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!
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!
Read the entire series:
No comments:
Post a Comment