“For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is …” (Exodus 20:11)
There is no argument that the age of the earth debate between evolutionists and creationists has no resolution because there can be no middle ground for compromise on either side. At issue is the question of origins: did all that exists come about by random chance over billions of years through natural causes, or did an omnipotent, omniscient Creator bring it all into being? It is one or the other, and the one who holds either view holds that view religiously and tenaciously. There is no “give.”
Lamentably, the real battle exists in the Christian camp (among “brothers”) where a variety of opinions persist. Is the earth 4.5 billion years old as the evolutionists claim, or is it only 6,000 years old as the Bible seems to indicate? Most Christians accept that God created all that exists, but beyond that opinions vary as to how God created. That God spoke everything into being as the Bible records is too simplistic an answer for some. There are basically two major divisions in this debate. The first group contends that God created everything in six 24-hour days around 6000 years ago. The second group comes in several flavors, but basically they agree with the evolutionists that God created everything over 13.7 billion years ago and used evolution in one form or another to create life. However, they will contend that man was a “special” creation of God and did not evolve from lower life forms. My intent here is to give a brief defense of the first group. The second group is indefensible in my opinion.
I wish to respond to three questions recently posed to me. (1) Where, exactly, does the Bible say that the earth is only six thousand years old? (2) How do we know that the creation spoken of in the Bible took place in six literal 24-hour days, as opposed to uncounted eons of time? (3) In 2 Peter 3:8, it says “that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.” Is this passage pointing to God as being outside of time, or is it the basis for the 6-day/6-thousand years belief?
In answer to the first question, the Bible does not give an age for the earth per se. God did not exactly “date stamp” His creation. Archbishop James Ussher determined that the earth was created in the year 4004 BC by using the genealogies found in Genesis along with other sources.[1] When one begins with the Genesis account of creation (Genesis 1) and counts the generations from Adam to the Flood, one gets about 1656 years. From the Flood to the birth of Abraham was 297 years for a total of about 1953 years.[2] We can round that off to about 2000 years. Then we have about 2000 years to Jesus and from Jesus until now we have another 2000 years for a total of 6000 years – give or take a couple of hundred years.
Second, God created everything in six literal days. The Hebrew word used for “day” is yom, and it almost always means a normal 24-hour day. On those few occasions when it does not mean a literal 24-hour day, context lets us know that, as in the case of “the day of the Lord.” Furthermore, just in case it is not clear enough for us, God further specifies that “the evening and the morning was the first day, second day, third day,” etc., making it clear that God means a literal 24-hour day (Genesis 1:5, 8, 13, 19, 23, 31). Later, in Exodus 20:11, as God gave the commandment concerning the keeping of the Sabbath, God says, “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.” In other words, God is saying, “I gave you the example by creating in six days and resting on the seventh, and I want you to follow My example.”
The third question deals with what a “day” means to God. When we look at 2 Peter 3:8 we need to keep the context in mind. Peter is talking about the Second Coming of Christ, and he is encouraging his readers, in the midst of persecution, not to lose heart in waiting for Christ’s return. In essence he says that God does not mark time the way we do; He is not bound by time as we are. Furthermore, Peter employs simile when he says “one day is with the Lord as [or “like”] a thousand years, and a thousand years as [or “like”] one day.” Notice what he DID NOT say: “one day is with the Lord a thousand years, and a thousand years is one day.” We need to take care when reading the Bible not to read into Scripture what is not there.
There is no scriptural reason not to believe in a young earth, nor is there any scientific reason to not to believe in a young earth; but I will let the scientists at the Institute for Creation Research argue those finer points of science. Trust what God says in His Word – ALL of it! Seriously, who would you rather believe? The words of fallible man or the Word of Infallible God?
“… and they that dwell on the earth shall wonder, whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world …” (Revelation 17:8)
In my last post, “The Book of Life” I talked about the Book of Life that will be opened at the Great White Throne Judgment. Anyone whose name is not found written in the Book of Life is sentenced to an eternity in hell. I also expressed my understanding that everyone who has ever been born has their names written in the Book of Life initially, but whether they remain there depends on how they respond to God’s offer of salvation.
I said this was true with some exceptions, but I did not want to go into the details at that time. The reason I did not elaborate on the “exceptions” is because it might sound a little strange or even weird to some people, and trying to explain it in one or two paragraphs would be next to impossible. In fact, books have been written on the subject, so it would be difficult to explain in just a few words.
Just by way of disclaimer: what I am suggesting in the following paragraphs should not be taken as “gospel.” These are simply my thoughts based on studies that I have done, and are not meant to represent any kind of ecclesiastical dogma. There are many things in God’s Word that are not made clear to us, and to attempt to build a case on a shaky foundation is simply foolish. So, I recommend a healthy dose of skepticism before continuing. You may think I am full of bologna, and that is fine. This is something I “think” is true, but I wouldn’t bet my next paycheck on it. So, read on.
You remember in Genesis 3 that Satan came to Eve in the form of a serpent and tempted her to eat of the fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. She then shared the fruit with Adam who also ate of the fruit so that both sinned by disobeying God’s only commandment – that they should not to eat of that tree. God punished them, as He had warned them, by causing them to die in two ways: (1) they would no longer live forever (when God created man, He intended them to live forever), and (2) they were separated from their Creator. This is what we know as original sin, and all generations since Adam and Eve have inherited original sin. We all have a “sin nature.” That is why the Bible says that “all have sinned and come short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23, emphasis added). God also cursed the ground from which man was taken so that all of God’s creation suffers because of man’s sin. “For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now” (Romans 8:22, emphasis added). Adam’s punishment was that work would be hard for him, and Eve’s punishment was that she would have pain in bearing children.
Following that (about 1600 years later), we are told that violence increased in the world. “And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart” (Genesis 6:5-6). That was bad enough, but the first verses of Genesis 6 talks about something that is very strange, and has puzzled biblical scholars for ages . It says:
1 And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,
2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose …
4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown. (Genesis 6:1-2, 4, emphasis added)
The “sons of God” in the Hebrew is bene elohim. This term always refers to angels in the Old Testament. (See Job 1:6; Job 2:1; and Job 38:7.) There are two kinds of angels: Satan’s angels (demons) and God’s angels. (Something to keep in mind is that even the devil is God’s devil. God created him, and he rebelled against God. But the devil (Satan) cannot do anything without God’s permission. This is demonstrated in the first three chapters of Job.) So, these demons “mated” with human females to create a mighty race of men. Now, angels cannot procreate directly, so what probably happened is that these demons possessed human males in order to mate with the human females. This somehow altered the DNA of the children born from these demonic unions so that they created “giants.” The Hebrew word used for “giants” is nephalim, and it literally means “fallen ones.”
Imagine just how bad things got that God felt He had to destroy them all. “But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD” (Genesis 6:8) and “Noah was a just man and perfect in all his generations, and Noah walked with God” (Genesis 6:9, emphasis added). The phrase that Noah was “perfect in all his generations” does not mean that he was sinless. Remember, “all have sinned.” What this means, then, is that his blood line was not contaminated by the satanic unions of the others.
When I say that there are “some exceptions,” this is to what I’m referring. Revelation 17 discusses the apostate church during the Tribulation who the Antichrist will eventually destroy. About those who follow that apostate church it says, “The beast that thou sawest was, and is not; and shall ascend out of the bottomless pit, and go into perdition: and they that dwell on the earth shall wonder, whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world, when they behold the beast that was, and is not, and yet is” (Revelation 17:8, emphasis added). It is very clear that these were never written in the Book of Life – “from the foundation of the world.” It is as if these were never meant to be born.
One would think that the Global Flood should have taken care of all of the “bad seed.” Well, perhaps not all of them. As we continue the narrative in Genesis 6, God sent the Flood that covered the entire earth for almost a whole year. The Bible tells us that Noah and his wife and his three sons and their wives were in the Ark for 371 days, before the earth was once again livable.
Then follows an incident where Noah got drunk, and his son Ham saw him naked (Genesis 9:20-29). Ham, instead of covering his father went and told his brothers, Japheth and Shem. So they went into Noah’s tent backward so as not to see the nakedness of their father and they covered him up. When Noah awoke from his drunk and discovered what Ham had done, he cursed Canaan, Ham’s youngest son. So the question is, why did Noah curse Canaan and not Ham or Ham’s other sons? The answer may be that Ham’s wife may have carried some of the “bad seed” of the Nephalim in her, and it showed up in Canaan. One of the characteristics of Nephalim is that they had six fingers. (Goliath’s father had six fingers on each hand and six toes on each foot (2 Samuel 21:20).) Canaan was probably born with six fingers and when Noah saw it, he cursed him. So, some of these probably still exist in our world today with or without six fingers, but God knows who they are. These would not qualify to be written in the Book of Life.
Canaan’s descendants settled in the “Land of Canaan” which was given to Abraham and his descendants (Genesis 13:14-18; 15:18-21). Genesis 10:15-20 describes who these people were and where they settled. “And the border of the Canaanites was from Sidon, as thou comest to Gerar, unto Gaza; as thou goest, unto Sodom, and Gomorrah, and Admah, and Zeboim, even unto Lasha” (Genesis 10:19). These are the people that the children of Israel had to face when they entered the Promise Land. As they prepared to enter into the land, 12 spies were sent in to spy out the land and report back what they encountered. The book of Numbers records the bad report returned by 10 out of the 12 spies. “And there we saw the giants, the sons of Anak, which come of the giants: and we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so we were in their sight” (Numbers 13:33). Again, here the Hebrew word for “giants” is nephalim – the “fallen ones.” In The Henry Morris Study Bible, Dr. Morris makes this note about this verse:
There were also other tribes of giants in the land. “That was also accounted a land of giants: giants dwelt therein in old time; and the Ammonites call them Zamzummims; A people great, and many, and tall, as the Anakims” [i.e., sons of Anak] (Deuteronomy 2:20, 21). Here, and in a number of other passages, the word for “giants” is Rephaim, evidently a tribe descended from the “Rephaims” associated with the “Zuzims” and the “Emims” of Genesis 14:5. The Emims also were called “a people great, and many, and tall, as the Anakims” (Deuteronomy 2:10).
All of these references indicate that there had been another irruption of the fallen “sons of God” just as in the days before the Flood. This time the irruption was probably in connection with the events surrounding the rebellion at Babel and the subsequent worldwide dispersion of the occult religious system introduced there. These demon-possessed men and women became the progenitors of tribes characterized by giantism, just as in the antediluvian days. (http://www.icr.org/bible/numbers/13:33/)
So, it is apparent that these nephalim somehow managed to survive the Flood. These who survived were descendants of Canaan, which explains why Noah cursed Canaan and not Ham. Oh, and by the way, Ham begat other sons before Canaan: Cush, Mizraim (Egypt), and Phut. Canaan was the youngest, but evidently, he carried the “bad seed.”
Now, to further complicate things, I am sure you have heard of UFOs and of aliens abducting humans. I believe (and I am not alone in this) that these are demons that are doing the same thing today as they were doing back in Genesis 6. (See my article “Aliens?”) These creatures, that may look very human, were never meant to be born, so their names are not written in the Book of Life.
Unless you are one of the nephalim (and you probably are not, if you are reading this), your name is written in the Book of Life. My question to you would be, is your name permanently written in the Book of Life, or is there a possibility that it could be blotted out? That choice is up to you.
Watch “On the Trail of the Nephalim” on YouTube with L.A. Marzulli.
And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. (Genesis 1:31)
A high school sophomore was required to read Survival of the Sickest:The Surprising Connections Between Disease and Longevity by Dr. Sharon Moalem as a summer reading assignment. According to this student, the book takes different diseases or illness and traces them back to their origin and provides scientific research to back up why a particular disease was once beneficial to our ancestors. Such strong “evidence” challenged the young man’s creationist worldview and raised several questions in his mind:
If God did create diseases did he have any good intentions or did he want them to destroy us?
Is God still creating diseases today, or are the ones He created just now being discovered?
Is this book right when it says that as humans we adapt overtime based on certain genes that help us survive?
The student offered one example of the disease hemochromatosis, which is a genetic disorder “that causes high amounts of iron to be present in the body, and overtime the human body ‘rusts’ away until the person affected dies” according to the student. The Mayo Clinic says that “hemochromatosis causes your body to absorb too much iron from the food you eat. The excess iron is stored in your organs, especially your liver, heart and pancreas. The excess iron can poison these organs, leading to life-threatening conditions such as cancer, heart arrhythmias and cirrhosis. Many people inherit the faulty genes that cause hemochromatosis — it is the most common genetic disease in Caucasians” (emphasis added).[1]
As reported by the student, Moalem “suggests that this disease helped people to survive during the bubonic plague. The bubonic plague was easily contracted and once it was in your system would rapidly progress feeding off of the iron available in the blood stream and within days kill you. Those who were lucky enough to have hemochromatosis, however, had almost all of their iron inaccessible to the plague since it was all in ‘locked’ form. This prevented the disease from spreading and enabled people to survive.” This was offered by Moalem as one example of the evolutionary theory of natural selection and how adaptations helped many people to survive.
I have not read Moalem’s book, so the information I have is secondhand. However, the error in thinking seems pretty clear to me. The example cited about hemochromatosis is an example of a genetic defect. The people with this genetic defect die because their bodies cannot make use of the iron in their system. The fact that it protected them from the bubonic plague did not save them from the eventual death caused by their genetic disorder. They still eventually died prematurely because of their inherited disease!
The same is true for those with sickle cell anemia. It is a genetic defect that brings about the early death of those having the defect. However, the defect makes them immune to malaria, and although they are safe from malaria, they eventually die an early death because of the disease. Personally, I do not see the benefit in either of these cases!
Genetic studies are showing that we are not improving health-wise. Our knowledge of how to combat some of these diseases continues to improve as new diseases continue to crop up.[2] Studies have shown that we transmit 60 to 200 mutations every generation,[3] and those mutations are either neutral or harmful; none are beneficial.
The question of human adaptation, as far as survival in different environments, I think has more to do with man’s intellect than it does genetics. However, as Brian Thomas, science writer for the Institute for Creation Research, points out, “It’s plausible that the Creator ‘front-loaded’ Adam and Eve’s genomes with full complements of a wide variety of both essential and non-essential genes, as well as genetic and epigenetic factors to facilitate rearrangement of those genes. Thus, as humans have spread out and thrived in various environments across the globe since their dispersal at Babel, their traits have also spread out.”[4]
As for God creating diseases, in a certain sense, He did. God is sovereign and all of creation is subject to His control. However, in another sense, God did not create disease. Genesis 1:31 tells us that God’s assessment of His creation was that it was “very good.” Such an assessment coming from a perfect God can only mean “perfect” – “flawless.” Death, decay and disease came as a result of man’s sin. “Because thou … hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake” (Genesis 3:17, emphasis added). It is because of man’s sin that disease entered into the world, not because God created it – at least not initially. In the beginning man was created not to die; in fact, nothing that God created was intended to die. The Bible calls death “the enemy” (1 Corinthians 15:26). So, our genetic degradation is due to sin. However, God will not allow us to degenerate to extinction. When Christ returns, He will restore everything back to its original perfection (Revelation 21:1). That should give us great hope!
Here are some other articles on the human genome that you may find interesting:
The atheist about whom I wrote last week actually responded. It surprised me. Something I’ve noticed about atheists is their inability to focus on any one thing and examine it thoroughly. Instead they resort the “fire hose tactic” by trying to overwhelm their opposition with more “evidence” than one can respond to – all of it unsubstantiated, of course. I find that one advantage of writing over speaking is that I can select the topic to which I will respond, and rather than going into great detail to defend my position, I just refer the atheist to articles written by real scientists that present a contrary view. The atheist prides himself in being “open-minded,” so this allows him to practice what he preaches.
I do not want to burden my readers with every detail of the conversation, but the following are some of the points the atheist attempted to make, along with my commentary.
Some species that have evolved throughout the recorded history of mankind. Examples – The fish in the Hudson River evolving to survive the toxic waste, the South-East Fence Lizard which has learnt [sic] a defensive ‘dance’ to fight off ant predators, the Lerista Skink that’s evolved to shrink its legs to travel through the Australian sands more efficiently, slithering instead of walking with legs.
Here the atheist is equivocating. I had previously warned the atheist not to do this, but there is only so much one can expect from a reprobate mind (Romans 1:28). Evolutionists often confuse “adaptation” (microevolution) with macroevolution – one kind of animal changing into another. In his examples, the fish is still the same species of fish. It did not change into a whale or grow legs to walk out of the polluted waters. The lizard is still the same species of lizard. The lerista skink genus, according to the Wikipedia, “is especially notable for the variation in the amount of limb reduction. The variation ranges from short-bodied forms with large legs bearing five toes, to elongate forms completely lacking legs” (emphasis added). “Variation” does not equal “evolution.”
Humans share (approx) 96% of their genes with Chimpanzees, 90% with Cats, 80% with Cows, 75% with Mice (90% of Mice’s genome can be lined up with certain regions on the human genome, also with 99% of Mice’s genes turning out to have analogues in humans), 60% of Fruit Flies’ DNA is shared, 60% of genes with Chickens, and so on.
If anything, the similarity in DNA among animals and even plants speaks to a common designer not to evolution. The information coded and stored in DNA are the instructions necessary to make a human being human or a dog either a Great Dane or a Chihuahua. Dr. Jeffrey Tomkins, biologist with the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) has written much on this subject. His research shows that the similarities between human and chimp DNA are not as close as first proclaimed, and the gap grows greater the more he investigates. (See: Chromosome Comparison Shows More Chimp-Human Differences.)
The atheist then pointed to Darwin’s finches at the Galapagos Islands. That really is no different than what has already been covered above. Typically, what I have noticed about atheists is that they parrot things that they have heard without bothering to think critically about what they have heard. They simply regurgitate what they have been fed. His next point is a good example:
Big Bang Theory… 13.7 billion years ago (somewhere around that mark), not 5,000 years (almost hilarious to believe the world is that young with the overwhelming amount of proof), something quite large happened. Not an explosion like most Religious parties believe happened, nothing like if a balloon were to pop and all its contents were to spill out in all different directions. It happened more like a small balloon finitely expanding to the size of the Universe as it is now. What caused this, no-one knows, the mathematics behind it are [sic] crazy and extreme for humans to even grasp.
If “religious parties” portray the Big Bang as an “explosion,” it is because that is how it was initially portrayed by Sir Fred Hoyle (and others), the man who coined the phrase in 1949. Current theoretical physicists promulgate this idea by what is presented on the mass media. While they speak about “inflation,” they present images that imply an explosion. Contrary to the atheist’s portrayal of “religious parties,” creation scientists would lean more toward the side of “inflation” (without the billions of years) as this view lines up better with biblical instruction (Job 26:7; Psalm 104:2; Isaiah 40:22; 44:24; Zechariah 12:1). The atheist ignores that there are competing views among secular scientists on how the Big Bang developed. The jury is still out on which is the correct interpretation. So, like all fools, the atheist builds on a foundation of sand (Matthew 7:26).
Our sun alone is 4.57 billion years old, after it collapsed (along with many other stars) from being a part of a giant molecular cloud (Hydrogen + Helium). For god to have created the sun 5,000 years ago, it would still be in the process of its collapse and Earth would still being in its process of creation, much more flat and disc-shaped.
In the first place, gas does not collapse; it expands, which is an argument against current star formation theories. This is a carefully guarded secret. As for God not being able to create in a short amount of time, obviously the atheist is not familiar with the omniscient, omnipotent God of creation.
At this point, the atheist begins his assault on God. He begins his attack with words straight from the devil’s mouth: “You’re god is the only true god?” Then he lists several pagan gods. Interestingly he finds the parallels between the pantheon of Asherah, who is impregnated by a ray from the sun god, gives virgin birth to a son, who is killed and rises again. There are several variations of this theme in ancient pagan religions which predate Christianity. Asherah is called the “Queen of Heaven,” a title which is currently carried by the Virgin Mary of the Roman Catholic Church. Let us face it; Satan is not stupid. He is the foremost counterfeiter. Jesus called him the father of lies (John 8:44). Sadly, the atheist has willfully accepted the lie as evidenced by his charge that “Christianity and its bible [sic] is simply a mish-mash, hand-me-down of all the most memorable elements and factors of thousands of different ‘pagan’ religions that came a long time before it.”
As previously stated, often the atheist’s strategy is to overwhelm his opponent with a barrage of stupid questions. (Yes, there are stupid questions – those that are not thought out before presenting them.) Here are some examples:
About Adam and Eve … They ate from the ‘Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil’ which disobeyed god…right? Just one problem: How could have Adam and Eve been expected to comprehend the implications of their actions if, prior to their indiscretion, they had no concept of right and wrong, punishment, evil, pain, suffering and death? Even if god had been successful in adequately explaining all these beforehand, this means that he would have had to give them knowledge of good and evil anyways, which turns the entire story into one big ridiculous farce. A loving, just and secure god would realise [sic] that simply not believing in him is not a crime worthy of hellfire.
The atheist assumes that Adam and Eve were supposedly created with lower intelligence rendering them incapable of understanding God’s only rule (Genesis 2:16-17). This rule seems straightforward and simple enough that any child can comprehend it. This was answered in last week’s post, so I will not comment on it further other than to say the atheist was either not paying attention or his reprobate mind kept him from seeing it.
God doesn’t make mistakes, as you put it, he is perfect in every aspect, therefore his creations were perfect too… so why then did he flood the entire Earth killing thousands, if not millions of innocent people, along with some of the ‘sinners’… they couldn’t have been ‘sinful’ because god made them, and he’s perfect and so were his creations. There would be no way they could have turned against him, because they were perfect (research the word ‘perfect’ think you’re using the wrong one).
The atheist missed the part about the fall of man (Genesis 3:6), also covered in last week’s post. That is what makes these kinds of questions stupid, and they are designed to distract the opponent from the main point – that God is Creator of all and His creation is accountable to Him – like it or not.
The atheist went on to make more absurd arguments, and I do not want to bore my readers; but what follows is the saddest thing of all. This was his response to the Gospel message that I presented to him:
Jesus’ “sacrifise” [sic] … For Jesus to have made a blood sacrifice for our sins is impossible. A blood sacrifice cannot ‘pay’ for a person’s sin, it is an archaic, deeply flawed view of morality that says that, as long as there is blood spilled to appease god (and with Jesus’ blood being innocent at that), then the crime is forgiven. How can someone else pay for your sins? In what sense is morality and justice served if someone, let’s say, offers to take the place of a condemned criminal in the electric chair? Does this change the fact that the condemned criminal has not been held responsible for his actions? And how is the innocent death anything more than a sad, pointless waste that doesn’t add anything to the overall moral equation?
It intrigued me that he should see the futility of blood sacrifices. God shares the same attitude: “For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins” (Hebrews 10:4). But the innocent, sinless blood of the God-Man is ultimately superior: “By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all” (Hebrews 10:10).
The atheist had much more to say, but I found it wearisome, tedious and mind-numbing. The Bible tells us to “be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear” (1 Peter 3:15). But the Bible does not put the burden of conversion on the shoulders of the witness; that work is for the Holy Spirit. But we should not withdraw when challenged by an unbeliever just because we assume it will be time wasted. Often, your words, no matter how well put together or how brilliantly argued, will fall upon deaf ears. Occasionally though, you may find that one that is ignorant, knows it, and truly wants to learn the truth. That one is worth the effort!
Ernie's Musings 