In the
past, I've talked about how theories explain the evidence while the
evidence itself is neutral. Statements like, “there is no
evidence for creation” demonstrate a misunderstanding about the
nature of evidence. The things evolutionists use to support their
theory, things like fossils, rock layers, natural selection, etc, are
the same things creationists use to support their theory. There is
only one universe, after all, and we just have different theories to
explain how it got here. But I'm going to tell on myself and admit
that I have made statements before like, “there is no evidence
for evolution.” What's worse, I didn't say it hastily and
without thinking. I was very deliberate. I confess: I have done the
very thing I have just chided evolutionists for saying.
Now,
you might be asking why I would have made such a statement if I
believe it's such an ignorant statement. You may also wonder why I
would confess to it so forthrightly. Well, at the risk of sounding
hypocritical, when I have said that there is no evidence for
evolution, I did not mean it in the same way that evolutionists mean
when they say there is no evidence for creation (generally speaking,
of course). Let me explain.
Usually,
I mean it in the sense that evidence is neutral and theories are
merely attempts to explain the evidence. In that sense, there is no
evidence for any theory. Evidence doesn't speak and
doesn't endorse any theory. One might say that his theory is the
better explanation of the evidence but the evidence isn't for
the theory.
Having
said that, let me go one step further. Do you believe there is a
tooth fairy? There are millions of kids out there who do. Why? Well,
there are a few reasons. Usually, they're told by their parents that
there is a tooth fairy. Also, when they lose a tooth, they put it
under their pillow, they go to sleep, and the next morning they find
cash in place of the tooth. All of these things certainly convince
the kids that there is a tooth fairy but is it really evidence for
the tooth fairy? The existence of a tooth fairy would
certainly explain all this “evidence” but there's another
explanation that happens to be the correct one.
Evolution
is kind of like the tooth fairy. It might seem to explain the
evidence reasonably well but there's another theory that is the
correct one. Some people call creation a fairy tale but evolution is
truly a myth. It's been called a fairy tale for grown ups where a
frog turns into a prince – over millions of years. For all of its
scientific trappings, it's still a myth. The “evidence” for
evolution is nothing more than kids findings quarters under their
pillow.
God
made the world as described in Genesis. It might not be considered
scientific but it's the truth. What some people call “evidence for
evolution” is just like the evidence for the tooth fairy. It might
convince some people, but it's certainly not proof. How can something
that's not real be proven? How can something that's not real even
have evidence? It's for this reason I've sometimes said, “there
is no evidence for evolution.”
If
anyone were to ask me, “What is the most effective argument to
use against young earth creationism?,” I
would have to say it's the distant starlight problem. Actually, it's
the only objection that even gives me pause. No other
argument that I've ever heard in the support of atheism, evolution,
or Big Bang cosmology has earned a second thought from me. The only
problem I have with any of them is that, it's a big worldwide web and
I haven't been able to respond to them all yet. But the distant
starlight problem... it's like an itch that I've never been able to
scratch.
For
anyone not familiar with the problem, let me give you a quick
thumbnail of what we're talking about. Genesis
1:14-16 says, “And
God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to
divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for
seasons, and for days, and years:And
let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light
upon the earth: and it was so.And
God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the
lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.”
If God intended the stars to be for signs and seasons, it makes
sense that Adam could already see them. However, some of the stars
are very, very, very far away. The distance to stars is measured in
units called light-years.
Even though a light-year sounds like a measure of time, it's
actually a measure of distance –
it's the distance light can travel in 1 year, approximately 5.879
trillion miles. We've estimated the speed of light to be 186,000mi/s
(the speed of light is represented by the letter, c),
so if a star were 10 million light-years away, it should,
theoretically, take the light from that star 10 million years to
reach us. But if the earth is only 6,000 years old, how can we see
the light from that star? //RKBentley scratches his head//
The
first thought most people have is that God simply made the star with
its light already shining on the earth. This has been called the,
“Light in Transit” solution. The problem with that solution is
that we sometimes see astronomical events occurring in the skies. We
may see a supernova, for example, happening 50 million light-years
away but we shouldn't be able to see the supernova until 50 million
years after it happened. Did God create a beam of light, that would
shine for 6,000 years, and would eventually reveal the nova of a star
that never really existed? That hardly seems likely. If the
universe is only 6,000 years old, how could the light of a real
supernova travel 50 million light-years of distance in only 6,000
years of time and allow us to see it? That's the distant starlight
problem!
The
distant starlight problem has caused many Christians to doubt the
clear words of the Bible. It has even led to the apostasy of some.
To them, the science must be true, the universe must be old, so the
Bible must be wrong. How sad. What a lot of these same people don't
know is that even the Big Bang model has it's own time/distance
problem called the
Horizon Problem. I can discuss the Horizon Problem in another
post, but the fact that old and young universe models have a
time/distance problem suggests there is something about the way light
travels that we just haven't figured out yet. There's certainly no
need to reject the Bible because of it!
In
the past, I've talked about my preference for Dr. Russell Humphreys'
White
Hole Cosmology. I still probably lean toward that theory but,
again, I'll have to discuss it in another post because there's
another theory that I haven't discussed before. Just recently, I
came across a video that opened my eyes to the possibility of a
solution that, frankly, I had been dismissive of in the past –
namely, that the one-way speed of light is merely a convention. I'm
going to link the video below but let me try to explain it in my own
words.
Most
people would be surprised to learn that we've never thought of a
means to measure the one-way speed of light. Speed is usually
determined by the distance traveled divided by the time it took
(s=d/t). There are some problems, though, when you try to do this
with the speed of light. For example, you might try setting up a
mile long track with a clock at the end and fire a laser toward the
clock, then see how long it takes for the laser to reach the clock.
The problem is, how does the clock know when to start counting?
Well, you could run a wire from the laser to the clock that would
tell the clock when to start; the problem with this solution, though,
is that the signal would travel along the wire at the speed
of light and wouldn't reach the
clock until the laser did! What a pickle. You may be thinking of
other ways to try but, before you get ahead of yourself, I should
warn you that the video below already deals with the problems with
any solution you could probably think of.
The
only way we've been able to measure the speed of light is to shoot a
laser at a mirror, which then reflects it back to a clock at the
start. This way, we know with certainty when the laser was fired and
when the laser hit the clock – so we can calculate the time it took
to travel the distance to the mirror and back. Yet this isn't the
one-way speed of
light; it's the two-way speed of light, the time it took to travel
both
directions. What if light travels at one speed in one direction, and
a different speed in another direction? It doesn't matter what speed
the light travels either way as long as the entire trip averages out
to c. Light
could even travel at ½ c
in one direction, then instantly in the reverse direction and we
would never know it!
This
isn't some crackpot idea thought up by creationists. Einstein wrote
about this more than 100 years ago where he said that the time it
takes light to travel from A to B, will be assumed to be the same
time it takes to travel from B to A. In other words, the one way
speed of light is a convention, merely a definition we all agree to.
While
I was watching the video, my interest was piqued at about 14:02 when
the video made the following comments:
Einstein
chose the convention where the one way speed of light is always the
same. But from an experimental perspective, any other convention is
just as valid, up to and including one where the speed of light is
c/2 one way and instantaneous the other way. And in that case, it's
interesting to think about what each observer is seeing when they
look at the other. Mark [a hypothetical observer on Mars] would be
seeing the earth as it was 20 minutes ago but earth is seeing Mars in
real time, exactly as it is right now. And this effect wouldn't stop
at Mars. Look behind it, and you could see stars hundreds of
light-years away – not as they looked centuries ago but exactly as
they are right this instant.
I'm
sure the farthest thing from Veritasium's mind is solving the distant
starlight problem for young-earth creationists. They will probably
hate me for even using their video while discussing my theory. But
if the speed of light toward earth is instantaneous, then there is no
distant starlight problem!
Now,
skeptics may be asking, Why? Why should we believe the speed of
light is different in different directions? Well, there are a lot of
things we're still trying to figure out about the universe. If we
could solve this piece of the puzzle, it could unlock the other
mysteries that elude us. The video describes it this way (beginning
at 16:39):
Maybe
this is an odd quirk of the universe and there's no good reason for
it. Or maybe, when physics takes the next paradigmatic leap, our
inability to measure the one-way speed of light will be the obvious
clue to the way general relativity, quantum mechanics, space, and
time are all connected and we'll wonder why we didn't see it before.
We
should never wed ourselves to a scientific theory. Our minds are
wicked, our understanding is finite, and our hearts are deceitful and
continuously rebel against God. Theories we think are true now, may
someday go the way of blood-letting and geocentrism. Only the word
of God is sure. Still, I can't help but to think that, as we
accumulate knowledge, we are getting closer to the truth. Psalm
19:1 says, “The
heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his
handywork.”
When I look at the night sky, I can see there are a lot of stars. I
can see the universe is big. But is that all there is to it – a
big bunch of space with a lot of balls of burning gas? I don't think
so. There may be no end to its complexity and the more we learn
about the universe, the more I stand it awe of the infinite mind that
created it!
Revelation 2:17, He
that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the
churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the hidden
manna, and will give him a white stone, and in the stone a new name
written, which no man knoweth saving he that receiveth it.
In
spite of the many criticisms I've heard about the Bible, for the most
part, reading it is fairly straightforward and it's not too difficult
to understand. However, books like Revelation are admittedly a
little tougher. Certainly, Revelation is full of symbolism and while
it may not be difficult to understand the words, the meanings of the
symbols aren't always clear. Revelation 2:17is
an example of difficult symbolism. What does it mean to eat the
hidden manna? What is represented by the white stone? What is the new
name given to us? I've read many commentaries that talk about these
things but, as for the “new name,” I also have a few ideas of my
own.
There
are some family names that carry a certain impact. Think of the name,
Kennedy, for example. Anyone who is called, “a Kennedy” is
immediately identified as a person of wealth, power, and influence.
The name, Trump, has come to have a similar ring. Anyone born into
these families inherit a certain reputation simply because of their
name. Furthermore, it's not always the names of wealthy families
that are commonly recognized, names like the Hatfields and McCoys
have their own infamy.
In
Isaiah
56:5, God said, “Even
unto them will I give in mine house and within my walls a place and a
name better than of sons and of daughters: I will give them an
everlasting name, that shall not be cut off.”Names
like Vanderbilt or Rockefeller might impress people in this world.
However, the name Jehovah surpasses them all. In eternity, we will be
called His people. That's a family name worth having.
Besides
family names, the names of certain individuals carry their own
baggage. A person's name is often the equivalent of his character.
Abraham Lincoln was renown for his honesty; “Honest Abe” they
called him. Other names are notorious. Benedict Arnold was a
brilliant general who led his troop to many victories over the
British yet now his name is synonymous with traitor. John Wilks
Booth was a handsome man and acclaimed actor. Even though he was the
Brad Pitt of his day, when people hear his name, they only remember
him as an assassin.
God is
the perfect Judge. When we stand before Him, our earthly reputations
mean nothing. No matter how many good things I may have tried to do
here on earth, when I stand in judgment, I will be known only by my
sins. I will be called a liar, thief, adulterer, blasphemer,
sluggard, and murderer. In Christ, though, I am justified. I won't be
remembered forever as the person I am now. I will be called
righteous, redeemed, ransomed, reconciled, and loved. I will be
called a child of God.
Your
sins don't necessarily define you. What's more important is your
relationship with Jesus. No matter what your past, you can be called
forgiven. We can rejoice that Revelation promises us a new name!
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've
been writing a point by point reply to each of the video's 10
arguments. This will be my last point in this series. Links to all
my previous videos in this series will be listed at the bottom.
POINT
#1 (beginning at 17:09): Genesis
1:1, “In
the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.”
The
video alleges,This may come as a shock to
you, but the very first verse of the Bible can create difficulties
for young earth models. The reason is, over the last few decades,
scholars have noted the first verse lacks a definite article in
Hebrew. So the way we translate it may not be accurate. Instead,
scholars... have argued, it would make more sense to translate it as,
“When God began to create the heavens and the earth,” What this
would mean is that verse one is no longer a complete sentence, but
what we would call a dependent clause and an incomplete sentence. So
this would mean that verse 1 is dependent on the following clause,
which is in verse 2. So Genesis is really saying, “When God began
to 'bara' the heavens and the earth, the earth was formless and
void.” In other words, when God started 'bara'-ing the heavens and
the earth, it was already there as formless and void.
Wow.
Just as I had discussed in my last post in this series, the video
seems to leave open the possibility that Elohim is not the Creator of
the universe. IP only portrays God as continuously shaping already
existing matter but they never seem to definitively attribute the
creation of matter to God. It's very strange.
It's
always been a pet peeve of mine when people appeal to the original
language to claim the passage doesn't really mean what the
translation says. When I began learning Greek, this practice began
to annoy me even more. I understand that translation is more of an
art than a science but if you read the same verse in several
translations, even a lay person can have a very good understanding of
the author's intended meaning in the original language. To suggest
that a verse in its original language means something radically
different than its translation is a tactic usually employed by groups
like Jehovah's Witnesses.
IP
is making an argument about how Genesis 1:1 should be translated. I
doubt that Michael
Jones (IP's founder and the video's narrator) can actually read
Hebrew. I'm almost certain that most of the English speaking people
who watch his videos cannot read Hebrew either. As such, most people
lack the ability to judge the credibility of the video's translation.
Now,
in all fairness, I don't read Hebrew either. But since I'm fairly
well studied in Greek, I've learned a few things about how grammar
works in different languages. Since most people who read my blog are
English speaking, I'm going to primarily discuss the errors in IP's
English grammar but I'll show you how it applies to the Hebrew at the
end. Sound fair? I don't want to make this whole post a
grammar lesson but there's going to be a lot grammar being discussed.
I apologize in advance.
IP's
argument hinges on the fact that the word “beginning” in
Genesis 1:1 lacks a definite article. Really, that's the entirety of
their argument. They're saying the Hebrew says beginning and
not the beginning and somehow that changes the entire meaning
of verses 1 and 2. So I'm going to start by explaining articles.
In
English, the definite article is the word the.
We also have an indefinite article – the word a – but
Hebrew lacks an indefinite article. Generally speaking, the use of a
definite article, narrows the scope of the noun it modifies. A
book becomes the book,
for example. However, even in English, nouns may not have an article
at all. If I said, “John plays baseball,”
John is still a
definite noun even though it lacks the definite article. In another
example, if I'm talking about a movie I'd seen, I might say, “Its
ending dragged on.” In that
case, ending is still
a definite noun even though it lacks an article. After all, the
movie had only one ending,
right?
Now
that we're clear on articles, you also need to understand parts of
speech. In English, do you know the difference between begin
and beginning?
Here's a hint: begin
is a verb and beginning
is a noun. OK, that was more than a hint but I want you to see
clearly that these are different parts of speech. This one is a
little harder but do you know the difference between created
and to
create?
Created
is a simple, past-tense verb and to
create
is an infinitive.
Are
you still with me? Now we'll look at the subject verse. First, as
we've already seen, the lack of a definite article doesn't
necessarily mean the noun is indefinite. To insert the indefinite
article would render the translation as, “In
a beginning,...”
which is nonsensical. Just as the movie in my example above only had
one ending,
so also did the universe have only one beginning.
Therefore, “In
the beginning...”
is the most obvious translation. By the way, John
1:1 in Greek also lacks a definite article and translators insert
the
in there was well: In
the
beginning, was the word....”
After
saying all that, here is the glaring problem with IP's argument: In
order to accomplish their dubious translation, they have to change
the noun beginning
into the verb began and
they have to change the verb created
into the infinitive to
create all
on the flimsy grounds that beginning
lacks a definite article! Begin
and beginning
may resemble each other, but they are still different parts of
speech. Basically, the video is trying to conjugate a noun! It's
rather hilarious. I know Mr. Jones isn't a Hebrew scholar but even
his grasp of English is suspect.
Nerds,
er... I mean people...
like me, who have studied languages, understand a concept known as
morphology
(word forms). English is not considered to be a heavily inflected
language – that is, our words don't change form much, regardless of
how they are used in a sentence. Take the noun, child,
for example; the plural is children
and
the possessives are child's
and children's.
That's 4 forms for one word. In Greek, there are 10 forms for a
normal noun (singular and plural nouns used in 5 different cases).
I
bring up morphology because we can recognize words in other languages
based on their form. In Genesis 1:1, the word translated as “In
the beginning,”
is a single word, reshith
(בְּרֵאשִׁ֖ית,
Strong's word
7225). We can tell by its form that it is a singular, feminine
noun being used as a preposition. In other words, the Hebrew
morphology of this word shows us – without question – that this
is a noun. It's
not a verb!
It's not debatable.
As
IP said, it's only been “over
the last few decades”
that liberal scholars have come up with this notion that the lack of
an article somehow turns a noun into a verb. Yet, keep in mind that
we've studied the OT for millennia and Hebrew is a language that is
still spoken! How is it that no one has come up with this unusual
translation before now? I ask rhetorically because the reason is
obvious. No one translates it that way because Hebrew doesn't work
that way. I don't want to slight the Hebrew scholars that IP relies
on to arrive at their understanding because, for all I know, they are
misrepresenting those scholars just as they misrepresent Scripture.
But I dismiss the the video's translation in its entirety. It's
amateurish and demonstrates how a little knowledge can be dangerous.
Conclusion
In
the first few minutes of the video, the narrator accused young earth
creationists of believing, “that
Christians, who believe the earth is old, have to misconstrue or
reinterpret passages to make the Bible fit with an ancient earth and
the theory of evolution.”
After having reviewed all 10 points, I hope that you can see clearly
that misconstruing and reinterpreting Scripture was all
that the video offered to support its claims.
According
to this video, God may not actually be the Creator who made the
universe out of nothing, death may not be the penalty for sin but was
something God had planned all along, and Adam wasn't even the first
person but came after a world full of people had already lived and
died. It's bizarre when someone claims to believe the Bible but
never seems to understand the ordinary meaning of any passage he
reads.
I
didn't think any of the 10 points presented a problem for young earth
creationism. Instead, I believe it highlights the dangerous gospel
of theistic evolution. It's easy for people to say the creation
account is merely poetry; but when they try to dig in and explain
what Genesis “really means,” we're left with a confusing message
that turns Scripture into gibberish. To say there
was no Creator, no Adam, no first sin, and no judgment but you still
need Jesus
is a gospel that saves no one!
I
remind you of Jesus' rebuke of the Pharisees in John
5:39-47:
Search
the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they
are they which testify of me. And ye will not come to me, that ye
might have life. I receive not honour from men. But I know you, that
ye have not the love of God in you. I am come in my Father's name,
and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye
will receive. How can ye believe, which receive honour one of
another, and seek not the honour that cometh from God only? Do
not think that I will accuse you to the Father: there is one that
accuseth you, even Moses, in whom ye trust. For had ye believed
Moses, ye would have believed me; for he wrote of me. But if ye
believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?
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
#3 (beginning at 13:37):Genesis
1:28,
“And
God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply,
and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the
fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living
thing that moveth upon the earth.”
According
to the video, As
noted before, young earth believers say, before the Fall, the earth
was blissful and perfect, with no death or suffering. But Genesis
1:28 suggests the opposite was true. Humanity is told to subdue the
earth and have dominion over all animals. In Hebrew, these words are
extremely harsh. The first word is used of war conquest and
enslavement. The second word refers to ruling harshly over someone
or oppression. So God is telling humans to make a war-like conquest
on the earth because it needs subdued, implying the earth wasn't
perfect and humanity was elected to transform the earth into a better
place.
The
word translated as subdue
is the Hebrew word kabash
(כָּבַשׁ,
Strong's
word 3533). I don't read Hebrew, but when I first saw the word,
I suspected it to be the root of the English word, kibosh,
but it isn't. Shucks. Anyway, according to Strong's, the word is, “A
primitive root; to tread down; hence, negatively, to disregard;
positively, to conquer, subjugate, violate -- bring into bondage,
force, keep under, subdue, bring into subjection.”
I suppose if we were talking about a person or even a group, subduing
them would sound like a bad thing. However, we're talking about the
literal ground here, and since the word at its root means to tread
down or trample, it could mean God is saying “beat
a path”
and travel to all the earth and that Adam and his descendants could
lay claim to a piece of land and own it. Remember that, in the same
sentence, God commands them to multiply and fill
the earth.
But
what if this doesn't mean simply to tread
upon
the earth? What if it means subdue
in the violent sense? Again, we're still talking about the literal
earth. Cutting down a tree to build a house or plowing the ground to
make a garden, hardly seems like God was calling them to a “war-like
conquest”
of the earth!
The
word translated as have
dominion
is the Hebrew word radah
(רָדָה,Strong's word 7287).
Interestingly, the root of this word also means to
tread down,
but it is generally understood to mean reign, rule, dominate. Again,
I don't think this means to violently rule over animals or make
war
with them! God is telling Adam that the whole earth is his and that
he is superior to the animals.
A
few years back, I read an article about celebrating Earth Day that
said, “More
than one billion people from almost every single country on earth
will take an action in service to our planet.”
Being good stewards of the earth's resources is one thing; serving
the earth is quite another. God didn't create Adam so that he might
be a servant to the earth – He gave Adam the earth to be of service
to him! Genesis 1:28 makes that clear.
Concerning
the treatment of the animals, the video says, The
scholar Joshua John Van Ee notes the use of the second word for
ruling over the animals seems to suggest humans had the right to use
animals for any purpose, like food and clothing, implying they
already had the right kill and eat animals.
I
agree that Adam had the right to use animals for service: maybe a dog
as a companion, a sheep for its wool, a horse to ride or carry
things, and a ox to plow the ground. But to say that Adam had the
right to kill and eat animals seems to be contrary to the very next
verse (v.
29), “And
God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is
upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the
fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.”
Adam was specifically told that plants were intended to be his food
– not the flesh of animals!
You
have probably noticed a common theme throughout this entire video.
IP makes a very tortured interpretation of a verse, tells you what
their interpretation “implies,”
and ignores the plain meaning of other verses that directly
contradict their interpretation. In this case, ruling
over the animals “implies” God is telling Adam he can kill/eat
the animals, yet ignores the next verse where God tells Adam to eat
the plants! What terrible hermeneutics!
POINT
#2 (beginning at 15:03): Bara
Number
2 is not so much a passage but the use of a Hebrew word, bara. Many
young earth creationists believe this word refers to God creating out
of nothing and it is used frequently throughout Genesis 1. But
looking at how the word is used outside of Genesis 1, implies bara
doesn't necessarily mean creation out of nothing. It might not even
refer to material creation at all. John Walton has done a full
semantic analysis on the word and he points out the word never
necessarily means creation out of nothing and there are several times
it cannot mean that at all.
Did
you notice how the video kept qualifying its argument by saying bara
doesn't necessarily
mean create out of nothing? The ordinary definition of the word bara
(בָּרָא,
Strong's word 1254)
is to
shape, create
but yes, it's true it doesn't necessarily
mean to create out of nothing. However, sometimes it means to create
out of nothing!
In
biblical exegesis, this is a fallacy known as the
unwarranted adoption of an expanded semantic field.
Many words have more than one meaning. The error occurs when a
person asserts that since the word could have another meaning, then
it does have another meaning. A common example of this occurs when
skeptics point out that the word day
(yom,
יוֹם,
Strong's word 3117)
used in Genesis, doesn't necessarily
mean a 24-hour day; therefore, the days in Genesis aren't literal
days. The reason this is a fallacy is because the word can most
certainly mean an ordinary day – regardless of whatever other
meanings the word may have. This is the fallacy IP commits
concerning the word bara.
They are saying that since the word is later used to mean, create
out of already existing material,
it means God didn't create the world out of nothing, either.
I
would like to point out that IP didn't cite a specific verse to
challenge the use of the verb. I'm sure this was intentional because
they didn't want to be pinned down to any specific instance.
Remember, they want to give the impression that God didn't speak
everything into existence but, rather, that He shaped and formed an
already existing earth. This begs the question: where did the
formless, shapeless earth come from? Unless IP is invoking an
infinite regress, then at some point in the past, there had to be a
creation out
of nothing.
Bara
is first used in Genesis
1:1, “In
the beginning God created (bara) the heaven and the earth.” Does
IP seriously want to assert that bara
in this verse cannot mean Elohim created out of nothing?! Then who
created the heavens and earth that God later shaped? Such an
interpretation is not only absurd, it borders on blasphemy!
In
John's gospel, we are told that Jesus is the Creator who was with God
and who was God in the beginning. John
1:3 attests, “All
things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that
was made.”
A literal translation of the Greek creates an emphatic sounding, “not
even one thing”
was made without Him. So regardless of what other meanings bara
may have, it must necessarily
include to
create out of nothing!
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
#5 (beginning at 10:13): Jeremiah
4:23-26,
I
beheld the earth, and, lo, it was without form, and void; and the
heavens, and they had no light.I
beheld the mountains, and, lo, they trembled, and all the hills moved
lightly.I
beheld, and, lo, there was no man, and all the birds of the heavens
were fled.I
beheld, and, lo, the fruitful place was a wilderness, and all the
cities thereof were broken down at the presence of the Lord, and by
his fierce anger.
The
video explains: [The
prophet] Jeremiah used very similar language from Genesis 1 to
metaphorically describe the fallen northern kingdom of Israel. In
Jeremiah 4, the prophet is warning Judah that they will be desolated
like the northern kingdom if they do not repent. In doing so, he
described what happened in northern Israel by heavily borrowing from
Genesis 1... Jeremiah is simply using this language to
metaphorically say the northern kingdom no longer functions properly.
But if the same language is used in reverse in Genesis 1, that
implies all it is saying, is God took a disordered cosmos and made it
function properly... Thus, within the Scriptures itself, the
implication is the language of Genesis 1 does not mean literal,
material creation and, therefore, is not necessarily refer to a
literal six day creation.
The
video really makes a stretch here. It tries to make hay of how
Jeremiah used similar language from Genesis 1 – but in reverse
order – to describe the fall of northern Israel. Somehow,
Jeremiah's metaphoric description of the un-creation of the northern
kingdom (un-creation is my word), is evidence that God's creation of
the world in Genesis 1 is also metaphoric. Yeah, that's a really big
stretch.
I
wonder if IP realizes that Jeremiah most certainly had read Genesis?
Also, his audience most likely had read Genesis also. Using language
borrowed from such a widely known event, probably helped Jeremiah
paint a very vivid picture that his readers would understand. I
don't see exactly how that necessarily means the original account was
a metaphor.
During
the Constitutional Convention, when deliberations seemed to stall and
tempers started to rise, Ben Franklin made his famous call
to prayer:
I
have lived, Sir, a long time and the longer I live, the more
convincing proofs I see of this truth – that God governs in the
affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without
his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid?
We have been assured, Sir, in the sacred writings that "except
the Lord build they labor in vain that build it." I firmly
believe this; and I also believe that without his concurring aid we
shall succeed in this political building no better than the Builders
of Babel.[excerpt]
Franklin
used the building of the Tower of Babel as a metaphor for the
building of a new nation. He borrowed the fallen sparrow from the
Sermon on the Mount to remind the Founding Fathers of the omniscience
of God. Everyone hearing him would have immediately recognized these
references. Does this mean the Tower of Babel was necessarily
a metaphor? Does it mean there was no Sermon on the Mount? Does God
not really notice when a sparrow falls? The video's entire point is
non
sequitur.
Consider,
too, John
1:1, “In
the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word
was God.”
That sounds a little like Genesis
1:1 doesn't it? It further describes the Word as the Creator who
made everything. John
1:3 says, “All
things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that
was made.”
Most scholars agree that John intentionally borrowed from Genesis
when writing his gospel. Of course, Jesus is literally
the word who was with God and was God and He literally
created everything. IP can't believe Jesus is a metaphor, right?
So, by their own logic, since John is using the same language as
Genesis 1 to describe something literally true, it must mean Genesis
1 is literal too!
The
video is making the same error it has made numerous times already.
It is taking an obvious metaphor, and using it to argue that history
is metaphor too. I could make a metaphor out of Abe Lincoln or Paul
Bunyan. How well my audience knows the original story helps
determine how effective my metaphor is. But my use of a metaphor has
no bearing on the authenticity of account from where I borrowed it.
The
video alleges, The
most popular objection, used against young earth creationism, is the
fact that nights and days exist before the sun, which was created on
day 4. Days and nights cannot exist without the earth rotating and
moving around the sun. Young earth believers often reply by
suggesting maybe there was another light source or they will argue
that maybe God made the light on day 1 and then gathered it together
into the sun on day 4....This
whole response from young earth creationists is simply contrived and
ad hoc.
I
object to the characterization that creationists suggest, “maybe
there was another light source.”
The Bible is very clear that there was light on day 1. Exactly what
was this source of light is the subject of much speculation but the
fact that the light existed on day 1 is clearly attested in the
Bible. As a matter of fact, it's rather remarkable that God
separated the creation of light from the creation of the sun.
Certainly, even the unscientific ancients understood that the sun
gives light so for the Bible to proclaim that God gives light without
the sun must have stunned to those cultures that worshiped the sun.
I
will grant that the day/night cycle seems to imply the earth is
already rotating, but isn't a light shining on a rotating earth all
you need to have days and nights? I don't understand why IP insists
“day
and night cannot exist”
without the sun. I hate to put IP in the same camp as sun-worshipers
but why do they seem to believe God must rely on the sun to give
light? I can only remind them of the New Jerusalem discussed in
Revelation
21:23, “And
the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it:
for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light
thereof.”
The
video continue, A
more likely explanation is that the sun and moon are just elected to
serve as signs for seasons and for days and years. Instead of being
materially created. And this is what Genesis 1 is actually saying.
I
agree that God said, (v.
14-15) “Let
there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from
the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days,
and years: And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven
to give light upon the earth: and it was so.”
IP wants us to believe that's all
Genesis 1 is saying. The video ignores v.
16-17, which say “And
Godmade
two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser
light to rule the night: hemade
the stars also. And God
set them
in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth.”
You
can see what's happening. IP is claiming that the sun and moon
already existed and is trying to interpret the text to mean God merely
appointed them to be markers for days and years and seasons. The
correct order of events as they are described in Genesis 1 is that
God wants the sun and moon to be for days and nights then
He made them and placed them in heaven to serve that role.
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
#7 (beginning at 6:20): Genesis
3:22, “And the Lord God
said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil:
and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of
life, and eat, and live for ever.”
The
video alleges that Adam and Eve were created as mortals. The Fall
didn't change anything about their bodies; God merely put them out of
the Garden for their disobedience and, thus, cut off access to the
Tree of Life. The following is their argument in IP's own words:
The
implication numerous scholars have pointed out is Adam and Eve were
already mortal and the only way they obtained immortality in the
Garden was eating continuously from the Tree of Life. To make them
mortal again, all God had to do was prevent access to this sacred
tree. But that means humans were already mortal before the Fall and
only granted immortality through a special fruit – not because they
were created with immortal bodies.
This
biggest problem I have with this point is that it doesn't reconcile
with the rest of Scripture. Consider Romans 5:12-15,
“Wherefore,
as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so
death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: (For until the
law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no
law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them
that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who
is the figure of him that was to come. But not as the offence, so
also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be
dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by
one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.”
This
passage is unambiguous that death entered into the world because Adam
sinned. Creationists generally believe this even includes the death
of animals but, at the very least, it means the death of men. Yet
what IP is saying is Adam was always mortal and would have been kept
alive forever only by eating continuously from the Tree of Life. But
what if hadn't eat from the Tree of Life continuously? If what IP is
saying is correct, Adam would have died – even
if he hadn't sinned! That
is absurd.
So
that I'm not accused of making a straw man of IP's argument, let me
quote directly from the video (beginning about 7:43):
This
is also supported by the fact that Adam is called dust, which is an
idiom in the Bible to denote that one is mortal. In Genesis, it
might just be metaphorical language to denote that he was a mortal
human – meaning Adam was mortal before the Fall which implies
death was a possibility before sin entered. [bold added for
emphasis]
Theistic
evolution borders on heresy. According to this false-gospel, death
is not the consequence of sin; it's that way God intended things to
be and it's been that way for billions of years. It is an insult to
God that seems to me to be blasphemy.
God
created man to be immortal and He intended the Tree of Life to give
its fruit in a creation where nothing died. How can I know this?
Because the Tree of Life will also be in the new creation. Consider
Revelation
22:1-2 which says, “And
he shewed me a pure river of water of life, clear as crystal,
proceeding out of the throne of God and of the Lamb. In the midst of
the street of it, and on either side of the river, was there the tree
of life,
which bare twelve manner of fruits, and yielded her fruit every
month: and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the
nations.”
Now, we know for certain there will be neither death nor pain nor
sorrow in heaven (Revelation
21:4). Am I to believe I will enter heaven with a mortal body
and will only be kept alive by continuously eating its special fruit?
It's nonsense. In fact, this whole point is ridiculous. Let us
hurry and be rid of it!
POINT
#6 (beginning at 8:05): Genesis 2:4, “These
are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were
created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the
heavens.”
From
the video, Young
earth creationists often argue that Genesis 2 is a recap of what
takes place on day 6, within Genesis 1, when God made humans. But
Genesis 2:4 poses a problem for suggesting the chapter is a recap.
The verse begins with, “These are the generations of the heavens
and the earth when they were created.” This is what scholars call
a toledoth and it is used throughout Genesis almost like chapter
markers for the ancient audience. However, when this phrase is used,
it always introduces what comes after the person or the generations
that follow him. It is never used to denote a recap of something
that happened prior to this.
IP
is about half right here. Genesis 2:4 is called a toledoth and
toledoths are a sort of marker that divides the text. The contention
is, do they belong to the text before them or after them? According
to IP, it always
introduces what follows and never
recaps the text before it. The video seems very confident about
this. But if you listen to the video's argument, I want you to hear
what conclusion IP draws from this assumption.
After
God establishes the cosmos, He then hones in on one region on the
earth to create a garden environment. But this would mean that what
is commonly viewed as the creation of the first man in Genesis 2
(Genesis 2:7), is not actually the creation of the first man since in
the prequel to Genesis 2, God elects all humans to be His image –
and this would take place before Genesis 2 and before Adam is
believed to have been created from dust.
Toledoths
are something scholars continue to debate. However, IP, whom I
assume is not a scholar, so grossly abuses the Genesis 2:4 toledoth,
that he uses it to justify the idea that a world full of people lived
prior to Adam! Once again, their point seems to fly in the face of
Romans 5, cited above, that says people did not die prior to Adam.
Unbelievable!
The
reason toledoths are the subject of much inquiry, is because scholars
are puzzled by them. In modern thinking, especially in the west, we
generally view a text like this as sort of a headline that introduces
something. Yet when we read the text that follows each toledoth, it
makes the “headline theory” seem sort of awkward. In the subject
verse, Genesis 2:4, the headline seems to be, “These
are generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created.”
Yet the verses that immediately follow talk about the creation of
the Garden and of Adam. There is no talk at all about the creation
of things like the sun, moon, and stars (i.e., “the heavens”),
for example. So if that telodoth is supposed to introduce what
follows, it's a rather poor description of the passage that
immediately follows it.
The
rest of chapter 2, and next couple of chapters that follow, talk
about the life of Adam. I encourage you to take a minute and read
Genesis 2-4 right now. It talks about the creation of Adam and Eve,
about their Fall, about Cain killing Abel and God giving Eve another
son, Seth, after Abel was killed. Which then leads us to the second
toledoth of the book, Genesis
5:1, “This
is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created
man, in the likeness of God made he him;”
Just
as IP is not a scholar, neither am I. Yet I appeal to the average
person's ability to judge the text for himself. Doesn't Genesis 2:4
seem to describe well Genesis 1? And doesn't Genesis 5:1 seem to
describe well the section between Genesis 2:4 and the end of Genesis
4? I suggest to you that toledoths are not headlines but are
conclusions! In recent decades, there has been research in this area
that lends weight to my position. I present the following (source):
While
touring Mesopotamia in the Royal Air Force in the early 1900s,
[British Air Commodore PJ] Wiseman developed a strong interest in
ancient civilizations and archaeology. During this time, he visited
several archaeological dig sites where thousands of ancient written
documents in the form of clay tablets had been unearthed. Though,
not an archaeologist himself, he did manage to gain access to some of
the greatest archaeologists of his day and attain invaluable insights
from them.... It was during this time Wiseman became familiar with
some of the literary practices of ancient scribes—in particular,
their use of colophons.
Put simply, colophons
are
concluding remarks found at the end of written documents which
identify the author or owner of the document, along with other
important information. Wiseman noticed that most of the tablets
discovered contained these concluding signatures and soon made the
connection between them and the Genesis toledoth. What if these
phrases were not titles? What if they were concluding remarks per
the literary customs of that era, and what if the names attached were
not in reference to subject-matter, but rather owner/authorship?
When
IP so boldly proclaims that toledoths never
recap or punctuate the text that precedes them, they are either
ignorant of the research that contradicts their opinion or they are
intentionally omitting that fact, hoping their audience won't
research it for themselves.
