The Transformation of a Young-Earth Creationist

Science in Christian Perspective ^ | June 2000 | Glenn R. Morton

[PapaBear3625]

Its amazing how easily people accept that Jesus spoke in parables but have problems understanding that God would too.

Much of the Bible seems to be parables meant to illustrate deeper principles.

[Soothesayer]

Theology is out of my league so I’ll assume you are correct for now.

[DallasMike]

Old earth Creationists attempt to constrain God to linear, earthly time, in an attempt at accomodating worldly concerns.

I have to disagree. When you do word studies, you find that the Bible does not claim a literal, 24-hour day for each phase of creation. Hugh Ross wrote a good word study on yom There are others as well and you can do your own study on yom at sites like Blue Letter Bible.

Some will point to the words erev (evening) and boqer (morning). However, erev can also mean chaos or blurriness while boqer is the morning when things become clear. Thus, in each phase of creation, God brought further order out of chaos.

[Soothesayer]

There seems to be a different meaning for “made” and “formed”

For example,

And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good. And God said, Let us make man in our image.... So God created man in his own image. Genesis 1:25-27

And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof. Genesis 2:18-19

Do you think the words “made” and “formed” mean the same thing or could there be more to this picture?

[RegulatorCountry]

Attempting to conform Biblical Creation and the age of the Earth to current scientific thinking is just as constraining as date setting based upon Biblical literalism, the duality of conceptual meaning in many Hebrew words aside.

The Bible itself has a literal meaning, an allegorical meaning, a past/current meaning and a future meaning, all rolled into one. If the issue has to come down to one or the other, I’ll come down on the side of literalism, based upon faith, although the forced “one or the other” seems erroneous to me, given the nature of an eternal God, who exists outside of time.

I’ll also have some degree of faith that the apparent conflict, between the Bible and science, will resolve itself in due time, as science catches up to the Biblical account.

[DallasMike]

I’ll also have some degree of faith that the apparent conflict, between the Bible and science, will resolve itself in due time, as science catches up to the Biblical account.

"Big Bang" was originally a derisive term for the theory that time and space were formed out of nothing. To many scientists, the theory was too close to what the Bible says.

[DallasMike]

I think these stories are only published to make all Christians look like nuts.

Sometimes I almost believe this, too. There's no doubt that rabid Young-Earth Creations are used by atheists to make Christians look like nuts. I so often see the word "creationists" used to describe both young- and old-earth creationists. In reality, there is a huge difference.

[RegulatorCountry]

Where I’m sitting, known to geologists as the Avalon Escarpment, was once completely submerged, according to science. Most, if not all, dry land has been at one point, again according to science. But, a worldwide deluge is supposedly a silly legend.

The further along we get, the more the two will agree and converge, science and the Bible. I shudder to think what the anti-God crowd will come up with to explain it all, when there’s no longer any possibility of denial.

Something involving “space aliens,” no doubt.

[Marie2]

Yes, I had a Jewish friend who admitted to being a practical atheist, although still Jewish, somehow. He was quite open about it. At least he realized he was an atheist.

[Diego1618]

Thus, in each phase of creation, God brought further order out of chaos.

It appears to some that He did it for more than one creation: Nor is this world inhabited by man the first of things earthly created by God. He made several worlds before ours, but He destroyed them all, because He was pleased with none until He created ours.

"Legends of The Jews/Creation of The World" First two sentences....fourth paragraph.

There is not one thing in all of scripture that would indicate a young Earth. It is a fantasy created by well meaning, misinformed, biased translators.

[smallelmike]

Personally, I find his arguments challenging. I guess maybe that says something about my intellectual league. However, I would like to see criticism of his work; I haven’t been able to find any.

[DallasMike]

Personally, I find his arguments challenging. I guess maybe that says something about my intellectual league. However, I would like to see criticism of his work; I haven’t been able to find any.

I think that your intellectual league is just fine -- you're a seeker and that alone puts you head and shoulders above many of the commenters here.

I haven't found any criticism of Morton's current work, though I'm sure that there is some. The Young Earth Creationists view him as a traitor.

I can identify with Morton because I've seen people who believe in Young Earth Creationism reject their faith when their education or career makes them realize that Young Earth Creationism is a hoax. I have two degrees in science and have had a science career all my life. Young Earth Creationism is a stumbling block for people with a science background because the claims are so easily refuted.

Here's another good explanation of how one can be a Christian and believe in an old earth.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!

[Wilhelm Tell]

Be wary of those who would have you place their own constraints upon God.

That is the heart of the matter. Although I think sometimes we all want to put God in a straightjacket, so to speak. And strict literalism can seem to be a good antidote to the blahness of liberalism but what if they are two sides of the same coin? Could it be that Gnosticism has affected all of Christianity? Both in the liberalsim that proudly claims to know better than God and among others who claim to have special, secret, highly detailed knowledge about God's timeline? Again, I think the appeal of YEC is because it fits in with the timeline of a certain eschatology.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so very much for your insights, dear brother in Christ, and thank you for your encouragements!

"Man is not the measure of God."

Indeed.

It is absurd for man to try to measure God, to try to see Him under a microscope or through a telescope or try to paint a picture of Him or rationalize Him with the logic of men as if man were somehow able to discover Him with his puny, mortal mind.

For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God. For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.

Where [is] the wise? where [is] the scribe? where [is] the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?

For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.

For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom: But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness; But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.

Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men. - I Corinthians 1:18-25

God is not a hypothesis for men to put to a test.

He lives.

His Name is I AM.

It seems to me that the magnitude of physical creation - from cosmos to quantum - can be troubling to some. But, of a truth, what we mortal observers see in physical reality is a matter of perspective - and man's ability to perceive with his mind and physical senses is neither at the height nor the depth of it:

Powers of Ten

Moreover, we Christians have God's assurance and need not be troubled by magnitudes (emphasis mine)

For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord. – Romans 8:38-39

Likewise, whenever a thread involving theology and science focuses on time, I keep wanting the posters to finish their sentences:

This universe is over 13 billion years old from our space/time coordinates.

This universe is 7 days old from the inception space/time coordinates.

That man cannot perceive these relationships with his senses does not make relativity untrue. Nor does it make untrue the possibility of other dimensions of space or time - or theories that what we perceive as matter in four dimensions are manifestations of either momentum components of as little as a single particle in a fifth time-like dimension - or mathematical structures beyond all dimensions of space and time. (Wesson, Tegmark, Vafa, et al)

How much more so the things of God?

Consider this view from the Hubbel telescope:

Star forming region in the Carina nebula

And yet,

But even the very hairs of your head are all numbered. Fear not therefore: ye are of more value than many sparrows. – Luke 12:7

Truly, man is not the measure of God.

For my thoughts [are] not your thoughts, neither [are] your ways my ways, saith the LORD. For [as] the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts. – Isaiah 55:8-9

To God be the glory, not man, never man.

[hosepipe]

Thats almost poetry.. at least poetic.. nah!.. its like a melodic message...
I don't know what that post was but it speaks to me..

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for your encouragements, dear brother in Christ!

[raynearhood]

There seems to be a different meaning for “made” and “formed”...

Do you think the words “made” and “formed” mean the same thing or could there be more to this picture?

That is the Documentary Hypothesis and this is why it is bunk.

The Documentary Hypothesis is a textual criticism technique that attempts to explain stylistic differences and/or supposed contradictions in the Biblical books attributed to the pen of Moses. The hypothesis asserts that there are possibly four (sometimes five) actual authors of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. Those 'authors' are named J (Jehovah writer - sometimes J1 and J2), E (Elohim author), P (Priestly author), and D (Deuteronomic author).

There are a number of problems with the Documentary Hypothesis, specifically (for this discussion) with the two creations argument. These problems center around its inability to be a serious method of textual criticism, as its rules are never applied to any other work in antiquity, debunking it as a viable method for textual criticism of the Bible. I'll expand.

It is nearly impossible to find textual criticism of the Bible devoid of prejudices from either side of the argument. This is true in the case of the Documentary Hypothesis. The hypothesis was first presented in the mid-18th century by a French physician named Jean Astruc in an open attempt to prove the fallibility of the Bible. It wasn’t originally presented as a “two creations” theory attempting to interject naturalism into the Genesis account. Over the years, through deists and liberal Bible scholars, the hypothesis gained popularity until it became what it is today: a way to mesh the Bible and naturalism together. Now, there is a slew of problems that follow that logic, none of which I will address now. For arguments sake I am willing to say that the criticism comes from a completely objective source (in other words, I will accept an impossibility to discuss the hypothesis).

Another problem is that the criticism doesn’t follow the normal steps of textual criticism given to any work of antiquity. Dr. Kenneth Kitchen of the University of Liverpool says, “Stylistic differences are meaningless.” One example in antiquity where stylistic differences are ignored when determining authorship is a cir. 2400 BC biographical inscription of an Egyptian official named Uni. Four distinct styles are contained in this inscription and yet single authorship is not questioned. Stylistic differences are not good arguments for multiple authorships in antiquity, and are never applied except by adherents to the the Documentary Hypothesis of the Mosaic books.

Stylistic variation is also not a good argument for different authors of Genesis if one looks at Genesis as a whole inside of in a vacuum. One of the arguments of DH adherents is that two different names for God are used between the first and second creation account, one being Jehovah, and the other Elohim. Differing names for God do not mean different authors, or even different styles. Often, for variation, authors in antiquity, particularly in Genesis, Exodus, and Deuteronomy use different styles and different names to describe situations and individuals. For example:

Genesis 28:13
“And behold, the LORD (YhWh) stood above it and said, "I am the LORD (YhWh), the God (Elohim) of your father Abraham and the God (Elohim) of Isaac; the land on which you lie, I will give it to you and to your descendants.”

The same two names that are used to determine dual authorship of Genesis 1 and 2 are used in the same sentence here. No-one argues that the one sentence in Genesis 28 has dual authorship. John Davis, in his book PARADISE TO PRISON – STUDIES IN GENESIS, wrote:

“To conclude that differences in style or vocabulary unmistakably indicate different authors is invalid for any body of literature. It is well known that a single author may vary his style and select vocabulary to fit the themes he is developing and the people he is addressing. It goes without saying that a young graduate student’s love letter will vary significantly in vocabulary and style from his research paper”

Similarly, the argument for contradictions in the text doesn’t hold water. According to DH adherents the first account of the creation of man on the sixth day is a single and separate event from the second account of the creation of man. The style “problems” (which aren’t a problem with any textual critic except for adherents to the documentary hypothesis) between the two accounts, as well as the use of the Hebrew word for “then or afterward” at the outset of the second creation account are evidence of dual authorship and possibly were meant to be two creations – a first creation in which the days are not bound by hours – and a second creation, from which Adam and Eve were formed. The problem with this argument is, first of all, stylistic differences are not a problem. Second, given the pace of Genesis 1 (which is obviously an overview of Creation), to include the detailed version of the creation of man, central to the story of the Fall of Man, would not have made sense. The “afterwards” is almost always translated “then” to indicate the start of a more detailed account of the same event, a linguistic style common to ancient story telling. Also the use of “created” in Genesis 1:27 does not contradict “formed” in Genesis 2:7. As Bible scholar Wayne Jackson describes it:

This is the CRUX of the current discussion -

“First, it is supposed that in Genesis 1 the Creator is a transcendent Being, majestically and distantly bringing the creation into existence. In Genesis 2, however, He is characterized by naive anthropomorphisms (human terminology applied to deity) which imply an inferior status. For example, in Genesis 2 the writer says that Jehovah “formed,” “breathed,” “planted,” etc. (7-8). While it is true that such expressions are found in chapter 2, what the critics have failed to notice is that anthropomorphic terminology also is employed in Genesis 1:1-2:4. In that section, God “called,” “saw,” “rested,” etc. (1:8,12; 2:1). There is no validity in this argument, and one is not surprised that serious scholars have labeled it “illusory” (Kitchen, Kenneth (1966), ANCIENT ORIENT AND OLD TESTAMENT, pg.118)”

Finally, approaching the argument from an exegetical point of view instead of a textual critic point of view, sound exegesis is totally abandoned to explain the DH. So, this goes back to my original problem with the hypothesis. The DH was originally developed by enemies of the Bible. As a result, it is nearly impossible to make this argument work in light of an acceptance of ALL Scripture being the infallible Word of God. Good exegesis follows this basic hermenuetic model when studying language usage and its application to theological studies:

The Bible was written in certain languages (koine Greek, Ancient Hebrew, and Aramaic). In order to best understand what is written, we must understand how those languages are used, and the written context in which they are used. A word cannot be understood outside of the context of the sentence that contains it; the sentence cannot be separated from the paragraph, the paragraph from the letter or book, and the letter or book cannot be separated from the Bible as a whole.

In order for any interpretation to be able to be accepted it must be in agreement with the Scripture across this entire model. No single interpretation can be accepted as an island, so to speak. The DH does not stand up to this model. It is an island. For example, nowhere else in the rest of Genesis is the "first" creation story, or “second" creation story referenced. The message of two creations is not conveyed implicitly nor explicitly in the rest of Genesis or the OT. In the NT Jesus is the most prolific interpreter of OT Scripture. In Matthew 19:4-5 Jesus says:

“He who made them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and the two shall become one flesh.”

Here He combines Genesis 1:26 and 2:24, verses that are attributed by Documentary Hypothesis adherents to two different authors, referring to two different accounts of creation. If the Documentary Hypothesis were true, it would be odd that God the Son, the Creator of the Universe, would combine both events as a single event, thus misleading His followers. Either that or He was ignorant of the two creations. I doubt any Christian will accept that.

The stylistic variation between "made" and "formed" is worthless in an attempt to inject a second creation into the Genesis account. It would be better to argue that God is not bound by time as we percieve it. There are language problems with that argument, too, but not as terrible as the two creations attempt.

[P-Marlowe]

Then, there are the YEC (Young Earth "Creationists") who place their own constraints upon God...

God said he created the heavens and the earth in 7 days. Those who say he didn't are the ones who are placing constraints on God. They are calling God a liar.

[Ethan Clive Osgoode]

I was on a thread last night, with several FReepers avowing strong Christian faith, while attacking Creationists for all they were worth. I found it puzzling.

Consider it the current fashion in Darwin Central trolling methodology. Avow Christian faith, quote Christians, and blast other Christians as science-deniers, morons, fanatics, etc.