Maybe I’m showing my age but I think Monty Python is one of the funniest comedy groups ever. If you can look past their bad language, innuendo, and irreverent humor, their comedic genius sets them apart from most comedians. Their gags are sort of off-the-wall but it’s not slap stick. It’s certainly not low brow. Some of their scenes are high IQ and work on many levels to poke fun at social norms.
Arguably, their 2 best movies are Monty Python’s Life of Brian and Monty Python and the Holy Grail. Both have an overtly religious (albeit irreverent) theme with lots of political humor thrown in for good measure. In The Holy Grail, the guard scene is one of my favorites. It’s only a couple of minutes long but take a moment to watch it. I promise you’ll be amused.
Isn’t that hilarious? Anyway, I’m going somewhere with this. You noticed that I asked in the title of this post if there was something we could learn about the Bible from Monty Python? Normally, I wouldn’t recommend getting theological pointers from comedians but, in this case, we can use it as a sort of “what not to do” when reading the Bible.
Do these guards remind you of anyone? Think hard. Don’t feel bad if you can’t think of anyone because I didn’t notice it for a long time. Eventually, though, it sort of clicked. These guards remind me of Christians who claim to believe the Bible but still believe in evolution!
Let me explain. The guards in this skit were given very clear instructions: stay here and make sure the prince doesn’t leave the room. Yet as simple as that sounds, the guards just didn’t seem to get it. The king kept repeating the commands very slowly and even asked them to repeat them back to him - correcting them every time they strayed from the directive. And just when he thought they understood everything, the guards started to follow the king out of the room proving they didn’t understand anything at all! //RKBentley chuckles//
Genesis is a very straightforward and plainly written account of the creation. Even a simpleton could read it and plainly see that it says God created the world in six days and then rested on the seventh. The creation event was a week long. It wasn't millions or billions of years. It wasn't a long progression of creation events over countless generations. There isn't a catastrophe and reconstruction wedged in between verses one and two. It's a simple account of a miraculous event. It's hard to misunderstand.
Yet despite the fact that it is so clearly written, there are millions of people out there that don't seem to be able to understand the clear meaning of the words. “How long is a day?,” I've heard them ask. Next they will say, “The Bible only tells us that God did it and science tells us how.” Excuse me? Are they reading the same text as me? The Bible says that God spoke and it happened. He created light on the first day, the sky on the second day, the dry land on the third day, etc. Each day is punctuated with the phrase “evening and morning” and marked with an ordinal number (“first day”, “second day”, etc). Could it really be more clear?
2 Peter 1:20 says, Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. In other words, the Bible generally means what it says and there’s no need to look for some hidden meaning or tortured interpretation. To say that “six days” could somehow mean “billions of years” is the epitome of a private interpretation!
If you believe that the Genesis account of creation really means God created via something like evolution, then let me ask you a question: if God had meant to write that He created everything in six days, how might He have said it any more plainly? Why is it that the word “day” is easily understood the other few hundred times it is used but suddenly is “vague” when we read it in Genesis? Why should we even look for a different meaning other than the plain one? To me, people who read the Bible and then claim Genesis means something other than what it clearly means sound about as silly as the guards in the video.
The sad part is that the guards in the movie are trying to be funny.
Some years back, I read the book, The Stones Cry Out, by Randall Price. I recently came across some notes I’d made about the book and, even though the book may be a bit dated now (it was originally published in 1997), some of the points it makes are timeless.
All in all, archaeology has been friendly to the Bible. Several archaeological finds have marvelously confirmed facts previously only known from Scripture. Even so, some difficulties remain. Critics will sometimes claim certain details in Scripture have not been verified by archaeologists. Indeed, some current evidence seems to contradict Scripture. Can the spade of modern archaeologists overturn the authority of the Bible? Heaven forbid! Early in the book, Dr. Randall Price outlined why he believes the Bible trumps archaeology.
1) “Only a fraction of what is made or written survives”: We have found a lot of things which had been written down by the ancients but the overwhelming majority of what they wrote simply no longer exists. At the time “The Stones Cry Out” was published, no sizable archive has been discovered in the Land of Israel. What certainty do we have that what survives is representative of the whole body of what was written?
2) “Only a fraction of the available archaeological sites have been surveyed”: In Israel and the Near East, there are thousands of unexcavated tels. Sites that are surveyed cannot keep pace with the many more that are being discovered. Many of these sites will never be properly explored because of political disputes and lack of resources. Many are also being destroyed by population growth and construction.
3) “Only a fraction of the surveyed sites have been excavated”: In Israel, military spending takes priority over archaeological excavation. Most work in this area is done by volunteers or by archaeologists who make their real living as professors. These people must raise money for their expeditions from private resources and can only work a few weeks out of the year. Because of all these factors, only 2% of surveyed sites in Israel have been excavated.
4) “Only a fraction of an excavation site is actually examined”: Due to limited time and resources, archaeologists tend to invest the majority of their time in sites they suspect have the best chance of yielding a sensational find. A big find helps in future fund-raising. Strategic sites, such as Tel Hazor, have been repeatedly excavated yet there is so much ground that Tel Hazor still remains the largest unexcavated tel in Israel.
5) “Only a fraction of what is excavated is eventually reported and published”: There was a forty year delay between the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls and the release of just their photographs. It is a simple fact of archaeological research. There are tens of thousands of cuneiform texts in museum storage rooms all over the world and there is simply not enough time, expertise, and resources to review it all.
Dr. Price concluded his points with these insightful words:
“In the final analysis, it must be remembered that the Bible itself is our finest example of an archaeological document. While we have only a limited number of archaeological artifacts from the biblical period, the Bible represents the most complete literary record we possess of ancient times. Surviving in one form or another since its first books were penned by Moses some 3400 years ago, it remains the most accurate and trustworthy account of antiquity in the archaeological record. For this reason it is improper to elevate other archaeological inscriptions above the Biblical text in order to challenge the latter's integrity.”
What more can I say? Dr. Price has nailed it. The lack of discoveries confirming some of the events attested in the Bible is not a sufficient argument to challenge its veracity. As the old saying goes, an absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. To the contrary, the Bible itself is the best record we have of the history of God’s people!
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!
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.
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.
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
earthnever
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!
