Rebuttal: InspiringPhilosophy's 10 Biblical Problems for Young Earth Creationism: Part 2

I don't recall when I first came across the ministry, InspiringPhilosophy (IP). According to their “About us” page, they are an apologetics ministry and describe themselves as, “a nonprofit Christian organization with the goal of spreading and defending the Gospel of Jesus Christ.” I'd say they're sincere. I've seen a lot of their videos on YouTube and some of them are really good. Of course, there's probably not anyone with whom I agree 100% of the time and my point of contention with IP is their confrontational attitude toward young earth creationism (YEC).

There are other Christian apologists who compromise on the issue of origins but not all of them are as in your face about it as IP. IP doesn't just disagree with creationism; they produce a lot of material to try refute it. One particular video they've made is TOP TEN Biblical Problems for Young Earth Creationism. As the title suggests, they present 10 passages from the Bible which, they claim, don't reconcile easily with a young earth. I invite you to watch the entire video for yourself.

I'd like to write a point by point rebuttal of each item. As much as I dislike writing series, I see no choice but to respond in a series of posts. Depending on the length of my reply, I will respond to 1 or 2 points at a time. Please keep checking back.

POINT #9 (beginning at 3:30): Genesis 8

When discussing Noah's Flood, the video seems to question the meaning of the term, whole earth, being used by the Bible. I've transcribed much of the point so you can understand IP's claim.

https://unsplash.com/@1mann

When Genesis records that God flooded the earth it should be understood as literally the entire globe because it said the waters covered the face of the whole earth. But there is a problem with this view in Genesis 8. Verses 4 and 5 say the ark came to rest in the mountains of Ararat or Aratu and the tops of the mountains could be seen at this point. However, later in the chapter Noah releases a dove and it returns to him because the waters were still on the face of the whole earth. But didn't verse 5 say the tops of the mountains were seen? So verse 9 cannot mean the waters were literally covering the whole earth, implying the entire flood account might be hyperbolic in its description of the flood.

In other words, since verse 5 says mountains could already be seen, then verse 9 cannot literally mean waters covered the whole earth. I guess the conclusion IP wants us to draw is that whole earth never means the entire face of the earth anywhere in the Flood account. Am I presenting that fairly? OK, let's address that.

I admit that it's rather ordinary for people to sometimes use words like “all,” “whole,” or “every” and still not mean, “universal.” It was done in the Bible and we still do it today. However, sometimes words like this do indeed mean “universal.” Let's look at example in the context of the Flood.

Genesis 7:21-23, “And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man: All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died. And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark.”

My question then is this: When it says every man outside the Ark perished in Flood, does that mean absolutely every one? I ask rhetorically because obviously it does. This is significant because, in exactly the same context, it also says every living thing on dry land which breathed air also died. Can you see how that would be a problem for a local flood theory? If Noah's Flood were a local flood, only a tiny fraction of animals – namely, those living in the flood area – would have been affected. By no ordinary use of language would someone understand animals dying in a flooded area to mean every living substance was destroyed from the earth!

Consider, too, the language used to describe the extent of the Flood in Genesis 7:18-20, “And the waters prevailed, and were increased greatly upon the earth; and the ark went upon the face of the waters. And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered. Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered. ”

This language is also significant. Certainly, the peak of a mountain cannot be under water unless the entire mountain is under water and this passage says all the high hills under the whole heaven were under more than 20 feet of water. If this is intended to describe a global flood, I'm not sure how the Bible could have been more descriptive!

But doesn't the Bible say that the tops of the mountains could still be seen? Yes, but it was only after the waters began to abate. Genesis 8:1-5, “And God remembered Noah, and every living thing, and all the cattle that was with him in the ark: and God made a wind to pass over the earth, and the waters assuaged; The fountains also of the deep and the windows of heaven were stopped, and the rain from heaven was restrained; And the waters returned from off the earth continually: and after the end of the hundred and fifty days the waters were abated. And the ark rested in the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the month, upon the mountains of Ararat. And the waters decreased continually until the tenth month: in the tenth month, on the first day of the month, were the tops of the mountains seen.”

I feel like I could say more but I don't see the need. The text indeed is clear, just read the passage for yourself. It was only after months of the water retreating before the tops of the mountains could be seen yet, even then, waters still covered virtually the entire earth. In a few more passages after this, the Bible continues using the term whole earth, but we can understand that to mean virtually the entire earth. Yet it is from these later verses that IP argues that whole earth never means global.

Shame on them.

Point #8 (beginning at 5:00): Genesis 2:24, “Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.”

https://unsplash.com/@jonathanborba

The video explains, In my debate with Kent Hovind, I asked if he takes all of Genesis 1 and 2 literally, and he replied... [shows a clip of Hovind], “Absolutely!” But this is actually impossible because Genesis 2:24 cannot be understood literally. After Adam is introduced to Eve, it reads, “Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.” Since married couples are new sewn together this obviously cannot be understood as literal.”

We see, yet again, how the video is conflating the terms “literal” and “plain” reading. The narrator is trying to pull a gotcha with Kent Hovind when he asks if Hovind believes Genesis, “literally.” Hovind may have been rash to say, “Absolutely,” but I know what he means. Hovind and I believe mostly the same things about the days of Genesis described in Chapters 1 and 2. The six days are literal days and the events happened exactly as how they are described.

Even Genesis 2:24 is more literal than IP would have us believe. When God introduced Eve to Adam, his first words were (v. 23), “This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.” Remember that God made Eve from one of Adam's ribs. She was literally his flesh and blood!

Today, married couples aren't literally the same flesh as was the case of the first couple. Even so, marriage is a significant event, just as God had intended it to be. We sometimes call our children, siblings, and parents our “flesh and blood.” We do this because we have a very close, biological relationship. Normally, our spouse would never be that closely related to us. However, marriage unites us in a very real way. Our spouse becomes as close a kin as our biological siblings or our own parents. This is why we even call a married couple by the same name!

This may be anecdotal but I think it illustrates this point very nicely. My mother has made it a tradition every year at Christmas to give money to her children, grandchildren, and their spouses. The first year my wife had Christmas with us, my mother gave her money. My wife was surprised and told my mother she didn't have to do that and that she wasn't expecting anything. My mother said, “Why not? You're a Bentley, aren't you?” Yes! My wife is a Bentley. She is my flesh and blood – my kin – and is as much a Bentley as I am.

The video has made 2 errors in this point. First, Adam and Eve were one flesh in the literal sense. And second, the video here is doing the same thing it did in point #9; it's taking a single figure of speech and using that as evidence that the entire passage is figurative. They're saying that because a figurative expression is being used in one verse to describe a very real uniting of husbands and wives, then none of Genesis 1 and 2 can be literal!

Shame on them again.

Read the entire series:

Part 1

Part 3

Part 4

Part 5

Conclusion