Category Archives: Science

Seasons

While the earth remaineth, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease. (Genesis 8:22)

It’s fall. The trees in our front yard are mostly plucked clean of all leaves. Our Red Oak holds tenaciously onto what it has left. That suits me because I like its red leaves on display. However, it’s created a different kind of mess with all the acorns it’s dropped this year—a bumper crop! The neighborhood squirrels will have plenty to last them through the winter.

Our Sycamore creates the biggest mess. It drops branches and seed pods, and it releases huge brownish leaves. Both trees decided to defoliate this week and cover the yard to the point that even our walkways disappeared from view. My daily trips to the mailbox were accompanied by the rhythmic music of swish, swish, swish with the occasional crunch, crunch of acorns under my soles as I plowed my way through a foot or more of dead foliage.

Yesterday, guilt got the best of me. The neighbor west of me gets his yard maintained as part of his rent. My neighbor east of me runs a family business from his house, so he can find time during the week to tend to his yard. So, the yards on either side of my house are free of tree debris. I feel certain that they want me to clean up my yard before my leaves blow into their yards. In order to promote good relations with my neighbors, I filled seven plastic lawn bags with my tree trash. The resulting aches and pains from the effort reminded me that I have fully entered the fall of my life and winter is coming.

Seasons come and go for trees. The spring produces new growth. Some trees put forth beautiful flowers to sweeten the air. Summer comes and their leaves stretch out a canopy to cool the passerby from the heat of the blistering sun. Then fall comes. Photosynthesis stops and the trees show their true colors as they prepare for their winter sleep. Winter comes and the trees display bare skeletons giving the viewer a sense of sadness. But then spring returns and the cycle begins anew.

God promised that as long as Earth remains, the cycle will continue. Climate change scaremongers would have us believe that human beings affect Earth’s climate and that we can control how the climate will react by our actions. Obviously, these people do not know God, are unaware of His omnipotence, and are ignorant of His promise.

I’ve seen satellite images of Earth’s surface. Cities, much less people, cannot be seen from outer space. I’ve looked out of airplane windows; I can make out cities, and roads, but I cannot see people. Human beings are invisible specks on the planet, and these fools think we can control the weather! How arrogant! Climate changes by God’s design. The sun flares up at times making some years hotter. Sometimes the sun is less active and our temperatures are milder. It ebbs and flows, up and down. God made it that way, and He promised that the seasonal cycle will continue as long as Earth lasts. According to the Bible, Earth still has more than 1000 years to go before God destroys it to make it anew (2 Peter 3:10, 12; Revelation 21:1), but in the meantime, seasons will continue according to God’s design. There is no need to worry about climate change. As for me, my approaching winter doesn’t bother me. Soon, I will dwell in eternal spring!

1 Comment

Filed under Creation, End Times, Philosophy, Random Musings, Science, Theology

Believe the Bible

For the word of the LORD is right; and all his works are done in truth … By the word of the LORD were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth. (Psalm 33:4, 6)

My father only completed the third grade in Mexico. He learned to read, write and do simple arithmetic. Education was not greatly valued in his youth. More highly prized were his skills at handling horses and cattle on the family ranch, so his education was good enough to get by. Later in life, he felt called of God to enter the ministry and become a pastor/church planter of Spanish-speaking churches. His third-grade education allowed him to enter the Mexican Bible Institute in San Antonio, TX where, after five years of difficult study, he left without earning his diploma. However, he gained valuable skills in sermon preparation, preaching and pastoring churches. His lack of education did not diminish his love for God’s Word nor discourage him from the constant study of it.

My father taught me many things, but the lesson I treasure most was his love for and trust in God’s Word. He taught me that God’s Word is true in all things and applicable in every situation. Even in those areas of Scripture that are difficult to understand, Dad taught me to trust the Bible simply because it is God’s Word. Dad provided no other apologetic than that.

I grew up with that firmly implanted in my mind, and when confronted with skeptics, my defense defaulted to, “the Bible says.” That answer satisfied me, but it did not impress my challengers. They were convinced that everything started with a Big Bang, that earth formed by itself more than 4.54 billion years ago, and that life sprang up from some mysterious chemical reaction 3.6 – 4.0 billion years ago. That story might make logical sense to some, but it does not line up with the biblical account very well especially when it comes to the topic of the evolution of life. Some “Christian” skeptics suggest that God used evolution to create life over millions of years. My response simply stated that God can do whatever He wants. He could have created slowly over millions or billions of years or He could have created instantly. However, the Bible says He did it in just six 24-hour days.

The arguments have not changed much over the years although the skeptics have gotten more hostile. Even “Christians” come against young-earth creationists charging that a young-earth stance is controversial and divisive. However, today I can offer a better defense besides “the Bible says so,” albeit, that really should be the only defense needed against a “Christian.”

A “mature” gentleman confronted me this week with the “old earth” challenge. He claimed to believe the Bible but he believed the earth was billions of years old, not 6000 years old as young-earth creationists believe. He pointed out that light from distant stars takes billions of years to get to earth and that radiometric dating proves that the earth is old. He excused his disbelief in a literal six 24-hour day creation by stating that we really do not know what the Bible means by “day.”

Given that I was not in an appropriate place to properly respond to his challenge, I gave him some simple answers. A light-year measures distance, not time. Just because a galaxy is 14 billion light-years from earth does not necessarily mean that the light from that galaxy took 14 billion years to arrive at earth. Science has yet to measure the one-way speed of light. For all we know, it could be instantaneous. The Bible also hints that God “gave” the light in place when He created the stars. “And God set [the stars] in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth” (Genesis 1:17, emphasis mine). The Hebrew word translated “set” is nâthan and it means “to give.” Also, the phrase “to give light” is only one word in Hebrew – ‘ôr, i.e., “light.” The verse could be translated, “And God gave them [the stars] in the firmament of the heaven to light upon the earth.” This seems to say that light from distant stars took no time to arrive on earth; it was here from the start.

Then there is the matter of radiometric dating. Besides radiocarbon dating, there are several other methods of radiometric dating none of which are reliable. Dr. Vernon Cupps, a nuclear physicist at the Institute for Creation Research (ICR), recently wrote a book[1] that goes into great detail explaining the fallacies of radiometric dating. Indeed, all radiometric dating methods fail to prove that the earth is billions of years old.

The argument from Scripture that we do not have a clear understanding of what a “day” is in the creation account only betrays a lack of understanding of what Scripture really says. In this, the gentleman alluded to Peter’s statement that to God a day is as a 1000 years and 1000 years is as a day. Peter draws his comparison from the psalm of Moses. [2] In his statement, Peter does not make an equivalence between a day and a year but rather draws a simile. The use of the word “as” makes this clear. Peter’s point is that God is not fettered by time; He is timeless. God created time. He created in six 24-hour days and rested on the seventh for our benefit.[3] Furthermore, the word for day used in the creation account is defined by “evening and morning” and confirmed with the assignment of ordinal numbers to distinguish the days.[4]

I left the man with this final thought. We place too much confidence in scientists who are no more than fallen, fallible human beings rather than trusting God’s Word and believing that God did exactly what He told us He did. God is all-knowing and all-powerful and He can do whatever He chooses to do. He could have created the universe, the earth, and all life on earth over billions of years if He chose to do that, but that is not what He told us in His Word. He could have created everything in an instant if He chose to do that, but that is not what He recorded in His Word. What God tells us is that He created everything in six 24-hour days. It is clearly spelled out in His Word. Believe the Bible!

Notes:


[1]  Vernon R. Cupps, Rethinking Radio Metric Dating: Evidence for a Young Earth from a Nuclear Physicist, (Institute for Creation Research, Dallas, TX, 2019). Available from the ICR online bookstore at http://store.icr.org/.

[2]  2 Peter 3:8; Psalm 90:4

[3]  Exodus 20:10-11

[4]  “A Day Is A Day” – https://erniecarrasco.com/2015/10/25/a-day-is-a-day/

Leave a comment

Filed under Apologetics, Bible, Christianity, Creation, Evolution, Science, Theology

Neither Good Nor Bad

And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day. (Genesis 1:7-8)

Greg[1] pointed out to me last week something I had not stopped to consider. At the end of every day of creation, God assessed His work, “And God saw … that it was good.”[2] Genesis 1:4 is God’s assessment of the first day, specifically the light. In Genesis 1:10, 12, God gives approval of the third day’s work in separating the water from the land and bringing forth plant life. In Genesis 1:18, God is satisfied with His creation of the heavenly bodies on Day Four. On the fifth day, God gave His approval of the ocean creatures and the creatures that fly. He certified the “beasts of the field” created on the sixth day, and after He crowned His creation by creating man “in Our Image and after Our Likeness” on the sixth day, He declared His entire creation “very good” (Genesis 1:31). However, the second day, received no such assessment. Greg asked, “Why is that? Why did God have nothing to say about the second day?”

That is a very good question. I had to think about that. I consulted several commentaries on Genesis 1:6-8 and none made note of the absence of God’s evaluation of the second day. Not even The Henry Morris Study Bible had anything to say in this regard. Therefore I am left to puzzle this out on my own.

The best place to start, in context, is at the beginning. “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth” (Genesis 1:1, emphasis mine). The Hebrew word translated “the earth” is ha’erets, and it can refer to earth as the planet, earth as land (either a parcel of land or as a country), or earth as ground (soil). Within the context of the first verse, the last option, ground (soil), probably fits best. In the first verse, God creates all the elements that comprise the universe: time, space, and matter/energy (the earth). Matter/energy occupies time and space. We call this the time-space continuum. So “earth” is the “stuff” from which all else is made.

Genesis 1:2 informs us that all this “stuff” was “without form and void” (not that it “became without form and void” as Gap Theorists speculate).[3], [4], [5] It also says that “darkness was upon the face of the deep.” Then, “the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.” The Hebrew word translated “moved” is râchaph and it means to “flutter, move or shake.” I interpret this to mean that the Spirit of God hovered over the entire glob of the mass of matter to energize all the ‘erets God had created. Part of that energy existed as light. “And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day” (Genesis 1:3-5, emphasis mine).

We arrive at the second day, and what we have is a massive blob of matter and energy within the time-space continuum. It is void and without form; it has yet to be “shaped” into anything. On the second day, God gets to work at molding all the stuff of creation. “And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters” (Genesis 1:6). The Hebrew word for “firmament” is râqı̂ya‛ meaning an “expanse” or the “visible arch of the sky.” Another dictionary[6] defines it as an “extended surface (solid).” The term seems to describe some sort of solid shell around this massive “earth” blob that fills the space of the universe – thus, the “firm” in firmament.[7] God installed this firmament “shell” between the waters to cause a separation from the waters from which He will form “Planet Earth” from the waters that will occupy the rest of space. I see this as the beginning of God “[stretching] out the heavens as a curtain, and [spreading] them out as a tent to dwell in” (Isaiah 40:22). “And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so” (Genesis 1:7, emphasis mine). From the waters “which are above the firmament” God will create “the stars also.”[8]

“And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day” (Genesis 1:8, emphasis mine). What God has at this point is a watery blob in the midst of a greater watery blob separated by the “firmament.” He still has more work to do to form Planet Earth. Perhaps this is why God made no assessment of His work at this point. He was not done with this part yet. It was neither good nor bad; it was incomplete. The finished product comes on Day Three where God brings the landmasses out of the water and causes the ground to bring forth vegetation.[9] At the end of that day, God declares it “good.”

Notes:


[1]  Greg is a volunteer at the ICR Discovery Center for Science and Earth History, and he is a very careful student of the Bible, hence the question. I did not use his full name because I did not request permission to do so, If he reads this blog article, he will know.

[2]  Genesis 1:4, 10, 12, 18, 21, 25

[3]  “The Gap – Not the Store” – https://erniecarrasco.com/2019/08/04/the-gap-not-the-store/

[4]  “No Gap” – https://erniecarrasco.com/2015/10/18/no-gap/

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

[6]  Brown-Driver-Briggs’  Hebrew Definitions

[7]  “רקיע  rāqı̂ya‛, “expanse;” στερέωμα  stereōma, רקע  rāqa‛, “spread out by beating, as leaf gold.” This expanse was not understood to be solid, as the fowl is said to fly on the face of it Gen_1:21. It is also described as luminous Dan_12:3, and as a monument of divine power Psa_150:1,” Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible.

[8]  Genesis 1:16

[9]  Genesis 1:9-13

1 Comment

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

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

Artificial Fertilization

For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world. (John 6:33)

I received the following question last week, and, even though this is not the kind of question I typically respond to, I thought I should at least make an effort to give an answer. The inquirer asked:

Is Artificial Insemination right or wrong? Are there scriptures that can be used to either support or be against it? As Africa is working on catching up with the west, these are some of the Issues so foreign in our culture, but we have to deal with, much more deal with rightly especially for those who profess to be followers of Christ.

Although this individual asked specifically about artificial insemination, there are several methods for treating infertility problems. The writer seemed concerned for those who are followers of Christ, so my response assumed the context of a married, heterosexual, couple. There are moral issues for homosexual couples using these methods to produce children that I do not care to address since I have covered those matters in previous posts. [1],[2],[3],[4]  Therefore, my response addresses Christian concerns.

The most common method of artificial fertilization is intrauterine insemination. This method takes sperm from the husband, by a variety of means, and injects it into the wife’s uterus when she is ovulating. Except for the fact that this circumvents God’s design for childbearing, the redeeming factor is that the couple is husband and wife. Sometimes, for one reason or another, the husband cannot produce sperm. In this case, the couple may be tempted to find a sperm donor. Finding a donor who is not the husband, I think, goes far beyond the will of God, as I will explain later.

The Bible does not have anything to say about artificial fertilization. Obviously, such techniques did not exist when the Bible was written. However, there are principles taught in the Bible that should guide the believer (through the help and guidance of the Holy Spirit) in determining what is right or wrong about this procedure. Ultimately, it is a matter of conscience for the individuals undergoing the procedure.

A second method of artificial fertilization is in vitro fertilization. This method takes ovum from the wife, and the technicians inject them with sperm from the husband resulting in several fertilized eggs – zygotes. This procedure is often used because, for one reason or another, the wife has trouble getting pregnant. The technicians then place the fertilized eggs in the mother’s uterus in hopes that at least one will “take.”

Some things a Christian couple should think about when considering undergoing any of these procedures. (1) The Bible repeatedly asserts that God is the One who gives life. Only God gives life, so the life resulting from artificial fertilization is God-given albeit through human intervention. Humans cannot give or create life – only God does that. (2) Often, in the process of in vitro fertilization, extra embryos are created in the procedure for use at a later time, if the first attempt fails. Sometimes the procedure results in multiple births. Often, not all of the embryos resulting from the procedure are used, and the question arises of what to do with the unused embryos. At some point, someone must decide what to do with the remaining embryos – either keep them or destroy them. Here is where the real problem arises. Those embryos are tiny, not-fully-formed yet 100%, human beings. They are life that God has created; therefore, only God has the right to take that life. When that life is destroyed by man, the act, from God’s perspective, is murder (Genesis 9:5-6; Exodus 20:13).

From my perspective, the problem of infertility should be left to God. We have many examples in Scripture where couples were infertile for many years until the time God chose, so that He might be glorified. Some examples are Abraham and Sara (Genesis 21), Isaac and Rebekah (Genesis 25:21), Jacob and Rachel (Genesis 30), Manoah and wife (parents of Samson – Judges 13), the Shunammite woman and her husband (2 Kings 4), Zacharias and Elisabeth (parents of John the Baptist – Luke 1:5-25). Therefore, I think it best to leave the matter in God’s hands. He is the One that “gives” children (Psalm 127:3). He has His reasons for giving or withholding children from a couple, and ultimately, He knows best.

I do not believe that we should meddle in God’s business. However, a Christian couple struggling with infertility needs to take the matter before the Lord before making such a serious, life-altering decision. Remember the trouble that resulted when Abraham and Sara tried to help God out by using Hagar to produce an heir. The problems from that failed plan plague Israel to this very day! Rachel tried to solve her infertility problem by giving her handmaid to Jacob, then Leah followed suit and did the same. When we examine Jacob’s life, it is anything but blissful! Things usually do not turn out well when we presume to help God out in matters that rightly belong to Him. It is always best to leave such things up to God. God has His reason for blessing some couples with children and not blessing others. The matter is best left to His discretion.

Notes:


[1]  “Born Gay” https://erniecarrasco.com/2018/07/15/born-gay/

[2]  “Reclaiming the Rainbow” https://erniecarrasco.com/2017/07/23/reclaiming-the-rainbow/

[3]  “The Rainbow”  https://erniecarrasco.com/2015/07/05/the-rainbow/

[4]  “Adam & Steve or Bev & Eve?”  https://erniecarrasco.com/2015/05/03/adam-steve-or-bev-eve/

6 Comments

Filed under Apologetics, Christianity, Creation, Current Events, Pro-life, Science, 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

Plant Death

And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat. (Genesis 1:29)

Plants do not possess life in the biblical sense. The Bible almost always refers to plant “death” as “withering.” The Bible says that “the life of the flesh is in the blood” (Leviticus 17:11). Plants do not have blood; therefore, plants do not have life, neither do they die in the biblical sense. The prophet Isaiah wrote: “The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever” (Isaiah 40:8). Notice that he says that the grass “withers,” not that it dies.

If that is true, then why did Jesus say that a grain of wheat falling to the ground dies (John 12:24)? In this passage, the word “die” translates the Greek word apothnēskō. According to Strong’s (G599), the word means, “to die off (literally or figuratively).” Jude applies the same word to “trees whose fruit withereth, without fruit, twice dead, plucked up by the roots” (Jude 1:12, emphasis mine). The word translated “dead” is the same Greek word, apothnēskō, but note that it is associated with “withereth.” Therefore, death, in the Bible, can be applied to plants, but it is more in the figurative sense than in a literal sense.

Jesus said, “Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone: but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit” (John 12:24, emphasis mine). However, He used the word “die” in the figurative sense. He was referring to His pending death and resurrection. He was not using the word in a literal sense that a seed actually dies.

When a seed gets buried in the ground, it does not remain a seed. Rather, it germinates and transforms into a new plant that produces many more seeds. Similarly, Jesus died and was buried in the earth. On the third day, He came up out of the ground, and His resurrection produced eternal life for all who would believe on Him.

So, talk to your plants, if you like, but they really do not hear you. Plants are food, not pets.

Comments Off on Plant Death

Filed under Apologetics, Christianity, Creation, Death, Religion, Resurrection, Science, Theology