1-3 say - how that one God created.
Can we agree that the Bible does not tell us everything that God has done throughout eternity? The Bible does not tell us all there is to know about God. It only tells us about God and us and what we need to know for salvation. Do we really believe that, in all of eternity, the only things that God has ever created are what is described in Genesis? Do we nullify God’s promises to us in the Bible if we accept the possibility that, in the course of eternity, God might have created things that the Bible makes no mention of?
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.
If true of Jesus, why not more true of God throughout eternity? Can we accept that there are things which God has done that the Bible has not told us about? And if this might be true, then it also might be true that science could uncover evidence of God’s handiwork that is not mentioned in the Bible. If science uncovers such evidence, then both scientists and theologians will be baffled. Since there is nothing in the Bible about the uncovered evidence, the scientist (wrongly) concludes it came about through macro-evolution and the theologian (rightly, by faith) concludes that God did it. And neither one can support their position. Why can this not be an accurate depiction of the situation we find ourselves in now with regard to dinosaur bones and ancient suns?
Ooops! My bad on the italics. Of the last three paragraphs, only John 21:25 was supposed to be in italics.
This sentence from above should read:
Genuinely Christ-centered men can agree on what Genesis 1-3 does say - that one God created all things - and still honestly disagree about what Genesis 1-3 does not say - how that one God created.
How long it took God to create in Genesis 1 is not logically connected to the age of the earth.
You might need to flesh this out, but on the face of it I disagree. If Adam was created on the 6th day of the Earth’s creation, then you get a young earth, because there are explicit genealogies in Genesis 5 and 11 that give the exact number of years that each man lived from Adam through Abraham, that add up to about 2000. So unless I’m missing something, we don’t agree on the first point.
Genesis 1-3 only tells us what God wanted us to know. It does not tell us everything there is to know.
This is a strawman. No one says that God included the fullness of all revelation about all things in Genesis 1-3. We agree that God told us what He wanted us to know. We disagree about what that is. You look at it and say, “God didn’t want to tell us how, just what.” I look at it and say, “God told us both how and what.” To put it another way, Genesis 1-3 tells us everything God wanted us to know about the creation of the world. Part of that is that everything was created in six days, and, from later chapters, it took about 2000 years from Adam to Abraham. The age of the earth is included in what God wanted to tell us… because it’s right there in the pages.
Do we nullify God’s promises to us in the Bible if we accept the possibility that, in the course of eternity, God might have created things that the Bible makes no mention of?
We don’t nullify God’s promises, but we do present problems for salvation and infallibility/inerrancy if we disagree that Adam was the first man created. Verse 1 says, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” So nothing was created beforehand.
If you want to argue that God created something afterwards, it’d have to be before day 7, right? To tell us about what He’s doing in one sphere as if it’s the only thing going on when it’s not doesn’t nullify salvation, but it does run contrary to the nature of God. God, by nature, is One who desires to make Himself known. He is not a God who hides things… and especially not a God who hides Himself. As the most satisfying thing imaginable, it is a God of love who reveals such satisfaction (glory) in its fullest sense. God is not in the business of hiding His glory from the creation, but of making it known to all. So your arguments don’t contradict Sola Fide, they just describe a God different than the One revealed in Scripture.
If true of Jesus, why not more true of God throughout eternity? Can we accept that there are things which God has done that the Bible has not told us about?
Of course we can. We just can’t say that what He has told us isn’t clear. This, apparently, is where the disagreement is. I look at Genesis and see the how. Others don’t. The problem isn’t that we don’t have sufficient revelation, it’s that we don’t like the revelation we’ve got.
And if this might be true, then it also might be true that science could uncover evidence of God’s handiwork that is not mentioned in the Bible.
I think this is true every day. There are things discovered that are not explicitly mentioned in the Bible, but everything truly discovered must be in accord with what is in Scripture. If there’s a “discovery” that seems to require a conclusion of an Earth billions of years old when we are told in Scripture that it’s around 6,000 years old, well we can’t accept that as “discovery.” But if we discover something that is in accord with what Scripture does say, then sure we can accept it. But again, we go back to the question, “What does Scripture actually say?”
You’ve made a valiant effort to show that the issue is inconsequential, but I hope that I’ve somehow helped you to see that it’s not the case. This is an important issue with many consequences. Please don’t try to stir up people in believing it’s not.
There are things discovered that are not explicitly mentioned in the Bible, but everything truly discovered must be in accord with what is in Scripture.
If by in accord you mean consistent with the proclamation that one God created all things, then yes. But if you mean that everything discovered on the earth or in the universe was created within the 6 days of Genesis, then you are on shaky ground. The Bible only speaks to what is required of us, we who exist in the creation described in Genesis. The Bible does not tell us explicitly that this current creation is the only thing ever created by God. And it does not make sense to think that God would put information in the Bible that does not directly pertain to us. Thus, there would be no need to include information in the Bible about other creations and any requirements God placed on these creations. And thus, it is at least conceivable that scientists could discover evidence of God’s activity that is nowhere described in the Bible.
The age of the earth is included in what God wanted to tell us… because it’s right there in the pages.
No. The age of this current creation might be right there in the pages (although reasonable men disagree on whether the geneology method can be trusted). But there is nothing there that directly speaks to the age of this earth or the universe. The Bible does not tell us when “In the beginning” was, other than that it was in the beginning. The Bible does not tell us how long the earth was without form and void. What it does say is that God spent six days turning that “without form and void” into what we have today - this current creation.
This current creation reasonably and logically starts with the first “And God said …”. The statement which comes immediately before, And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters, could belong to the indeterminate period of time that the earth was without form, and void. Or it could mark the beginning of this current creation, the movement by God that led to “And God said …”.
Note that there is a clear beginning to when the second day started. It began right after the end of the first day. So we can be absolutely certain what God did on the second and subsequent days - He did all activities described between the end of the previous day and the end of the current day. But there is no such definitive beginning of the first day given. Therefore, it is merely speculation to state when that first day began and what activities of God were included in that first day.
Note also that “In the beginning” could refer to the start of this current creation, 6,000 years ago. But there is nothing in the Bible that absolutely ties it to that interpretation. And to accept that interpretation, one would have to accept that God has existed for an eternity, but created nothing until 6,000 years ago. Perhaps that is true, and one day we will no doubt find out if it is. But I can accept the idea that the Bible tells me only what God wants me to know about this current creation and my obligations to God. In this current creation (regardless of when it began), God made man in His image, man sinned and became alienated from God, God implemented His plan of redemption and reconciliation. All this happened in this current creation, as described in the Bible. Why would your faith in what God says in the Bible about this current creation be shaken if it were true that God has done, and maybe is currently doing, other things elsewhere that we know nothing about - things that are not part of the creation story in Genesis that is told after the “In the beginning” part?
You look at it and say, “God didn’t want to tell us how, just what.” I look at it and say, “God told us both how and what.”
No. God did not tell us how at the level of atoms and molecules. Genesis tells us that all things were created by God, either through His command or through His direct action (Adam and Eve). We have no information how that came about at the levels of atoms and molecules. So we cannot say with certainty that God did not create processes first and then use those processes to create life. It is obvious that creation is still ongoing (flowers and apples and types of dogs and horses which exist today that did not exist at the time of Adam and Eve). This suggests that God created through processes (”let the earth bring forth …), and that part of creation is still going on today. And there is a reasonable argument to be made that this earth and the universe is older than 6,000 years. But that in no way means that the story of this current creation, beginning with the first “And God said”, is older than 6,000 years. The early church fathers made no mention of the Gap theory? They also made no mention of atoms and genes and chromosomes! Failing to mention them does not mean none of these things existed then. Only that they were unrecognized. Darwin’s theories would have undoubtedly been different had he known about genes and chromosomes and how they work. He failed to recognize an alternative explanation for what he observed simply because he did not know about genes and chromosomes. A fact of life is this: Our interpretation of things changes as our knowledge increases about how life operates.
We, the children of Adam and Eve, are called to honor God’s claim on us that He has outlined in the word He gave to us - the Bible. This is a truth that exists for us. If God made other things at other times and other places, whatever requirements He may have placed on those other creations has absolutely no bearing on what God requires from us. Only what God has said to us and about us in the Bible has any bearing on us. That truth remains constant, no matter what else God has done or has not done. Why, then, should it threaten your faith if it were true that God has created other things in other times and other places? That wouldn’t change the truth of God’s word to you as revealed in the Bible.
Sorry about the italics thing. I don’t know what is going on. Hopefully you can figure out where the quotes are in my post that I am responding to. They were supposed to be in italics. I started this post with the symbol to turn italics off. I won’t know if that worked until I post this.
It’s funny how many Believers “live and die” with their interpretation of Genesis 1. They are so wound up, that they are willing to outrightly dismiss any scientific evidence that contradicts their own interpretation. They attempt to dismiss science as led by a bunch of atheists who are just trying to convert all of us — please, let’s be fair and big enough to not try to persuade by adhominem and baseless attacks. Every field of study (including theology) has its share of nutcases … it doesn’t automatically translate into their status as atheists who are out to change the world.
The fact of the matter is that God is Lord of BOTH Scripture AND science! They absolutely do NOT contradict each other (because God is Lord of ALL) — we may not understand HOW they work together, but the important point is that they DO work together. The facts of geology, chemistry, and astronomy give fairly clear evidence that as far as TIME is concerned, we’ve been through a lot. The phrasing of the creation account in Genesis 1, however, appears to be fairly convincing towards a 24-hour (solar) day … except for the fact that TIME AND SEASONS as we are currently familiar with didn’t begin formal operation until the 4th day. The point I am making is that Believers who get all hung up on the time element are missing the important picture, and the most important argument to defend at all costs. These are that (1) GOD is the one who created everything, (2) That all things were created according to their own kind, (3) That all created things were “good”, and that (4) Man is God’s special creation, created in His very image. I submit that the PROCESS (the HOW of the matter) is not NEARLY as important as the RESULT (the WHAT of the matter).
The FACTS of science are absolutely neutral (otherwise the movie “Expelled” would have no basis), although there are many who try to convince us that the facts MEAN something different. Holding an “old earth” position does not automatically translate into adherance to evolutionary theory, though MacArthur’s commentary leads one to believe this. It also doesn’t mean that public school kids are “being indoctrinated” — come on, let’s be honest and stop slinging mud. You can point out bad apples, and I can point out numerous examples of teachers and curricula that simply teach the matters of scientific findings in terms of how we understand them. Science is CREATED by God and we do not need to be afraid of it, or to label it “atheistic” … we simply (humbly) need to admit that we do not fully understand the HOWs.
One additional thought …
I do not agree with MacArthur that one cannot separate Genesis 1 as allegorical and treat the rest of Genesis (or Scripture) as literal. Scripture uses many different literary forms throughout (God is not a chicken, nor is He a U.F.O.). There is a reasonable break between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 to where a literal, historical transition can certainly be made without question. Besides, one’s interpretation of the creation account does not change the FACT of that account, it simply means that we may not fully understand it.
I greatly admire many of John MacArthur’s books. In fact, I just got done reading one if them. When he shares on something I usually take the time to listen intently, but reading his opinions on different scientific things has startled me. I will have do disagree with him on this. If God truly created the Universe, then shouldn’t the discoveries that we make about it be accurate? He did give us a mind too. I’ve studied the claim that thermodynamics prohibits evolution (and I am not saying that evolution is true, I am saying that this is a bad argument that is easily shot down by evolutionists), and it doesn’t have a case. It certainly prohibits things getting more complex in a closed system, but the Earth’s system is not closed. The Earth is constantly bombarded by rays from the Sun and other stars. It is constantly having energy poured into it. It periodically passes through comet dust (meteor showers). The Earth is definitely not a closed system. We should not be using this argument to beat evolution.
Suppose that the young earth explanation of creation is correct. While making many old earth theological issues moot, it would seem that this stance creates serious problems with respect to God’s character.
Modern science is pretty certain that the earth/universe is old, based on multiple unrelated disciplines. Note that this is irrespective of the evolution vs. creation debate. What does it say about God’s character to create a young earth when most scientific evidence points to an old earth/universe? Is it within God’s divine nature to deceive Man?
Brothers,
It is important to realize the suppositional biases of the “scientist” in regards to the age of the earth. While many say that science is neutral, the fact is that the men who interpret the data are not. The methods that are quoted as absolutes, if investigated further, are based upon assumptions that do not take into account factors that can disrupt the process, thus rendering the ages given to be absolutely out of line with the actuals. When pursued further, one will find that most of these assumptions are based on circular reasoning. We all have been influenced in some way to interpret the data we see. The question is one of authority. God has clearly spoken and it takes a lot of twisting to miss His point.
With all due respect, the bias’ of individual scientists in the scientific community will only carry you so far toward a young earth/universe. For example, the age of the universe has been measured to be 13.7 ± 0.13 billion years by the WMAP satellite, which looks for faint variations in the background microwave radiation produced at the dawn of the big bang. Whatever your views are of the big bang, its discovery along with evidence that the universe is accelerating in its expansion have caused significant consternation in the scientific community. Many atheistic and agnostic scientists are extremely uncomfortable with these discoveries, because they imply a first cause that existed outside of space-time that, in essence, created space-time itself. And that sounds a lot like “ex nihilo”.
I am also disturbed by MacArthur’s somewhat “let’s not take science too seriously” tone in some discussions — I have tremendous respect for Mr. MacArthur, but disagree with his dogmatism on certain counts. I am disturbed by the movement of many Christians to simply dismiss science as “biased” or “silly” or “continually changing”, to say that “the only valid science is that which agrees with me”. Berean has wonderfully reminded us of Romans 1:20 — God created, by whatever means, and the point of the matter is that all creation proclaims His existence. Be it 10,000 years or billions of years, all creation extols God’s glory! We should be absolutely EXCITED about this, yet there are those who go running into their closets and point fingers at people who do not agree with their own interpretations.
Man’s basic problem. We care more about self and the creation than about how holy and awesome God is. So to please self, we feel we must understand everything logically through our still fallen and weak perception of reality, though we still see through a mirror darkly.
Time has perplexed man through the ages. But in believing God’s Word, one thing for me is certain. Time began “In the beginning.” If it “began” “In the beginning”, then everything in Gen. 1:1-2 must be included in the first day. A “day” is a measurement of time that we understand. God gave us His Word for us to understand. The “day” used in Genesis is defined in the text as “the evening and the morning” - the same understanding we have as the sun rising and setting - a literal 24 hour day. If vv. 1 & 2 are not included in day one, but they are included in the creation of time, then what is that measurement of time called if it is not included within the “first day?”
Besides including vv. 1 & 2 in the first day, because all of time is a reality that can be measured, we must not forget how God connects Jesus Christ to “the beginning.”
John 1:1 - “In the beginning was the Word…” We know how God created, He spoke it into existence ex nihilo. We also have Christ Himself telling us in Rev. 1:8 -
“I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the
ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which
was, and which is to come, the Almighty.”
Besides, and in addition to, “In the beginning” referring to the time element, I believe God is also telling us, from the start, that all things are in Christ. He created all things. Not only man, but angels, heaven, earth, and, yes, even time itself. Creation is, simply put, God’s revelation of His glory, and most especially in Christ, with He, that is Christ, being our God and Creator Himself.
Another reality that we must take into consideration is the affects that sin has had on all of creation (to one degree or another. For man did die spiritually, immediately, afterall.) We read about the ages that Adam and others lived to become before they physically died, and how that the average age has decreased since then. We also see how quick we are to age. What about the earth? It too is part of creation, and we read in Romans 8:22,
“For we know that the whole creation
groaneth and travaileth in pain together
until now.”
I must believe God’s Word. Sin has affected the whole creation. The age of the earth is not what it seems. Just as man does not live as long as those initially after the fall, I believe that all of creation has been affected by our sin, with an increased aging process.
Science, man’s discovery, investigation, and study of things is a wonderful thing. But we know that through the ages, our “conclusions” have to be changed many times. I believe that what we perceive in our study of things is, in many ways, hindered by the reality of all things not being as they are perceived to be because of the increased aging process caused from the curse of sin. Not only has the aging process in this “time” been affected and increased, but our ability to understand how to compute properly has been affected. While we still have many people who have the ability to think deeply in various ways, we do not understand how greatly we have been affected. We can make atomic bombs - for what?
But one day, O praise God, one of these days, He, Christ, my Lord and my God, will make all things right! “Even so, come LORD Jesus!”