Category Archives: Origins

The Gap – Not the Store

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. (Genesis 1:1-2)

For almost 200 years, well-meaning theologians have attempted to defend the veracity of the Bible against the current scientific discoveries that cast doubt on the truth of God’s word. Rather than taking a firm stand for what the Bible plainly teaches, they try to find ways to reconcile what the Bible says with what scientists say by way of compromises. One such popular compromise is known as the Gap Theory.

Because many theologians have been duped into believing that scientists have proven that the earth is billions of years old (4.5 billion to be precise), they need to find a place in Scripture to account for that vast amount of time. They recognize that biblical chronology only accounts for approximately 6000 years of earth history. They face a dilemma. How do they remain faithful to a literal interpretation of biblical creation and still maintain good rapport with the scientific community? They solve the problem by placing a gap of unknown time between verses one and two of Genesis 1.

However, with what does one fill a gap of billions of years while maintaining some credible ties to Scripture? According to Hugh Ross (who has his own issues with a young earth), “A few Bible scholars of the seventeenth century, wishing to establish the timing of Satan’s fall and the angels’ rebellion, had proposed a narrative gap (hence, a time gap of unspecified duration) between the creation of the universe (“the heavens and the earth” of Genesis 1:1) and the events of the creation week (Genesis 1:3-27) … Eighteenth century advocates of this view placed the gap precisely between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2, suggesting that Earth began, perhaps eons ago, as the abode of angels who ravaged and ruined it when they fell.”[1]

Genesis 1:1 refers to God’s initial perfect creation. Everything that God made was beautiful, there was no sin anywhere. Verse two, on the other hand, assumes that a great catastrophe occurred that caused the earth to become in a chaotic state through the judgment of God. According to the Gap Theory, the formless and void state, as recorded in Genesis 1:2, is in direct contrast to the perfect initial creation. Something happened between the first two verses of Genesis to cause the earth to become desolate and uninhabitable after having been made perfect. Those holding the Gap Theory contend that this state of ruin could have possibly lasted millions of years … The judgment is usually spoken of as a flood because of the statement of Genesis 1:2 – the earth was covered by water. This judgment is also known as the Luciferic flood named after the angel who became the devil. The cause for the judgment is usually given as the rebellion of Satan or some pre-Adamic race that sinned. All of the inhabitants of the earth were judged by God, leaving behind fossil remains.”[2]

When one reads the text of Genesis 1:1-2 and following verses giving the words their normal meaning in their normal context, it becomes obvious that much imaginative speculation must take place to insert millions or billions of years between verses one and two. From where did these ideas originate?

According to Dr. John D. Morris, “This particular compromise didn’t just appear; it’s been around at least since the early 1800s when old-Earth ideas were floated by James Hutton and Charles Lyell. Many theologians, under the mistaken impression that scientists had proved it, rushed to incorporate an old Earth into Scripture, hoping to maintain credibility with secular scientists”[3]

Sir Charles Lyell (1797-1876) “was a Scottish geologist who demonstrated the power of existing natural causes in explaining Earth history. He is best known as the author of Principles of Geology (1830-33 and later editions), which presented for a wide public audience the idea that the Earth was shaped by the same natural processes still in operation today, operating at similar intensities … The combination of evidence and eloquence in Principles convinced a wide range of readers of the significance of ‘deep time’ for understanding the Earth and environment … Building on the innovative work of James Hutton and his follower John Playfair, Lyell favoured an indefinitely long age for the Earth, despite evidence suggesting an old but finite age.”[4]

Confronted with such “evidence,” theologians quickly came to the Bible’s rescue. “Gap creationism became increasingly attractive near the end of the 18th and first half of the 19th centuries, because the newly established science of geology had determined that the Earth was far older than common interpretations of Genesis and the Bible-based flood geology would allow. Gap creation allowed religious geologists (who composed the majority of the geological community at the time) to reconcile their faith in the Bible with the new authority of science … From 1814, gap creationism was popularized by Thomas Chalmers, who attributed the concept to the 17th-century Dutch Arminian theologian Simon Episcopius.”[5] Chalmers’ “view was popularized by the Plymouth Brethren writer G. H. Pember in his book Earth’s Earliest Ages in 1876.”[6] “It gained widespread attention when a ‘second creative act’ was discussed prominently in the reference notes for Genesis in the influential 1917 Scofield Reference Bible.”[7]

Others came along later like Harry Rimmer (1890-1952). Rimmer “was an American evangelist and creationist. He is most prominent as a defender of creationism in the United States, a fundamentalist leader and writer of anti-evolution publications. He was the founder and President of the Science Research Bureau, Incorporated, a corporation set in Los Angeles, California, whose purpose he established as to prove the veracity of the Bible through studies of biology, paleontology and anthropology.”[8]

Surprisingly, many who profess to defend the inerrancy and infallibility of the Bible still hold to the Gap Theory and an old earth. One that I closely follow for his teachings on end-times prophecy is Gary Stearman of “Prophecy Watchers” based in Norman, Oklahoma.[9] In all other respects, Stearman is an excellent Bible teacher, but in this one area, he stumbles. He is not the only one. Dr. Arnold G. Fruchtenbaum founder of Ariel Ministrires[10] and excellent O.T. scholar says,

I do believe there is a gap of time between verses 1 and 2, but we must be very careful not to ascribe a gap there for the wrong reasons as people have done so often. They have also used it as a convenient place to fit in such things as the geological ages, the fossil record, dinosaur space, and the like. I do not believe the gap allows for dinosaur space because the Bible teaches that there was not any kind of physical death until Adam’s Fall. Rather, the gap is there for only one reason, the fall of Satan that will, in turn, account for the chaos described in verse 2. Hence, the gap need not be very long at all.[11]

Since so many respected theologians defend the Gap Theory, is there any biblical support for their position? As stated before, those who hold to the Gap Theory have been convinced by secular geologists that the earth is billions of years old based on their interpretation of the geologic column, the fossil record, and radiometric dating. Another factor that often comes into play is the distant starlight problem. Faced with these challenges, their inability to respond intellectually, and their strong conviction of the inerrancy and infallibility of God’s Word, they try to accommodate God’s Word to fit what the secular scientists are saying. In a word, they compromise.

Genesis 1 records creation in six 24-hour days and Gap theorists defend this position. However, biblical chronology, beginning with Genesis 5, limits the age of the earth to only about 6000 years. So how does one account for the 4.5 billion year age of the earth that secular scientists claim? Gap theorists found a way to squeeze billions of years between verse one and verse two of Genesis 1.

Genesis 1:2 says, “And the earth was without form, and void…” The Hebrew word translated “was” is hâyâh. Strong’s defines hâyâh as to exist, that is, be or become, come to pass (always emphatic, and not a mere copula or auxiliary). Gap theorists interpret hâyâh as “became;” therefore, “And the earth became formless and void.” Furthermore, the Hebrew words translated “without form and void” are tôhû (to lie waste; a desolation, formlessness, confusion, unreality) and bôhû (emptiness, void, waste, or ruin). According to the Gap Theory, “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth” (Genesis 1:1), for an unspecified length of time and then the earth became tôhû and bôhû. God created a perfect world, and then the earth became tôhû and bôhû. What happened?

Rather than to simply admit they do not know what happened, they look to Scripture to fill the Gap. Ken Ham quotes, Weston W. Fields in his book, Unformed and Unfilled (page 7), “In the far distant, dateless past God created a perfect heaven and perfect earth. Satan was ruler of the earth, which was peopled by a race of ‘men’ without any souls. Eventually, Satan, who dwelled in a Garden of Eden composed of minerals (Ezekiel 28), rebelled by desiring to become like God (Isaiah 14). Because of Satan’s fall, sin entered the universe and brought on the earth God’s judgment in the form of a flood (indicated by the wafer of 1:2), and then a global ice age when the light and heat from the sun were somehow removed. All the plant, animal, and human fossils upon the earth today date from this ‘Lucifer’s Flood’ and do not bear any genetic relationship with the plants, animals and fossils living upon the earth today.”[12]

They had to fill the gap with something, but all their attempts to reconcile Scripture to science amount to nothing more than conjecture and speculation.  For example, the idea of “soulless men” is inconsistent with God’s character and the notion of “Lucifer’s Flood” finds no biblical support. Their appeal to Scripture with regard to Isaiah 14:12-15 and Ezekiel 28:12-19 does have some merit as they do speak of Satan’s fall. However, neither of these passages gives any hint of time, other than to imply that Satan’s fall occurred early on after Creation. “Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God…” (Ezekiel 28:13) According to Genesis 2:8, God planted the Garden of Eden on Day Six for Adam’s habitation; therefore this cannot refer to some unknown past.

One major hermeneutical problem with the Gap Theory is with the translation of the Hebrew verb hâyâh. “When this word [be] is printed in italics in the common English version, there is no corresponding word in the original text; when it occurs in common type [i.e., not italicized], it is generally the representative of hayah, havah, hava, “to be” in Hebrew.”[13] Sometimes hâyâh is translated “become or became” for ease of reading more than anything else. For example, Genesis 2:7 “And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul” (Genesis 2:7). In this case, “became” could just as easily be translated “was” and it would still make perfect sense. As soon as God breathed the breath of life into his nostrils, the man was a living soul. So the Gap theorists do not have a Hebraic leg to stand on in translating hâyâh as “became.”

Another problem with the theory is that the conjunction at the beginning of the sentence (Hebrew vav or waw) is an indication of the continuation of what came before. Had the Author (God) desired to show a break in events, He could have used the conjunction ‘âz (“then”) as in Genesis 4:26, “And to Seth, to him also there was born a son; and he called his name Enos: then began men to call upon the name of the LORD.” The grammar in Genesis 1:2 gives no indication of a break in thought. There is no grammatical “gap.”[14]

Then comes the matter of the earth being “without form and void” – tôhû and bôhû. We have seen that the earth did not “become” tôhû and bôhû, but rather that it “was” tôhû and bôhû. In Verse 1, God created the universe with all its elements: time (the beginning), space (the heavens), and matter/energy (the earth). At this point, the “earth” (matter/energy) was formless and empty. God had not shaped it into anything yet. The second half of Verse 2 informs us that God at this point started shaping the raw materials. We find no hint of destruction and reconstruction in these verses.

In spite of their well-intentioned effort to reconcile the Genesis creation account with modern science, Gap theorists unwittingly create some serious theological problems. First of all, the Gap Theory calls God’s integrity into question. God’s assessment of His finished work would have to be found faulty. “And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day” (Genesis 1:31). Sin, death, and destruction in some unknown past do not qualify as a good creation, much less a “very good” creation.

Secondly, sin did not enter the world through Adam as the Bible claims (Romans 5:12) because it was present at Satan’s fall. Furthermore, death could not be the result of sin if death was already in the world.

Thirdly, the death penalty for (Romans 6:23) sin makes no sense when death preceded Adam’s sin.

Fourthly, if sin and death preceded Adam, then Jesus dying to pay the wages of sin for man seems pointless.

I grew up as a poor preacher’s kid. The greatest lesson my dad ever taught me was that the Bible was true and faithful even when it is difficult to understand. Whether we understand it completely or not, we can trust it to be true. God’s Word does not need to be reconciled to man’s way of thinking. Man’s thinking needs to be reconciled to God’s Word. “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). Later on, the Apostle Paul says something very similar. “Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men” (1 Corinthians 1:25). Gap theorists forget this principle; they sway to the “strength” of fallen men rather than hold fast to the “foolishness” of the pure Word of God.

Notes:


[1]  Hugh Ross, “Closing the Gap: A Scientist’s Response to the Gap Theory” – https://www.reasons.org/explore/publications/facts-for-faith/read/facts-for-faith/2001/01/01/closing-the-gap-a-scientist-s-response-to-the-gap-theory

[2]  Don Stewart, “What Is the Gap Theory? (The Ruin and Reconstruction Theory?)” – https://www.blueletterbible.org/faq/don_stewart/don_stewart_654.cfm

[3]  John D. Morris, Ph.D., “How Does Old Earth Thinking Affect One’s View of Scripture’s Reliability?” – https://www.icr.org/article/how-does-old-earth-thinking-affect-ones-view-scrip

[4]  “Charles Lyell” – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Lyell

[5]  “Gap Creationism” – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gap_creationism

[6]  Hank Hanegraaff, “The Gap Theory of Genesis 1:2 by Lee Irons” – https://www.oneplace.com/ministries/bible-answer-man/read/articles/the-gap-theory-of-genesis-12-by-lee-irons-16836.html

[7]  “Gap Creationism” – Wikipedia

[8]  “Harry Rimmer” – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Rimmer

[9]  Gary Stearman, Prophecy Wathers – https://prophecywatchers.com/gary-stearman/

[10]  http://www.Ariel.org/

[11]  Arnold Fructenbaum, “THE SEVEN DAYS OF CREATION: GENESIS 1:1 – 2:3”, p.10, article available in PDF format from the Ariel Ministries website.

[12]  Kenneth Ham, “Closing the Gap” – https://www.icr.org/article/closing-gap

[13]  Robert Young,  Young’s Analytical Concordance to the Bible, (Grand Rapids, Eerdmans Publishing, 1970), 73.

[14]  Ernesto E. Carrasco, “No Gap” – https://erniecarrasco.com/2015/10/18/no-gap/

3 Comments

Filed under Apologetics, Bible, Christianity, Creation, Origins, Religion, Satan, Science, Theology

Dog Evolution

Nacho: “What! You’ve got to be kidding!”

And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so. (Genesis 1:24)

I came in late from work the other night, warmed up my dinner and joined my wife in front of the television set to watch the last half of “Hawaii 5-0.” I enjoy this show mostly because I do not need to exert much mental capacity to see through the incredible (a.k.a. “unbelievable”) plots.

After the show, June switched the channel to some animal show. She enjoys all kinds of animal shows, veterinarian shows, and weird shows like “Dr. Pimple Popper.” That explains why I do not watch a lot of T.V. Anyway, the channel she landed on dealt with dog evolution. That piqued my interest, so I stretched out on the couch to watch the rest of the show.

The program started out claiming that all dogs “evolved” from wolves. Evolutionists conveniently conflate two distinct forms of evolution and lump them all together and call it all evolution. However, there is a clear distinction which the evolutionists work hard to blur. They would have us believe that microevolution, minor variations within species, is evidence for macroevolution, which teaches that all life forms, i.e., sea creatures, plants, insects, animals, birds, etc. all sprung from a single-cell creature that resulted from some freak chemical reaction of inert material in some primordial pond. Many problems exist with that notion that would prevent anything to come close enough to where microevolution could take place. Evolutionists cannot explain how macroevolution happens, but they know it did happen because we observe microevolution take place. So, let’s just remove the confusion and call it all evolution.

Setting that debate aside, let’s just play along. Evolutionists want to explain the existence of life without a Life Giver and design without a Designer. If everything just popped into existence, perfectly designed to fill all kinds of environmental niches, there is no need for God.

So the T.V. program proclaimed that all dogs evolved from wolves. I agree with that, only I prefer to say that all dogs descended from wolves – two, in fact, the two Noah carried onboard the Ark. “And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee; they shall be male and female. Of fowls after their kind, and of cattle after their kind, of every creeping thing of the earth after his kind, two of every sort shall come unto thee, to keep them alive” (Genesis 6:19-20, emphasis mine). That “kind” is the same “kind” that God created back in Genesis 1. We may understand “kind” by the taxonomical term of “family.” Within a “kind,” there exists enough flexibility in the DNA to allow for variation and “speciation.” So from the “wolf kind,” or “canine family” we can get wolves, foxes, jackals, hyenas, dingoes, etc., and our loving canine companions – dogs.

Evolutionists assert that evolution is progressive and that life forms improve through the process, and that weaker forms die off. That is called “survival of the fittest.” However, a close examination of dog evolution shows that the descendants of the pair carried on the Ark, have lost many of the characteristics of the first wolves. Their DNA looses information rather than gaining new information; therefore, it is impossible to breed back up the chain to make wolves out of Chihuahuas.

I found it amusing how the show’s producers discussed breeding programs to “evolve” other varying breeds of dogs. They seemed completely unaware that what they called evolution, which supposedly is a random and purposeless process, actually involved specific purposes determined by an intelligent designer, i.e., the breeder. Great Danes did not just “evolve;” they were bred to be Great Danes by intelligent human beings. Yet somehow, that minor fact seemed to elude the producers of the show.

Wolves did not “evolve” from any other animals. They were created by God in the beginning as the “canine kind.” Dogs and other canine species did not “evolve,” but rather “descended” from wolves (the original canine kind). And the reason we have so many varieties of dogs is that humans, who are created in the image of God (Genesis 1:26-27), exercised their God-given intelligence to selectively breed dogs for specific purposes. So much for dog evolution!

2 Comments

Filed under Apologetics, Dogs, Evolution, Origins, Theology

A Nutshell History of the World

Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me, Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure: (Isaiah 46:9-10)

World history can evenly be divided into three segments of 2,000 years each: from creation to Abraham; from Abraham to Jesus; and from Jesus to the present. I realize that academic historians and anthropologists with Ph.D. degrees will disagree, but they have earned the right to be wrong; so I will acknowledge their opposition and move on.

Beginning with Genesis 1, the Bible records the creation in just six 24-hour days. Genesis 2 details the creation of man – Adam and Eve. Genesis 3 records the Fall of man and the first promise of Messiah. This event probably took place less than a month after creation. I come to this conclusion because God instructed Adam and Eve to be fruitful, multiply, and fill the earth (Genesis 1:28). Considering God’s assessment of His “very good” creation (Genesis 1:31), Adam and Eve were perfect human specimens and should not have had any trouble reproducing.

Additionally, a woman’s menstrual cycle lasts about 28 days. It takes 14 days for the ovary to release a ripened egg (ovum).[1] The ovum has another week where it is ready for fertilization. If not fertilized within that week, it will be sluffed off in the menstrual period, and the cycle begins again. Considering this, the Fall may have been less than two weeks after creation.

Genesis 4 records the first murder – Cain killing his brother Abel – and the ungodly descendants of Cain. Genesis 5 records the Godly descendants of Seth (Adam’s son to replace Abel). That genealogy records a period of about 1,658 years.[2], [3] When reading the genealogies recorded in Genesis 5, one must keep in mind that these records are from event to event – the age of the father at the birth of that son. Furthermore, the birth of the named son does not demand that he be the firstborn as precluded by the common phrase “and he begat sons and daughters (Genesis 5:4, 7, 10, 13, 16, 19, 22, 26, 30). Therefore, one can employ simple addition to add up the ages of the father at the birth of the named son.[4]

Genesis 6-9 records the depravity of man that brought God’s judgment upon the Earth through the Global Flood. Only Noah, his family. and all the animals that God brought to the Ark were saved. The animals included dinosaurs, and the Bible does mention dinosaurs although not by that name. Sir Richard Owen first coined the word dinosaur in 1841. The King James Bible was published in 1611, more than 200 years before the word “dinosaur” was invented. Before that time, these creatures were collectively known as “dragons.” The Book of Job names two of these creatures, Behemoth and Leviathan (Job 40-41), whose description is unlike anything known to modern man.

The Flood lasted 370 days (Genesis 7:11; 8:14), based on a 360-day year. After the Flood, the Earth was still in turmoil with a lot of active volcanos and much warmer oceans. These factors contributed to the Ice Age that followed.[5] The Book of Job, considered by many Bible scholars as the oldest book in the Bible, speaks more about snow, ice, and cold than any other book of the Bible suggesting that the earth was experiencing the Ice Age at that time. Creation scientists believe the Ice Age lasted only about 200-400 years, but there was only one, not many as the secular scientists suggest.

Genesis 10 is called the Table of Nations. It records the descendants of Noah’s sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth and where they settled around the world after their dispersion at Babel. Shem’s descendants ultimately led to the Lord Jesus Christ (Luke 3:36).

Finally, Genesis 11 records the Tower of Babel and the confusion of tongues/languages. This event is the origin of all the ethnic groups (not “races”) in the world. Neanderthals were among those that scattered at Babel. Recent scientific discoveries show that Neanderthals are/were 100% human. Genesis 11 also records the genealogy of Abraham through whom God would bless all the nations of the earth 2,000 years later. The rest of the Old Testament deals with the history and the future history of Abraham’s descendants.

The future history concerns the coming of Messiah to rule all nations from His throne in Jerusalem. The Old Testament records future history in two parts. At His first coming/advent, “He came to His own, and His own received Him not” (John 1:11). He was crucified, buried, but He rose from the dead after three days and ascended to heaven (Acts 1:9-10; Ephesians 1:19-23). From there we await His return – His second coming (John 14:1-3; Acts 1:11). At that time, He will fulfill the future history recorded by the Old Testament prophets concerning His reign on earth. The time of His second advent draws near. As there were six days of creation and a Sabbath day of rest (Genesis 1:1-2:3), so have there been six millennia of history, and we await the seventh millennium (Revelation 20:1-7) of rest where Messiah will rule the nations with a “rod of iron” (Psalm 2:9; Revelation 2:27; 12:5; 19:15).

At the end of the millennial reign of Christ, world history ends and eternity, for us, begins. Are you ready? See my page on “Securing Eternal Life.”

Notes:


[1]  “Female Reproductive System” – https://tulsafertilitycenter.com/female-infertility/female-reproductive-cycle.php

[2]  “Age of the Earth” – https://erniecarrasco.com/2018/10/14/age-of-the-earth-2/

[3]  “Age of the Earth” – https://erniecarrasco.com/2014/02/23/age-of-the-earth/

[4]  James J. S. Johnson, J.D., TH.D, “How Young Is the Earth? Applying Simple Math to Data Provided in Genesis” – http://www.icr.org/article/how-young-earth-applying-simple-math-data-provided/

[5]  Jake Hebert, Ph.D., “Was There an Ice Age?” – http://www.icr.org/article/was-there-ice-age

2 Comments

Filed under Apologetics, Bible, Christianity, Creation, Evangelism, Origins, Religion, Salvation, Second Coming of Christ, Theology

Born Gay

Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination. (Leviticus 18:22)

The notion that people are “born gay” is based on a flawed and biased study done in 1991 by researcher, Simon LeVay.[1]

LeVay’s study also had numerous technical problems. For instance, his samples included 19 brains of gays who died of AIDS and 16 brains from men whose sexual orientation was unknown. He assumed the 16 were heterosexual, even though 5 had died of AIDS. More importantly, although LeVay argued that a small INAH3 “caused” homosexuality, some of the gays had an INAH3 that was larger than the average size of the INAH3 of the “heterosexuals,” and some of the “heterosexuals” had an INAH3 that was smaller than those of gays. So some of his gays “should” have been heterosexual and vice-versa.[2]

INAH-3 is the short form for the third interstitial nucleus of the anterior hypothalamus, and is the sexually dimorphic nucleus of humans. The INAH-3 is significantly larger in males than in females regardless of age and larger in heterosexual males than in homosexual males and heterosexual females. Homologues of the INAH-3 have been observed taking a direct role in sexual behavior in rhesus monkeys, sheep, and rats.[3]

LeVay himself was a practicing homosexual, hence the bias in the study. The study’s findings were inconclusive and would be otherwise considered unscientific in its methods, but because some the homosexual men’s brains displayed this “abnormality,” the study was published as proof that gay men are born that way. However, Johns Hopkins recently came out with an article showing that there is no evidence for this claim.[4]

Aside from the science, the Bible rejects the notion of people “born gay.” God does not create a person to naturally do what He has denounced as an “abomination” (Leviticus 18:22; 20:13; Romans 1:26-27; 1 Corinthians 6:9; Ephesians 5:3-5; Colossians 3:5; Jude 1:7, et al.). No one can accuse God of making him/her that way (James 1:13-14). Homosexuality and all other forms of sexual perversions (sex outside of marriage, adultery, incest, etc.) is sin. Humans are sinners by choice, not by God’s design (Genesis 3), and because there is always a choice, God always provides a way out (1 Corinthians 10:13). People sin willingly, and homosexuality is no different from any other sin.

Discrimination against homosexuals is no different from discrimination against people based on their ethnicity. Looking at it biblically, all people are created equal before God (Acts 17:26). Homosexuality is an act and a choice (like any other sin). A person’s ethnicity is not a choice, but no matter what the ethnicity, all people are “born” sinners. There is nothing wrong with associating with homosexuals. In fact, as Christians, we should show them the same love and respect that we show anyone else. However, that does not mean that God or we approve of their lifestyle, nor should we withhold the truth from them when challenged about their sinful lifestyle. We must share the truth “in love” even though the pill may be hard to swallow.

The truth is that we are all sinners in need of the Savior. If you do not know the Savior, see my page on “Securing Eternal Life.”

 Notes:


[1] LeVay S A difference in hypothalamic structure between heterosexual and homosexual men. Science 1991;253:1034-1037

[2]   Dr. Paul Cameron, “Born What Way?” http://www.familyresearchinst.org/2009/02/born-what-way/

[3]  INAH 3 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/INAH_3

[4]  Tyler O’Neil, “Johns Hopkins Research: No Evidence People Are Born Gay or Transgender,”  https://pjmedia.com/trending/2016/08/23/johns-hopkins-research-no-evidence-people-are-born-gay-or-transgender/

6 Comments

Filed under Apologetics, Christianity, Current Events, Origins, Science, Theology

Bare Naked

And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons. (Genesis 3:7)

Man (and woman) was created in the image of God – Imago Dei for the sophisticates. That image incorporates many of God’s attributes without the omni- aspect of those attributes. Man is a rational being, although that ability to reason progressively wanes through constant rejection of God (Romans 1:28). Man creates beauty: art, sculptures, music, architecture, etc. Man invents gadgets that make life easier: machines that carry us over land, through the sea or in the air to get us where we want to go. We use all kinds of machines to help us perform our work more efficiently: computers, portable communications devices, power tools of all kinds, and even sophisticated diagnostic equipment that allow doctors to “see” into our bodies to find malfunctions. Man’s ability to design, engineer and fabricate finds resolution only in that we are created in the image of God. None other of God’s creatures possesses the almost limitless creative abilities that man has. However, no other creature bears the image of God. Evolutionists (who suffer from the Romans 1:28 syndrome), would have us believe that humans are just a more highly evolved specimen of animal. However, according to evolutionists, some animals currently in existence have been around much longer than humans have. So, one must ask, why do they remain the same with no evidence of evolution – not in the least bit? Nevertheless, that is not the point of this writing.

Humans demonstrate the image of God in their ability to love and in their ability to judge right from wrong. Humans, like God, are triune creatures with a mind, spirit and physical body. Some people have difficulty understanding that God is three persons in one Godhead. That confusion becomes clear when one understands that humans are also three persons in one “soul.” The mind directs man’s activities. The spirit of man motivates man into action, and the body carries out that the plan. Of us, God says, “I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High” (Psalm 82:6, emphasis mine). Jesus made the same argument when the Pharisees would stone Him for blasphemy. “Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?” (John 10:34, emphasis mine). [1] Just as God is Three-in-One in complete unity, humans too possess a triune nature.

The body, the “carriage” for our mind and spirit, also represents the image of God. Jesus, “Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature” (Colossians 1:15, emphasis mine) is the Creator; “For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible …” (Colossians 1:16, emphasis mine). “All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made” (John 1:3, emphasis mine). Jesus “made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men” (Philippians 2:7, emphasis mine). Knowing that He would one day be “made in the likeness of men,” it stands to reason that Jesus, the Creator, would design the kind of body suitable for Himself for His time on earth (and after).

The care that He took to design the human body becomes apparent when we read the creation account in Genesis 1. Every creature God created came about by Divine fiat. “And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven” (Genesis 1:20, emphasis mine). “And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so” (Genesis 1:24, emphasis mine). However, when it came to man, God took greater care. “And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness … So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them” (Genesis 1:26-27, emphasis mine). Chapter 2 provides even greater insight. “And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul … And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man” (Genesis 2:7, 22, emphasis mine).

Still, man lacks one aspect of God’s physical form. Of Jesus, Paul writes, “Who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom be honour and power everlasting. Amen” (1 Timothy 6:16, emphasis mine). The Beloved Apostle also wrote, “This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all” (1 John 1:5, emphasis mine).[2] The Bible often describes angels as possessing a glow about them. Moses, when he came down from the mountain after spending 40 days in the presence of God had a glow about him. The glow caused the children of Israel to fear so much that they asked him to cover his face.[3] There was a glow about Jesus when He was transfigured that left the disciples awestruck.[4]

It seems likely that part of the image of God in man would include a glow about our bodies, but we no longer see that. Oh, I know some psychics claim to see an “aura” around people, but if one is there, it is too dim for “normal” people to see it. As the guy in the motel commercial says, “Nobody glows.” Why is that? I have a theory.

As we noted, God is and dwells in light. In the beginning when He said, “Let there be light” (Genesis 1:3), He actually created darkness to contrast the light. He says as much to the prophet Isaiah: “I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things”(Isaiah 45:7, emphasis mine). So, I believe that when God created man in His image, He created man robed in light. Perhaps that was included in the “breath of life.” When Adam disobeyed God and ate of the forbidden fruit, the light went out (and so too did “life”), “And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked” (Genesis 3:7). It is instructive to note that it was not until Adam (not Eve) ate of the fruit that their eyes were opened. It was Adam, not Eve, who received the command not to eat of the forbidden fruit directly from God; thus, his was the greater responsibility.

To cover (atone) their nakedness, God had to kill innocent animals to make clothing for the bare naked pair. “Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them” (Genesis 3:21, emphasis mine). There may be an intentional play on words here. The Hebrew word for skin is ‛ôr, spelled עוֹר. The Hebrew word for “light,” the clothing they had lost, is ‘ôr, spelled אוֹר. When Adam sinned, the couple lost their ‘ôr (light), and God had to cover their nakedness with ‛ôr (skins).

That temporary covering for sin required the shedding of innocent animal blood. The permanent covering for sin required the innocent blood of the Son of Man, the Lamb of God. Now God offers that gift to us at no cost. Only one thing remains – that we accept the gift by faith. See my page on Heaven for the rest of the story.

Notes:


[1]  See John 10:24-39 for context.

[2]  This is often understood to say that God is the source of all wisdom, knowledge and truth. This is certainly true given the context surrounding this verse. However, Henry M. Morris, Ph.D sees the physical aspect of God’s light as he notes in The Henry Morris Study Bible: http://www.icr.org/Bible/1John/1:5/

[3]  See Exodus 34:30-35.

[4]  See Matthew 17:1-8; Mark 9:2-13; Luke 9:28-36.

1 Comment

Filed under Apologetics, Christianity, Creation, Death, Evolution, Gospel, Origins, Religion, Salvation, Theology

Intelligent Design

The “Simple” Cell

Ah Lord GOD! behold, thou hast made the heaven and the earth by thy great power and stretched out arm, and there is nothing too hard for thee: (Jeremiah 32:17)

The Intelligent Design Movement (IDM) originated around 1987, according to Wikipedia,[1] for the purpose of debunking the theory of evolution from a strictly scientific perspective. Wikipedia says that IDM “is a neo-creationist religious campaign for broad social, academic and political change to promote and support the pseudoscientific idea of intelligent design (ID), which asserts that ‘certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection’” (emphasis mine). One must consider the source! Wikipedia charges that the “movement arose out of the previous Christian fundamentalist and evangelistic creation science movement in the United States, and is driven by a small group of proponents. The overall goal of the intelligent design movement is to overthrow materialism and atheism” (emphasis mine). The author takes a defensive posture against IDM and tends to minimize the scientific research behind the movement.

One of the more familiar IDM organizations is the Discovery Institute founded in 1991 and based in Seattle, Washington. According to their “About” page, the institute is “dedicated to the reinvigoration of traditional Western principles and institutions and the worldview from which they issued.  Discovery Institute has a special concern for the role that science and technology play in our culture and how they can advance free markets, illuminate public policy and support the theistic foundations of the West.”[2] That seems innocuous enough. It certainly does not come across as overly religious unless one harbors a hypersensitivity to theism (which is a very broad and general term).

Through the years, IDM has made great strides in promoting origin of life by intelligent design over random-chance evolutionary processes.[3] Their research demonstrates the impossibility of life springing from non-life. They have shown how even the simplest of life form is so irreducibly complex that it would require an all-or-nothing simultaneous assemblage of all the components to make up a single cell, and not only once, but multiplied billions of times. In an article written for the Institute for Creation Research (ICR), David Rosevear writes:

“… the cell is no longer regarded as simple. The living plasma membrane allows in or out only specific compounds. It is not simply a semi-permeable membrane. Cells contain nucleic acids that carry information about the structure and functions of the organism. They also contain ribosomes where proteins are made using a complex mechanism of nucleic acids and more than a hundred different proteins, each with a specific task. The cell also contains mitochondria where energy (ATP) is produced. The complexity of all these parts of the cell is enormous. Lynn Margulis has suggested that the first proto-cell assimilated these organelles by a process of symbiosis. However, these components cannot now exist independently, nor could the cell exist without their contributions. Moreover, one such type of organelle, known as a lysosome, contains enzymes whose function is to digest foreign bodies. With all the amazingly complex, mutually-dependent components, it seems that the cell had to be complete from the beginning, rather than being assembled piecemeal over years of evolution … Each component of a living cell is breathtakingly complex, yet in isolation it cannot survive nor replicate itself. All the parts of the cell are necessary to its functioning and replication. Nothing works until everything works.”[4] (Emphasis mine)

Recently, the church where I attend invited James M. Tour, Ph.D.,[5] a well-known organic chemist and tenured professor at Rice University, to come and speak on the impossibility of abiogenesis – life from non-life. Dr. Tour began his talk by touting his credentials as a “real” scientist as evidenced by his research and many patents in nano-engineering. He was by no means bragging; he was just stating facts. I spoke to him both before and after his talk, and he is a genuinely humble man, but the fact remains that he is extremely intelligent and gifted. Next, he gave his testimony of how he came to faith in Christ. I was very impressed that before beginning his talk, he took a knee and offered a prayer that God would open the eyes and hearts of the skeptics who might be in the audience. (The church sent to area schools.)

After giving his testimony, he opened the final portion of his talk by stating that from that point on, he would not bring God into the picture. His purposed to disprove evolution by abiogenesis by demonstrating the scientific evidence against it. He read from his “Open Letter to My Colleagues” (not yet published) where he calls the origin of life from non-life a “retarded” theory. “Retarded” because it has not advanced since the Urey-Miller experiments of 1953. He expertly demonstrated how life – even simple life – cannot spontaneously come from random chemical reactions. He pointed out how time is the enemy of slow and gradual evolution. If it is going to happen at all, it must happen all at once.

Tour says he prefers to be “free of that intelligent design label … I have been labeled as an Intelligent Design (sometimes called “ID”) proponent. I am not. I do not know how to use science to prove intelligent design although some others might.”[6] However, like most IDM proponents, he destroys the theory of evolution (life from non-life), but offers nothing substantive to take its place. A public pronouncement of God as the Intelligent Creator is a step too far for him, although on a personal level he may hold and profess that belief. In fact, for Dr. Tour, organizations such as ICR are an embarrassment to both the scientific and Christian community since they rely on Scripture above “science.” Tour wants to maintain a purely “scientific” approach to the question of origins to the exclusion of a supernatural act of creation by Almighty God.

In his 1999 article, David Rosevear said everything Dr. Tour said in his talk.  The difference being that Rosevear attributes the origin of life to God. I suspect that Dr. Tour believes in God as Creator; he is just unwilling to take that stand among his peers.

Jesus said, “Whosoever therefore shall be ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation; of him also shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he cometh in the glory of his Father with the holy angels” (Mark 8:38). What one believes concerning the origin of life is not a salvation issue. Dr. Tour professes to be a Christian and his personal testimony is compelling; of course, that confession was made in a friendly venue. Outside of that, how can a Christ-indwelled “believer” question creation by the very One in which he confesses to trust? “All things were made by him [the Word; Jesus]; and without him was not any thing made that was made” (John 1:3). I do not question Dr. Tour’s salvation; only God can judge the heart. I find no flagrant flaw in his testimony. [7] My only issue with him is that he makes a great case for the impossibility of chemical evolution, but then he leaves it at that. If life could not have originated in that way, then how did it originate? If chance randomness cannot account for the precision in the design of even the simplest cell, then how did that design come about? It must have an intelligent source. He will not say, at least not publicly. That is a shame!

IDM makes a great case against evolution and demonstrates how all life shows intelligent design. However, by refusing to proclaim God as the Intelligent Designer, they leave to door open to all kinds of fanciful possibilities. Some in the ID movement go so far as to propose “seeding” of the earth by ancient aliens; but that only pushes the question of origins further out in outer space. All life, indeed all that exists, originated in the mind of One Intelligent Designer – God.[8] “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth” (Genesis 1:1). The Institute for Creation Research may be an embarrassment to the likes of Dr. James M. Tour, but at least they are not ashamed to proclaim God as Creator, and the Bible as infallible and inerrant in all matters of life including science. I pray that Dr. Tour will soon arrive at that conclusion as well.

Notes:


[1]  “Intelligent Design Movement” – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design_movement

[2]  Discovery Institute “What We Do” – http://www.discovery.org/about/

[3]  “The Fallacy of Time And Chance” – https://erniecarrasco.com/2012/06/06/the-fallacy-of-time-and-chance-13/

[4]  David Rosevear, “The Myth Of Chemical Evolution” – http://www.icr.org/article/myth-chemical-evolution/

[5]  James M. Tour – https://www.jmtour.com/

[6]  James M. Tour, “Evolution/Creation” – https://www.jmtour.com/personal-topics/evolution-creation/

[7]  James M. Tour, “Personal Statement” – https://www.jmtour.com/personal-topics/personal-statement/

[8]  “Proof of God” – https://erniecarrasco.com/2014/06/22/proof-of-god/

 

3 Comments

Filed under Apologetics, Christianity, Creation, Evolution, Origins, Religion, Science

Light From Afar

… he made the stars also. (Genesis 1:16)

The question about the age of the universe is certainly a hotly debated question among both young earth and old earth creationists. Young earth creationists affirm and accept the literal account recorded in Genesis.[1] Old earth creationists accept that God is Creator, but they accommodate long ages because they are convinced that “science” has “proven” that the universe is old. They arrive at this conclusion because we see light from stars and galaxies that are billions of lightyears away from us. The “proof” is questionable, but that is a separate matter.

If one considers God’s account of creation recorded in the first chapter of Genesis, one notes that all things, plants, sea creatures, avian life, land creatures and even humans were all created fully mature and immediately able to reproduce (“the seed is in itself”). The earth itself was created, formed, and organized in the first three days of creation (Genesis 1:1-13). The Bible gives no indication that these were long periods of time.[2] When God records the day (Hebrew yom), He uses the word normally understood as a 24-hour day. By assigning an ordinal number to modify the day (first day, second day, third day, etc.), He further qualifies the day as a normal 24-hour day. If that is not enough, He further defines the day by “evening and morning” indicating a normal 24-hour day.

Some may want to argue that, but their argument is against God’s Word, and that is reminiscent of the first words from the tempter’s mouth: “Yea, hath God said…?” (Genesis 3:1).

With all of that in mind, look again at Genesis 1:14-19, Day Four of creation. In God’s account of creation, God created the earth first, then the other heavenly bodies beginning with the sun and moon and finally He “created the stars also” (v. 16). This in itself contradicts the notion of a Big Bang. Verse 15 establishes the purpose for the heavenly bodies: Lit. “to light over the earth.” In the KJV verse 17 reads: “And God set them [the stars] in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth.” The Hebrew word translated “set” is nâthan, which means “to give.” A strict translation of the verse would read: “God gave them in the expanse of the heavens to light over the earth.” As with all of God’s creation, the light of the stars upon the earth was created in place and fully mature. This eliminates any discussion about how long it takes for light from distant stars to arrive on earth. It makes the argument irrelevant. Whatever is now is not what it was in the beginning.

Notes:


[1]  “The Universe is Young” https://erniecarrasco.com/2017/05/21/the-universe-is-young/

[2]  “The Bible Says” https://erniecarrasco.com/2016/04/03/the-bible-says/

1 Comment

Filed under Apologetics, Creation, Origins, Religion, Science