Tag Archives: Evolution

Racism

God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands; Neither is worshipped with men’s hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things; And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation; (Acts 17:24-26)

The word “racism” has become a truncheon with which to bludgeon any opponent for any perceived infraction of the new social norms, which change almost on a daily basis. Those on the left often employ ad hominem attacks to silence their opposition, but the one that strikes terror into the heart of every conservative/Christian is the epithet of “racist.” Therefore, any decision President Trump makes, whether or not it favors the leftists, is denounced as racist. Ironically, the true racists rail the loudest, but that is another matter.

Racism, as defined by Dictionary.com, is “a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human racial groups determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one’s own race is superior and has the right to dominate others or that a particular racial group is inferior to the others; hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.”[1]

Racism should not be named among anyone, but especially not among Bible-believing Christians. From the very beginning of creation, the Bible records that God made one pair of human beings, and these two were created in His image.[2] God created one male and one female to carry on the natural process of reproduction and to be caretakers of God’s creation. God purposed the sexual union between opposite sexes to be permanent and productive.[3] Immediately after the Fall,[4] Adam and Eve started to reproduce[5] and before long the earth teemed with people. Without getting into the technical details of the human genome, the perfect DNA of the first couple contained the information to produce a variety of skin colors, hair colors and textures, eye colors, different body frames and heights, facial characteristics, etc. Our lead verse above confirms that God “made of one blood” all nations. The “locked-in” ethnic distinctions resulted from human dispersion after the Flood[6] at the Tower of Babel rebellion.[7] Regardless of ethnic “distinctions,” all human beings are of “one blood.”

I dislike the question on medical forms that asks one to mark down what “race” one is. I always write in “human” and “Hispanic” on the follow-up question that inquires about ethnicity. There is only one “race” – the human race (and we are not a “species” because we are not animals). One would think the medical community would understand such an undeniable biological fact, but alas, after more than a century and a half of Darwinian indoctrination, the Imago Dei has devolved into just another species of animal with a variety of subspecies or “races.”

The variety of ethnic groups (“races” from here on) in centuries past was of little consequence.  Following the dispersion at the Tower of Babel rebellion, “like” races united by language (they had to understand each other) and migrated to different areas around the world. This accomplished God’s purpose for the human race to “fill the earth.” This also had the effect of stamping identifying characteristics in their DNA, which changed very little over thousands of years. Our passage above notes that God determined “the bounds of their habitation.” God invented borders! These boundaries kept ethnic groups from intermingling. Consequently, racism within borders was not a problem. Racism between different races found its expression in wars of conquest in which the victor either slaughtered their victims or assimilated them into their own societies.

Some accuse Israel of racism for carrying out God’s directive to eradicate the Canaanites from the Promised Land. God had a reason for that. The Canaanites were not only idol worshipers, but they sacrificed their babies to demon gods, they practiced sexual perversion in their worship of demon gods, and they conducted all kinds of occult practices. These were wicked people and God wanted to cleanse the land of them. However, Israel failed to complete the task and against God’s commandments, they intermarried with the people of the land and adopted their practices. Following the Diaspora, first in Babylonian captivity and then the dispersion following the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D., Jews adopted a form of racism that does not really fit the definition of racism. Jews have for millennia attempted to keep their race pure; they avoid intermarriage with the goyim (Gentiles). However, this is not new. It is very much in keeping with God’s desire for them to be a “peculiar people.” I do not believe that Jews “hate” other races; they just want to keep theirs distinct. And it’s a good thing too, because in doing so, they have fulfilled end-time prophecy.

As previously stated, while races remained within their borders, racism virtually did not exist. Racism occurs when borders are breached. That kind of racism finds its expression in wars between nations (ethnic groups). However, as cross-country and intercontinental travel increased, racism found a new form of expression. A stranger’s speech, form of dress, color or texture of hair, diet, smell, or any other characteristic distinguishing the stranger from the “nationals” engendered ridicule, abuse, exclusion, or isolation.

Darwin’s The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex further exacerbated the problem by attempting to make distinctions between the races of men making some further “evolved” than others.  In making these distinctions, he assigned the black race the position closest to our ape ancestors. At the time, in America, and other places in the world, black men and women were taken from their God-assigned borders in Africa and sold like animals into slavery. Since they were considered less human, slavery could be easily rationalized.

Slavery is nothing new. It has existed since the beginning of time. The second book of the Bible, Exodus, records how the children of Israel became slaves in Egypt for over 400 years. After they came up out of slavery, God gave laws on the proper, humane treatment of slaves (servants). They were often accepted as part of the family. Some slaves were given great responsibility as “stewards” of their masters’ possessions.  Paul, in his letters to the churches, gave instructions on how slaves should behave with their masters and how masters should treat their slaves.[8] Now just because the Bible provides instructions on the humane treatment of slaves, it does not imply that God condones the practice. God does hate divorce,[9] but he allows for it because of man’s fallen condition.[10] Likewise, the same concept applies to slavery.

A common misconception exists that the slave trade in the 16th to 19th centuries involved mainly white slave traders. The fact is that certain powerful African tribes preyed on weaker ones to sell them to white slave traders for profit. Blacks sold other blacks into slavery. “The major Atlantic slave trading nations, ordered by trade volume, were the Portuguese, the British, the Spanish, the French, the Dutch Empires, and the Danish. Several had established outposts on the African coast where they purchased slaves from local African leaders” (emphasis mine).[11] This, of course, does not absolve the white slave traders, but it demonstrates that they do not bear the burden alone. It appears that this is an early example of black-on-black crime.

Most in the United States frowned upon slavery. Even in the South, only a small percentage of white farmers owned slaves. “In 1860, according to the Gilder Lehrman Institute of American History, 75 percent of white families in the United States owned not a single slave, while 1 percent of families owned 40 or more. Just a tenth of 1 percent of Americans owned 100 or more slaves. That same year, 1860, 31 percent of all slaves in the U.S. were held on plantations of 40 or more slaves, while a majority (53 percent) were held on farms of between 7 and 39 slaves, says the institute.”[12] Perhaps a better way to put it is that only about 25% (1/4) of the entire United States population owned slaves, and most of those were in the southern states. In addition, most of the slaves were owned by large plantation owners who made up a very small fraction of the population. Therefore, while the record of slavery in the United States is certainly a blight on our history, it seems grossly unfair that the majority of white people currently living should be held accountable for the sins of a small minority 160 years ago.

From the founding of our nation, the great majority of Americans held slavery in contempt based on the Word of God and our founding documents that affirm that “all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.”[13] “All men” means all men, regardless of race, religion, or social standing. Slavery cannot stand under that declaration, and, when President Lincoln was elected in 1860 on a platform to end slavery, that initiated the Civil War. Whites and blacks died in that great war that pitted brother against brother. It was ugly, but so is slavery.

One would hope that the Civil War settled the issue of racism in the United States. I am not black, so I cannot empathize with their perception of “systemic racism” in the United States. Frankly, I do not see it. I am certain that racism exists, and it probably always will. However, I believe we have made great strides in the USA to eliminate overt racism, but there will always be some. A close neighbor of mine openly admits that he is racist. He does not like black people. Alright, as long as we live in a free nation, he has the right to hold his views as long as he does not act upon them in a way that will violate someone else’s rights.

Being of Hispanic origin – my roots go all the way back to Spain – and of Mexican heritage – my father immigrated from Mexico – I have experienced racism from stupid white men that saw me as inferior because of my race. (Mexican is a nationality, not a race, but stupid people do not know the difference.) However, I never allowed racist remarks to affect me in a negative way or make me feel inferior to my assailants. And I never allowed those few ignoramuses to cause me to paint all white people as racists because of a few dummies. (I feel strange distinguishing other whites as “white.” Having come from European descent, I am white also.)

My racist neighbor grew up in Ohio. He is of Italian descent. He tells me of all the racial battles he faced growing up, racism between Italians and Irish. Racism comes in all colors. It is not just black and white. Regardless of its form, racism is just wrong. Racism is sin because the God who made us all in His image, made us all of one blood, and we are His prized creation. As such, we have one who hates us for that very reason and will do all that is within his power to divide and conquer us. That is what racism is all about. Satan[14] hates human beings, and he aims to destroy us.[15]

Just from my observations, which only take note of the exterior but seldom see beneath the surface, it seems to me that blacks are more deeply offended when they perceive racism employed against them, whether real or imagined. I worked with a couple of black guys in two different jobs. We always got along fine and never had any relational problems. However, I noticed that when they would be reprimanded or if they received a less than stellar evaluation, they would always attribute the perceived negativity to racism. It was because they were black. I experienced being called a racist by a black worker I supervised. He quit the job because of that, but when I confronted him about it, he could not explain to me what it was I did to warrant that accusation. I did all I could to encourage him not to quit, but he quit anyway.

In the Navy, while I was stationed onboard the USS Sperry AS-12, between 1970-1974, I noticed how black sailors would all gather at one table on the mess decks to the exclusion of all others. Of course, the civil rights demonstrations of the ’60s were still pretty much current events, but these guys made no strides at racial reconciliation. In fact, they went out of their way to intimidate any white sailor that tried to sit at “their” table.

If we are honest, we have to admit that the racism of blacks against whites is more prevalent than the racism of whites against blacks. And I do not understand why, unless it is intentional or perhaps they see themselves as inferior and assume all white people view them in the same way. I do not know. I am not a psychologist. Regardless, racism, regardless of who practices it, is sin.

Because racism is sin, Christians should be the first ones to identify it and the first to reject it. It does not matter the color of skin God gave us, racism should not be named within the Christian community. Yet, we remain sinners even though we are saved by grace. But we can try, and the effort pleases God.

Very recently, two churches, one black and one white, met together to talk about the issue of racism. The pastors of both churches agreed on all points, particularly on the fact that racism is sin. However, rightly or wrongly, it seemed to me that the black pastor indirectly implied that the problem of racism lies with white people, and that white people are primarily responsible for rectifying it. The black pastor was the first to present. He began his presentation by posting the faces of ten black people (8 men, 2 women) who died at the hands of whites: Trayvon Martin,[16] Tamir Rice,[17] Emmit Teal,[18] Eric Garner,[19] Philando Castile,[20] Ahmaud Abrey,[21] George Floyd,[22] Rayshard Brooks,[23] Sandra Bland,[24] and Breonna Taylor.[25]

With a few exceptions, all of these people died in altercations with police officers for resisting arrest, and most had criminal records. In all cases, the deaths were due to poor choices by the victims. In the case of Tamir Rice, a 12-year old, he aimed a realistic-looking pistol at police, and the police reacted in an understandable manner. Tamir, sadly, ended up dead. Emmit Teal, a 14-year old, was lynched by a couple of rednecks (in the ’50s) for allegedly insulting a white woman, the wife of one of the murderers. That case definitely can be called a racist crime, no doubt. Sandra Bland was pulled over for a minor traffic infraction and rather than comply with the officer’s request for her driver’s license, she resisted the officer and became verbally abusive to him. This resulted in her arrest, not because of the traffic violation, but because of her refusal to comply with the officer’s requests, which is against the law. She allegedly hung herself in her jail cell. The matter remains under investigation, but she would still be alive if she had just said, “Yes, Sir” and handed the officer her driver’s license. Breonna Taylor died in a shoot out with police officers who came with a warrant to search for drugs. Breonna was in her apartment with her boyfriend and supposedly did not hear the officers knocking. When the officers broke down the door, Breonna’s boyfriend reacted by firing his gun at the police. Breonna was collateral damage.

All of these cases are tragic, but of the ten, only one can actually be said was the result of racism, and that one did not involve the police. There is a spirit of anarchy pervading our nation that wants to divide us racially, economically, and socially. This same spirit wants to destroy our foundations and topple our system of government by eliminating our system of law enforcement. Systemic racism does not exist in our nation, and it does not exist in law enforcement, but leftists and their media continue to propagate the lie. Consider the lie that blacks are disproportionately killed by white police officers: “Study Destroys Argument That White Cops are Shooting Black Men.”[26] Race is not the issue in police shootings of black men.[27] Another headline reads, “New Police Shooting Stats Show Law Enforcement Is Not the Enemy.”[28] In fact, it appears that more blacks kill cops than the other way around.[29]

To make racism a white issue based on unfounded, isolated cases propagated by the leftist media is not only illogical and irrational, it places the burden of racism unfairly on the majority of white people. Yet the black pastor, perhaps unwittingly and without malice, placed the responsibility of resolution, in context of the Church, on white Christians. He pointed out that the “fact of Racism exists in the World. More specifically for our discussion, in the Church. It is not a figment of the mind of black people.” I propose that it is mostly in the mind of black people who refuse to relinquish it because it offers a convenient excuse for not taking responsibility for their own actions and failings. The black pastor also suggested that “In order for racism to be mitigated, Black Christians need white Christians to recognize it, repent of it and work toward the meaningful reconciliation that is in Christ Jesus our Lord (2 Corinthians 5:19).” That is an excellent recommendation, but it fails to assign any responsibility to blacks who can be just as guilty of racism.

The black pastor quoted from The Woke Church by Eric Mason, p. 163: “What needs to happen in the body if we are going to work together cross-ethnically is that white Christians must reach across the color line and begin building respect and trust for minorities, minorities must respond with open arms and hearts to these efforts.” (Emphasis mine). The pastor added, “Not only do white Christians need to speak up, Black Christians, who have achieved a level of success need to speak up every time we witness the [perceived] injustice of racism. Silence from any Christian for any reason gives permission to evil!” I submit this is one thing they do consistently.

I did not quote anything that the white pastor said because he went along with everything the black pastor said and offered no objection but rather acquiesced to the unfair implication that all the fault lies with the white community, and it is the responsibility of the white community to resolve the issue of racism.

Racism exists. It is sin. It is sin that infects all skin tones. The white pastor pointed out how the Israelites were very racist against Gentiles. Well, Gentiles come in all colors, so the comparison is apples to oranges. Regardless of the form, racism is wrong. However, it cannot be legislated away. It is a problem of the heart and only Jesus can change the heart. As for Christians, both black and white, we need to make the concerted effort to look beyond the color of a person’s skin. We should all, black and white, heed the words of Martin Luther King who said, “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.” Those words have been mostly aimed at whites, but it applies equally to blacks also.

Racism is sin and should not be named among Christians. “There is neither Jew nor Greek [nor black nor white], there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.” (Galatians 3:28)

 Notes:


[1]  “Racism” – https://www.dictionary.com/browse/racism?s=t

[2]  Genesis 1:26-28

[3]  Genesis 2:23-24

[4]  Genesis 3

[5]  Genesis 4-5

[6]  Genesis 6-9

[7]  Genesis 11

[8]  Ephesians 6:5-9

[9]  Malachi 2:13-16

[10]  Matthew 19:3-9

[11]  “Atlantic Slave Trade” – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_slave_trade

[12]  “Slavery, by the Numbers,” The Root website: https://www.theroot.com/slavery-by-the-numbers-1790874492

[13]  Quoted from the Declaration of Independence

[14]  “Why Satan” – https://erniecarrasco.com/2014/11/02/why-satan/

[15]  “The Devil” – https://erniecarrasco.com/2018/09/23/the-devil/

[16]  https://townhall.com/columnists/williammarshall/2019/09/13/exposing-the-trayvon-martin-hoax-n2553059

[17]  https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/mikehayes/heres-a-brief-history-of-the-tamir-rice-shooting

[18]  https://www.fbi.gov/history/famous-cases/emmett-till

[19]  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Eric_Garner

[20]  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Philando_Castile

[21]  https://www.nytimes.com/article/ahmaud-arbery-shooting-georgia.html

[22]  https://nypost.com/2020/06/02/george-floyd-had-violent-criminal-history-minneapolis-union-chief/ and https://www.cbsnews.com/news/george-floyd-death-autopsies-homicide-axphyxiation-details/

[23]  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Rayshard_Brooks

[24]  https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/may/07/sandra-bland-video-footage-arrest-death-police-custody-latest-news

[25]  https://www.wdrb.com/news/separating-facts-from-fiction-in-the-breonna-taylor-case/article_94fb82fc-b10c-11ea-9305-43c10123a542.html

[26]  https://www.lawenforcementtoday.com/study-destroys-argument-that-white-cops-are-shooting-black-men/

[27]  “There Is No Epidemic of Racist Police Shootings” https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/07/white-cops-dont-commit-more-shootings/

[28] https://www.newsmax.com/bernardkerik/police-shootings-crime-statistics/2019/01/22/id/899297/

[29]  “5 Statistics You Need To Know About Cops Killing Blacks” – https://www.dailywire.com/news/5-statistics-you-need-know-about-cops-killing-aaron-bandler

5 Comments

Filed under Apologetics, Bible, Christianity, Creation, Current Events, End Times, Evolution, Origins, Random Musings, Satan, Theology

A Thousand-Year Day

But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. (2 Peter 3:8)

The retirement lifestyle is a new experience for me. So far, it feels like an extra-long vacation. I’m enjoying doing things in the middle of the week and in the middle of the day that were out of the question when I was tied to a nine-to-five job. I am also enjoying the absence of fighting rush-hour traffic.

On Friday of this week, I experienced an outing to the ICR Discovery Center for Science and Earth History, my former employer, with a group of senior adults from our church. Of course, I know the place inside and out, but it felt different to visit as a “guest.” Our visit was too short (only two and a half hours). After that, we boarded our bus bound for lunch at El Fenix, the oldest Tex-Mex restaurant chain in the Dallas-Fort Worth Metroplex. Our driver took us to the one in Irving, Texas, not far from the Discovery Center.

In the course of conversation over lunch, a lady sitting at the table across from me asked me how I would respond to someone who thinks the Genesis creation account is a myth and argues for an old earth based on 2 Peter 3:8 (our verse above). Of course, attempting to change someone’s mind who is convinced that the miracle accounts in the Bible are myths will take some doing. Their main problem is that they have a very small view of God. They usually also have an overinflated view of man. However, their support for long ages based on 2 Peter 3:8 can be easily debunked.

Many use this verse to argue for long ages in the Genesis creation account. They wrongly interpret 2 Peter 3:8 to say, “one day is with the Lord a thousand years, and a thousand years is one day.” The Day-Age Theory[1] uses this interpretation to argue that the days of creation were 1000 years each making the creation event last 6000 years. Giving credit where credit is due, at least they are not arguing for millions or billions of years for creation. By their reckoning, Creation is about 12,000 years old. However, that raises the question; why does God need that much time to create? Furthermore, the purpose of the Day-Age compromise is to allow for evolution to take place, which brings up another question. Evolution requires death and suffering. How then can death be the penalty for sin[2] if death had taken place for thousands of years before the fall of man? And, how could God declare His creation “very good”[3] when He calls death “the enemy”?[4] Some concede that God used evolution to create. This raises yet another question. Why would God need to “experiment” on His creation in order to improve on it over time? Is He not all-knowing and all-powerful? Can God not simply speak things into being as described in the Genesis account of creation? The notion that God used evolution to create serves only to undermine faith in the power of God!

The resolution to the problem of misinterpreting 2 Peter 3:18 comes down to one word – “as.” Peter employs simile to describe the infinite nature of God. God created time; therefore, He is not bound by time. “Of old hast thou laid the foundation of the earth: and the heavens are the work of thy hands…But thou art the same, and thy years shall have no end” (Psalm 102:25, 27). “For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night” (Psalm 90:4). What Peter is saying is that, to God, one day is like a thousand years and a thousand years is like a day. Peter is not attempting to define time for God, but rather he is expressing the timeless nature of God. Therefore, attempting to define the days of creation as 1000 years each based on 2 Peter 3:18, misrepresents both Peter’s message and the Genesis account of creation.

However, without being dogmatic, a parallel could be drawn between 2 Peter 3:18, the days of creation, and historical time. God created in six 24-hour days and rested on the seventh. According to biblical chronology, the earth (all of creation) is about 6000 years old, and we look forward to a final, seventh, 1000-year of rest with Christ’s reign over all the earth.

A visitor to the Discovery Center showed me something in the Prophet Hosea that I had missed although I had read that passage many times. It reads as follows. “I will go and return to my place, till they acknowledge their offence, and seek my face: in their affliction they will seek me early. Come [Israel speaking now], and let us return unto the LORD: for he hath torn, and he will heal us; he hath smitten, and he will bind us up. After two days will he revive us: in the third day he will raise us up, and we shall live in his sight” (Hosea 5:15-6:2, emphasis mine).[5]

In the previous verse, the Lord (Jesus) says[6] that He will destroy Ephraim [the Northern Kingdom, i.e., Israel] and Judah. Then He says that He will return to His place (heaven) until they acknowledge their offence (i.e., the rejection of their Messiah) and seek His face. For over 2000 years, the Jews were scattered all over the earth until recent times (1948), but they, for the most part, have failed to seek His face – they still reject Jesus as their Messiah. However, they will return to Him in the near future. Then in Verse 2 of Chapter 6, they (the Jews) say, “After two days he will revive us: in the third day he will raise us up…”

My friend, referring to 2 Peter 3:18, pointed out that Jesus was crucified around A.D. 30, which means that the year 2030 will be 2000 years – two days.  On the third day (1000 years), Jesus will restore Israel. Although we cannot be dogmatic about such things, my friend’s reasoning is sound and his conclusion logical. If his assessment proves correct, that means the seven-year Tribulation could begin in 2023. The Rapture of the Church can take place anytime between now and then. Again, we must be careful not to be dogmatic about these things, but as Christians, the Word instructs us that the return of the Bridegroom for His Bride is imminent[7] and we must be ready at all times, “and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching” (Hebrews 10:25).

Are you ready? If you are unsure, please read my page on “Securing Eternal Life.”

Notes:


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

[2]  Genesis 2:16-17; Genesis 3

[3]  Genesis 1:31

[4]  1 Corinthians 15:26

[5]  This quotation spans two chapters. The reader must keep in mind that the original text did not have chapter and verse divisions.  The first English Bible to include chapter and verse divisions was the 1560 Geneva Bible.

[6]  Hosea 5:14

[7]  “Imminent” – https://erniecarrasco.com/2020/01/12/imminent/

6 Comments

Filed under Apologetics, Christianity, Creation, End Times, Evolution, Origins, Second Coming of Christ, 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

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

Age of the Earth

“And the earth was without form and void” (Genesis 1:2)

For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it. (Exodus 20:11)

Many Christians find it difficult to believe that the universe and the earth are only about 6000 years old. After decades of assault from all sides by evolutionists touting that billions of years of evolution are well-established scientific fact, Christian scholars, intimidated by the prospect of appearing uneducated while at the same time desiring to uphold the veracity of the Bible, seek compromises that attempt to “shoehorn” evolution into the simple text of the creation account recorded in Genesis.

Several of the compromises exist today even though solid biblical and scientific scholarship has shown them to be false. The Gap Theory,[1] for example, attempts to squeeze billions of years between Verse 1 and Verse 2 of Genesis 1 supported only by vivid imaginations and extra-biblical Jewish writings and traditions but offers zero biblical backup. The Day-Age Theory mistranslates the normal meaning of “day” into indefinitely long periods of time. The Day-Age Theory, when examined carefully and critically presents several problems. Then there is Theistic Evolution that makes out God to be some cosmic tinkerer or experimenter as if He could not get it right the first time.

Other compromises probably exist, but recently I heard a new one. Someone wrote in with the perfect solution to the age of the earth problem. He said:

I believe that the earth is young, 6000 years old, but when I look at Genesis 1: 9-10, I see that what God called the earth is DRY land, not the whole planet. In other words, it is the DRYNESS of the land that is sticking up above the surface of the seas that God had just made that is young or new or 6000 years old. This isn’t my opinion, the Bible describes this. So verses 1 and 2 plus Day 1 and Day 2 need to be interpreted using what Moses says the earth is. So you see trying use dates given by dating techniques to work out how old the ‘earth’ is a waste of time. I personally doubt that it would be possible to date the age of anything. This is because I think anything God makes would always be ‘as new’, until we get to when sin occurred here and then the flood. Using the context approach, entirely within chapter one, it is easy to see what ‘heaven’ is as well. The universe was made instantly by God’s word for sure, but that wasn’t Moses’ focus in Genesis. Another question to ask using the context approach is, ‘Why did God do what He did in Genesis One, the climax of which is Adam and Eve?

What the writer suggests is that the first two days were long periods of time – millions or billions of years, but the appearance of land on the third day is the starting point for counting the age of the earth. I can commend him for taking a hard look at Scripture, however, his disadvantage, it appears, is that he is relying strictly on the English translation of the Bible. The original language, Hebrew, makes things very clear. The Hebrew word for “day” is yôm. Yôm, in the Old Testament nearly always refers to a normal 24-hour day, especially when it is associated with an ordinal number: first day, second day, third day, etc. If that were not clear enough, God clearly defines what a day is: “And the evening and the morning were the first day” (Genesis 1:5). So, one cannot add extensive periods of time to the creation account without doing harm to the text.

Genesis 1:9-10 is another place where the English language fails to translate the Hebrew precisely. In my King James Bible, the word “land” is in italics meaning that the word was inserted in the text for clarity to the English reader. Literally, the phrase should read, “let the dry appear: and it was so. And God called the dry Earth.” (vv. 9-10). The Hebrew word translated “earth” is ‘erets, and it can mean soil, ground, land (as in a plot of land or as a region like “the land of Egypt), and in a greater sense, the planet Earth. Context determines the meaning, which makes me wonder why the translators capitalized the word “Earth” when the context is referring to the “dry land” and not to the entire planet. The conclusion that it is only the “dryness” that is 6000 years old contradicts the definition of yôm given in Verse 5 (and the rest of Scripture).

Reading in its normal context, giving the words their normal meaning, the creation account recorded in Genesis 1 clearly states that God created the universe, the earth, and everything upon the earth in six 24-hour days. One must either accept that or reject it, but woe to them who attempt to add to or take away from that Word to make it fit the whims of sinful men (Deuteronomy 12:32; Revelation 22:18).

Since the writer was convinced that the 6000-year age of the earth started with the appearance of dry land, I did not expound any further on the age of the earth. However, some of the readers of this blog may still doubt since “experts” in the field of anthropology place the beginning of human history between 8000 BC and 5000 BC with “civilization” beginning around 3000 BC. According to biblical chronology, creation happened around 4000 BC, and man was “civilized” from the beginning. Many biblical scholars question this date because they fear appearing ignorant among the “experts.” The Bible presents a straightforward chronology in the “begats” cited in Genesis 5. Biblical scholars that doubt the accuracy of this chronology suggest that there may be gaps of hundreds or even thousands of years in these generations. However, a careful examination of the text reveals no such gaps. The years recorded in Genesis 5 are from event to event – from the age of the father to the birth of that son. For example, Adam was 130 years old when Seth was born or conceived (Genesis 5:3); that is 130 years from Creation. Seth was 105 years old when Enos was born or conceived (Genesis 5:6); that adds up to 235 years from Creation. Enos was 90 years old when Cainan was born or conceived (Genesis 5:9); that adds up to 325 years from Creation and so on. The table below breaks down the timeline.

Image Credit: Institute for Creation Research

[2]

Add to these the genealogies recorded in Genesis 11 (included in the table above), and we learn that Abraham was born between 1,948 to 1,985 years after Creation or around 2018 BC. The year of Abraham’s birth is pretty well established +/- 100 years, so given the chronology recorded in Genesis, all of Creation is not much more than 6000 years old. Of course, many will argue that, but their argument is against Scripture. Personally, I would be careful about challenging God on the accuracy of His Word. To question what we do not understand is one thing. To deny the veracity of God’s Word is something else altogether. According to Scripture, the Earth is only about 6000 years old.

Notes:


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

[2]  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/

6 Comments

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