“In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” Genesis 1:1
The first verse of the Bible, inspired by the Creator of the Universe, is truly ALL we need to know about creation. None of us knows EXACTLY how Almighty God brought the heavens and the earth into being, and NO ONE can prove how He did it, even though Ken Ham and his $27 million Creation Museum insist otherwise.
Yes, we have the Bible narrative, which describes in the simplest of terms how everything came into existence; however, I contend that insisting the entire creative process took place in SIX literal TWENTY-FOUR HOUR DAYS is promoting an EXTRA-BIBLICAL DOCTRINE.
Why is it so crucial to young earthers that the creation account be interpreted so literally, and not symbolically? We have a theory which we’ll share momentarily…
Almighty God lives OUTSIDE of time. So what was His rush in creating the heavens and the earth? It just doesn’t make sense that our Lord, who has always existed, would bring everything else into existence in less than one week’s time in human terms. As 2 Peter 3:8 states: “But, beloved, do not forget this one thing, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.” (NASB) Time is a dimension that doesn’t limit God. After all, He created time!
Trying to simplify Almighty God and His power in creation is just not possible for mortal man to comprehend. We SHOULD NOT presume to understand the ways of God. Claiming to know the creation account in detail is to aspire to be like God – the sin that befell Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden.
As I have mentioned in a previous post, I have never spent much time contemplating creation. I just accept BY FAITH that God is the Creator and that when I am united with Him in heaven, perhaps He will reveal His secrets. Ken Ham and his colleagues like to ask of Old Earthers: “Were you there?” Well, God asked Job a similar question: “Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth? Tell Me, if you have understanding.” (Job 38:4 NKJV)
Ham has built a cottage industry out of his personal creation theory, and I can imagine God asking Ham the very same question. You know, if Ken Ham hadn’t turned his own version of creation into a business enterprise, he might be more believable. Sadly, the almighty dollar rather than God’s truth seems to be the motivating factor for Ham.
In recent decades it certainly seems that the creation controversy has heated up. Why? We would appreciate your sharing with us your theories.
As we have researched trends in Christendom, it appears that young earth creationism is strongly tied to “gender roles”. Have you noticed? Those who want to rule like the Old Testament patriarchs seem to be obsessed with young earth creationism.
We suspect that the YE crowd needs to mandate a literal six day, 24 hour creation in order to enforce certain Bible verses that are patriarchal. If all of these verses are to be taken literally, then I assume that wives of the modern day patriarchs are silent in church and wear head coverings. That’s not a joke because some congregations really do enforce these “rules”.
Kathryn Joyce, who wrote Quiverfull: Inside the Christian Patriarchy Movement, explains that women in biblical patriarchy are supposed to ask their husbands about every detail of household management (which is their sole calling), remain silent in church, are discouraged from speaking in the company of men, and are typically considered at fault for marital difficulties, all of which stem from their lack of submission.
These kinds of attitudes toward women are becoming more prevalent in conservative churches, and elders justify them by taking certain Bible verses LITERALLY.
I just finished reading an interesting book entitled Quitting Church by Julia Duin. Julia interviewed Sarah Zacharias Davis, daughter of evangelist Ravi Zacharias, for this book, and Sarah explained: “Women don’t feel there is any kind of significant place in the church where they are really valued. At then end of the day, all they want them to do is teach Sunday school.” It’s worth noting that Sarah’s father Ravi spoke at the 2010 Southern Baptist Convention Pastors Conference.
Julia also mentioned Carolyn Custis James, a member of PCA (Presbyterian Church of America), one of the most conservative denominations with regard to women’s roles. In her book When Life and Beliefs Collide, Carolyn James encourages women to get a theological education, which she did. Her husband, Frank James, serves as president of the Reformed Theological Seminary in Orlando.
As Julia Duin explains in her book Quitting Church, Carolyn James caused quite a stir in 2006 when she spoke at Covenant College (a PCA school). In that address, James suggested that “women are not limited solely to ministering to other women in church and their callings are not limited to being wives and mothers. Then she named conference speaker Joni Eareckson Tada and authors Nancy Pearcey and Susan Hunt as examples of female theologians who are making a major impact on the PCA as well as the broader evangelical world.” (p. 140)
The following statement made by Carolyn James really stood out for me:
“The stewardship of women’s gifts is a huge issue we cannot avoid. It is a serious matter to Jesus when talents are buried in the ground. But an equally important issue is the simple fact that both men and women need the spiritual ministries women offer.” (Quitting Church, p. 140)
According to Duin, James responded to a question following her presentation by agreeing with a young female student that “the discussion over gender roles in the church is often stifled or guarded due to fear in both men and women.” (p. 140)
James stated: “Men are afraid they will lose their male authority, or women are afraid they will be seen as ‘bad’. What I see as the ‘blessed alliance’ between men and women doesn’t diminish at all.” (p. 140)
According to Duin, James was confronted in cyberspace by David Bayly, a PCA pastor from Toledo, Ohio, who wrote on his BaylyBlog a post entitled: “Come Out from Behind Those Skirts: An Open Letter to Frank James”. In his letter to Carolyn James’ husband, Bayly asked whether “Mrs. James’ husband was fully aware of his wife’s theological errors and whether she submitted to him.” (p. 141)
Randy Stinson, executive director of the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, chimed in with his own critique. You can read his reaction here and here.
As gender roles become more prevalent in evangelical churches, seminary educated women are taking their talents elsewhere, according to Duin. Some are creating 501-c3s and doing their ministry from there. Others are heading back into the secular world, while some “women are blossoming in the blogosphere where there’s no one to quash them.” (p. 142). Yep, it’s one of my favorite lines in Duin’s book.
Truly, there seems to be a direct correlation between young earth creationism and gender roles, and that connection becomes all the more apparent when reading the Wikipedia article on Ken Ham.
“…he married Marilyn ("Mally", whom he describes as a "very, very submissive, supportive wife" who has "always supported me five million percent".
How can Mally possibly support her husband five million percent? Isn’t that an exaggeration about a man who believes in a literal six-day 24-hour creation? Although some consider Wikipedia to be a dubious information source, I’d love to know who included this quote in Ken Ham’s article.
Tune in next time when we will share The Flintstone Doctrine…
Lydia's Corner: Genesis 31:17-32:12 Matthew 10:24-11:6 Psalm 13:1-6 Proverbs 3:16-18
I’m a YEC egalitarian pre-trib non-Calvinist. I don’t come in a neat package. 😉
Ham has his issues, no argument there. But there is no necessary connection between a literal 6-day creation and comp; in fact, I’d say there’s a conflict, since comp does so much reading between the lines and adding what isn’t there. It’s very inconsistent to hold to both, IMHO.
The reason I see YEC as important is because of its implications for the gospel. If we can’t take ch. 1 and 2 as its genre (history) indicates, then we can’t say Adam and Eve were real, literal people. By what right would we make them real and literal but not the surrounding creation account? And since Jesus and all the NT writers seemed to take it literally whenever they referred to it, plus the fact that the 10 Commandments give a literal 7-day creation as the rationale for the Sabbath, I’d say YEC has some very important implications indeed.
Also IMHO, science is the greatest threat to OEC; that is, a strong argument can be made against evo/OEC without ever referring to scripture. I’m not going to get into any detailed debate about it here, because it would just devolve (:smile:) into a game of “my experts can beat up your experts”. But having been forced to learn evo in public school, college, and in practically every entertainment venue, nobody can say I’m ignorant of it. I know from past experience here that creation scientists are called every name in the book and accused of having fake credentials, but I reject such instances of “poisoning the well”. But again, I won’t get into that here.
Philosophically, I see no problem with a short creation week. After all, as the Psalmist said we are the purpose for it, the goal of creation. Why wait a bazillion years? We have no problem accepting a resurrected Savior in a mere three days, but somehow God isn’t allowed to create the universe in seven because it just doesn’t seem reasonable to some people. Another issue is that the very telling of time is not simple; if God did indeed “stretch out the heavens” and Einstein’s general theory of relativity is accurate, then time dilation would have occurred on an unimaginable scale, such that millions of years of cosmic events could happen in mere days from earth’s perspective.
But this is just the tip of the iceberg. My goal here was only to briefly explain why I hold to YEC and find it not only consistent with the rest of scripture but having vital implications for issues of sin and redemption. That’s just the way I see it. 🙂
Paula
The battle for YE science is over. There is no debate about about the age of the earth except for a tiny group of YE Christians who have no credibility within the science world. Your supposed experts have no standing and no peer review to back up their contentions.This science world contains committed evangelical Christians as well who would be happy to publish any credible science. You are free to believe what you wish. But as my husband has said, If there was evidence for a young earth, there would be young earth atheists. Just because a world could be proven to be young does not men that that the scientists would be believers. It would just be a young earth with no God involved.
If you promote the conspiracy theory, you insult your brothers and sisters who live in the science world who believe in honesty and integrity. They would be happy to advocate for a young earth if there was science to prove it. There is no support because there is no credible science. There is no debate because the evidence is overwhelming.
We too believe that OE is consistent with the rest of Scripture and we believe that one can easily believe in sin and redemption with an old earth perspective. We, too, have it all.
See? That’s why I said I wasn’t going to get into the details here. There is no allowance that the OEC view can be wrong. You even say that merely disagreeing with you is an insult to others!
You poisoned the well just as I said you would. And there are atheists and agnostics who don’t believe in evolution. They just lose their jobs if they “come out”.
The best test of character is to see how you’re treated if you disagree with someone’s pet belief. I’ve seen enough and will not be back.
Paula
You are naive. There are no fearful atheists and agnostics who are skulking around fearing they will lose their jobs over this. That is a Hamite myth. It is an insult to your brothers and sisters in the science world who would happily stand for the truth. BTW, my husband is one who you have insulted by saying such a thing. He won a prestigious science award from the ACC and is published in respected journals. If there was proof, he would stand for it. He is neither a wuss nor am I as evidenced by this blog. So are people like Hugh Ross and Francis Collins. There is no debate within science on the age of the earth.Sorry that offends you but it is the truth.
I want to clarify for our readers that I wrote today’s post, and Dee was kind in publishing it for me.
She recently had foot surgery and has been experiencing some pain. Intercessory prayer is very important, so please join me in praying for her speedy recovery. Thanks!
DEB
I AM SO SORRY! She’s right, everyone. Blame her, not me!!! 🙂 But, i do agree with her.
Dee,
Hope you are on the mend and that Dr. Jon is taking good care of you. Praying for you!
Paula,
while there is no allowance that OEC can be wrong, it is in good company…there is also no allowance for the possibility that the earth revolving around the sun might be wrong. Is there a possibility that maybe some super aliens with mental powers have made us all just see it that way, (sort of like being plugged into the matirx), sure, its possible, does anyone lose even a minutes sleep over the idea? Not that I know of; a 6000 year old earth falls into the same category.
Hi Paula,
I hear what you are saying, but what is clear in your response is that you are not actually aware of what the data is which supports the conclusion the Earth and Universe are old. It is not merely an issue of “I have my experts and you have yours”. The ‘science’ that is put forward by the AIG, ICR and others like them simply isn’t science. It is more a science like wishful thinking, motivated by a conviction a particular view of scripture must be true. And therein lies the crux of the matter. Science is not taking an idea and fitting the data to it. Science is following the data to its logical conclusion.
What the guys that are your ‘experts’ do is sign an oath to reject any data which conflicts with their predetermined conclusion. As a result, all you’ll find reading their material is carefully selected talking points that can be presented in a way that appears to support their conclusion.
I would encourage you not to simply take their word for it, or mine, but to actually study the source data on which the mainstream conclusion is based. I think you will be shocked and overwhelmed by what has not been told you by the likes of Ham and Sarfati and Lisle.
As for the theological issues. I would only ask that you consider the possibility that the first chapter of Genesis is not, in fact, literal History as it appears to be … to consider the fact that if a given assumption about the text of scripture leads to clear folly, it is likely that assumption is false. I am sure you recognize that reading a text like “the sun and moon stood still” to imply that the sun and moon orbit the Earth, prior to Galileo’s observations, could have made sense. But upon discovering the Earth actually orbits the sun and revolves on its axis once every 23 hours and 50 minutes, we no longer can accept that as a valid reading of that text. We must, and do, therefore, allow what we know about the natural word to influence our assumptions about what the text is telling us.
The first chapter of Genesis is no different. In it you will find a description of the cosmos that puts waters above a firmament, a firmament in which are the sun moon and stars and below which are the clouds. A firmament in which also are sluices to allow the waters to fall to the Earth (Gen 7). I know of no YEC that does not allow what we know of the true structure of the heavens to influence how they read that text. And yet, in the Early church, there was deemed less scriptural support for the idea the firmament was not in fact firm than for the idea the days of Genesis where not literal days. Indeed, in talking about creation in Psalms 90, we are informed that a thousand years are as a day to the Lord, even a watch in the night! This verse has long been considered as opening the possibility those creation ‘days’ where not in fact 24 hour days as we understand them. And yet organizations like AIG and ICR would have you believe there is no other possible legitimate Christian reading of the text!
What is critical to the gospel is that we have a sin nature from which we must be redeemed. Do we actually understand what that sin nature is, or how it gets passed from generation to generation? No, we don’t. And not understanding that, we should not make assumptions about what is ‘required’ for that truth to actually be true.
I applaud your faith, your desire to follow God. I even encourage you to stay true to your conscience as regards what is the reading of scripture that you are comfortable with. But do not be deceived into believing the scientific argument over the age of the Earth is a two sided one. There truly is no science that can support a YEC reading of the text. If that is the reading you feel is most likely to be theologically correct, then you must stand in that by faith alone. The physical evidence does not support you. Count that cost, and do not be found the unwitting tool of the Devil by trying to convince others, especially children, that science can support that position. Because eventually children, especially teenagers, ask the hard questions you are willing to shelve, and when they do, they realize the idea science supports YEC is not true. And then they feel lied to about EVERYTHING you ever told them about God. That is the danger Ken Ham et al bring to faith. It is, in reality, far more harmful in the end than the questions surrounding how to reconcile Genesis with an Old Earth.
Best to you Paula – God Bless,
Zeta
First of all, I want to apologize for not speaking to YE/OE but I am simply just not interested enough. I hear all kinds of stuff out there that make me shake my head. Just a few days ago someone told me on email that as of 60AD, Revelation 21 does not apply to us!
Anyway, I am just commenting to say that while I am known as being totally against promoting Christian celebrities and their teaching, I have to say that Carolyn Custis James MUST be an exception for me.
The reason she is such a threat to even the comp world is because she is theologically educated and she is spiritually deep and her writing flows from a position of love and truth.
Her position is for women to have a deeper relationship with Christ..and that means putting Christ first.
I recommend all her books for women who are comps. She is not threatening to them. She will help open their eyes…and she does this knowing the Greek!
I recommend all her books but the Gospel of Ruth will change how you see the relat.ionship between God and His daughters. That is what the Book of Ruth was supposed to do but has been taught more as a bodice ripper novella by comp men. Romance has NOT one thing to do with it at all. Ruth is a model for bold witnessing and living for Christ.
Lest we forget… the “Young Earth Creation” doctrine has its roots in the English translation of the Bible. This was when the back calculations of Archbishop James Ussher, using the literal “begats” with no breaks in the “begats”, determined that God had finished his creation on Saturday preceding Sunday, October 23, 4004.
Never had any Jewish theologian ever interpreted Hebrew in this way. Yet when the English translation came about – lo & behold – an actual creation date could be determined. Why had this “obvious exact dating” never been done before? – Because the actual Hebrew had never been interpreted in this way before.
Also, think about what all Adam did on the “sixth day”. If it was a literal 24 hour period – he was quite busy, naming all the animals in the Garden of Eden, suddenly discovering how lonely he was and then having the first deep sleep surgery performed on him and waking up and discovering Eve – all in 24 hours.
The YEC movement may also explain why there are some strong elements of “KJV only” adherents.
The YEC leaders also would have us believe that the speed of light is not really constant and has actually changed since the creation (Big Bang) but yet they would have us believe that the creation was done in 6 24 hour days. With no changes in the dimension of time.
Who actually came up with 24 hour day time periods? – The ancient Babylonians – Sumerians. “Mesopotamian mathematics and science was based on a sexagesimal (base 60) numeral system. This is the source of the 60-minute hour, the 24-hour day, and the 360-degree circle. The Sumerian calendar was based on the seven-day week.”
It is truly fascinating to me that the YEC movement’s extra biblical doctrine defends so fervently the 24 hour day method of time keeping that was invented by a pagan, polytheistic culture.
There are other historical methods of keeping time.
Think about that…
Lydia
After today, we are on to new subjects. I was saddened to see Wade giving up on the blog. He was an important voice. I plan to look at Robert Schuller’s little mess on Thursday. I bet you will have something to say about that!
I thought you might be interested in this aspect of the YEC crowd linking YE to a strict view of complementarianism and patriarchy. It is a package deal that show little flexibility in understanding the Scriptures. I believe this crowd, YE not withstanding, is a danger to Christianity and the freedom of the believer.
As you know, we are not SBC any longer. In fact, I am not sure I could ever be SBC again. This blog is intended to look at a wide variety of issues pertaining to evangelical faith. The two of us love to gallivant around the spectrum. It is always interesting for us to see which subjects attract the most attention.
YE is a real bugaboo for me. The proponents been so clever in infiltrating mainstream thought. I now firmly reject their contention that OE/theistic evolutionists have been as mean to them as they are. I have not seen it. I believe the YE crowd is filled with ideologues who are intent on destroying anyone who doesn’t march to their poor science and questionable interpretations. I felt it was time for me to draw a line in the sand with this crowd. Let me tell you. It is far, far more than YE. These are the types of people who drive folks away from the true Gospel and that is a travesty.
Hi bent
Thank you for your thoughtful insight into the KJV and the interpretation on time. You taught me something that I did not know. I plan to do some more reading on this issue. I think there is a ground swell of Christians that are standing up to the rather mouthy YE proponents and are more willing to tell it like it is.
Karl
See!!!!! You and I have some things in common. Well stated on the alien thing.It made me laugh.
Zeta
Well stated. I stand with you in your presentation. It is time that some lines in the sand be drawn regarding the science. I am tired of the YE crowd deceiving non-science minded folks that their science is correct and being held back by a vast conspiracy. That is an insult to the wonderful people in the science world, many of whom profess Christianity. I spoke with DC about my new view. He heartily approves.
Karl
I noted your blog on your IP thing. Although I disagree with you on the child abuse thing, I was wondering if I could us your documentation on the transitional fossils at some point. I believe that some people have been told there are none and that is patently false.That is a good synopsis. your blog is well set up and interesting. I would be happy to let our readers know about it if you do not object.
Thanks everyone for your fascinating comments! I appreciate the compassion with which you have expressed your ideas.
Genesis 1:1 says, “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.”
Question: Since God, to the very limited extent we can understand, had no beginning, to what “beginning” does this refer?
I don’t think the Bible spells that out. It just is. It’s one of those things that if you think about it too hard your brain will overheat and explode.
YEC doesn’t seem to allow for what I’ve always believed to be a long gap of time between Genesis 1:1 and 1:3. Even if one believes the time between light and man appearing was a literal 6 24-hour day period, could the fossil record actually be pointing to that long gap between verses 1 and 3?
bent,
Good to see you. That’s interesting.
orion,
23 hours and 50 minutes? I defer to your superior knowledge, but wouldn’t that result in a complete reversal between night and day and the clock every 72 days (i.e. a complete cycle every 144 days)?
A question!
“Since before your sun burned hot in space and before your race was born, I have awaited a question.”
…. ooops, sorry, flashback to “City on the Edge of Forever”. (Star Trek)
😉
The question: 23 hours and 50 minutes? wouldn’t that results in a complete reverals between night and day and the clock every 72 days.
Well, actually it would cause a problem, but only because my aging brain forget it is actually 23 hours 56 minutes and 4.1 seconds 😉
This is what is known as a Sidereal day, and is the actual time it takes the Earth to complete on rotation on its axis. The other 3 minutes and 55.9 seconds of our day comes from the fact that the Earth itself orbits the sun and during those 23 hours and 56 minutes, the Earth has moved 1/365.25 of its orbit around the sun, changing ever so slightly the position of the sun in our sky so that an additional 3 minutes and 55.9 seconds are required for it to reach the same place in the sky it was ‘yesterday’.
We can determine the sidereal day by simply observing how long it takes a given star to reach the same spot in the sky. And indeed, sidus is Latin for ‘star’.
You can read up on this and all the little subtleties surrounding this on the Wikipedia page for Siderial Time”
Zeta
Stepford and OB
In my limited understanding, the fossil record could not be solved with allowing for a literal view on just the last 3 days. Am I wrong? By the way, that is the view of some of the Hasidic Jews.
Secondly, I knew nothing at all about the Sidereal which just goes to prove how little I know.
orion,
Thank you, but you could have just said it was a typo. 🙂
Dee,
What I was saying was the fossil record “might” be what happened before Day 1. I don’t think the Bible says what happened during that time. What is “the beginning” if God has/had no beginning?
Oh, and orion’s response reminded me of something I meant to bring up earlier. I’ve not heard anyone dispute that there are other solar systems that are hundreds of thousands of light years from earth. The Milky Way alone is said to be 100,000 light years across. Are those who say the earth is between 6,000 and 10,000 years old saying that our galaxy (i.e. the heaven) is much older than the earth? Genesis 1:1 says, “In the beginning God created the heaven AND earth.” Seems to me if someone can define “beginning” that would answer a lot of questions.
And speaking of the universe, isn’t it a big presumptuous of us mere mortals to assume we’re the only intelligent life in the entire infinite universe? There’s an idea for a new series of posts, ladies!
big = bit
The two major YEC responses to the issue of light travel time are:
Barry Setterfield’s hypothesis that light was signficantly faster in the past than it is now, allowing us to see objects that at the current speed of light would be too far away to observe if the universe were only 6-10,000 years old
Russell Humphreys hypothesis that the universe has aged differently, with the Earth in a zone that has experienced only about 6 to 10,000 years of history whereas areas farther away have experienced significantly more time.
There are significant problems with each of these proposals.
For a changing speed of light the most obvious is that we can observe light moving through space in certain circumtances. The most notable being the light from super nova 1987a, an event which occurred 168,000 light years from here. And what we observe it that the speed of light at the time of that event was the same there as it is here, implying it too 168,000 years for the light to get here, and that the super nova took place 168,000 year ago.
For humphreys, there are several. For one, his mechanism, a ‘white hole’ is a hypothetical object not expected to be able to exist in this universe. Another perhaps more accessible objection is that objects that require millions or even billions of years to form or which exhibit millions or billlions of years of history in their structure exist relatively close to the Earth. An example would be the white dwarf Sirius B only 8 light years away. Others would be the Sun, the Moon etc. etc 😉
Zeta
Zeta
I love the nova explanation. I have used that one on a number of occasions. Now you bring up white holes. More to read and learn. Thank you for being one of the folks who helped me to see clearly.
Okaaaaay… 😕
O, wenches? The WWNF comments are spam!
Hey notastepford
Yeah, I know they are spam. I forgot to tag it.You know, there are so many things that I don’t understand about Genesis. Think about it. When did the angels rebel? Why did God send them to earth to be punished? When God formed Adam out of the dust, could that be the materials of the earth-DNA, etc.? Why did God place him in the Garden? What was going on in the rest of the earth? Was the Garden a staging area for the Great Drama?hen it talks about the beginning, is it talking about the beginning of this universe and this earth? Obviously God has no beginning, so what beginning? Is it our story? Are there other stories? Other beings?Did they fall? Or maybe they didn’t? There is so much to wonder about. I love Lewis’ space trilogy Out of the Silent Planet. The second book recreates the Adam and Eve story on another planet. On that planet, they didn’t Fall.
I agree with you. So much time could have elapsed during “In the beginning”, the problem is how to view the various days of creation.It is amazing to me how much people want to tame God. They try to put Him in a box because it makes us seem we have a handle on Him. I like Lewis’ description-He is NOT a tame lion.
notastepford
O wenches? Are you trying to set back my recuperation?
There’s still one @ 5:30 p.m.
I’m sure Ken Ham has the answers to all those questions. For just $24.95.
notastepford
Thanks. Ken has lots of answers for lots of things-rather amazing for a high school biology teacher.I have a friend who thinks Ham knows that he is serving up nonsense. But, it is nonsense that makes bank.
O wenches? Are you trying to set back my recuperation?
My bad. That should have been “o glorious, heretic wenches.” 😀
I believe the one who conferred that title upon you glamorous blog queens has a birthday sometime next week.
notastep…
You have an amazing memory! I like the addition of heretic.