Are the Days of Genesis to Be Interpreted Literally?
by Ted Cabal
This question has stoked controversy among conservative Christians in recent times, but it has proved to be of little interest to theistic evolutionists (those who accept evolution as God's mechanism in creation) and those rejecting Genesis as God's inerrant Word. The debate has been primarily between young- and old-earth creationists, who believe that God literally created the various kinds of living things (as opposed to the common descent of Darwinism). Both sides hold that humans have not descended from other species, and both reject the atheism and macroevolutionary theory of neo-Darwinism.
The two creationist camps, however, differ in interpreting the creation days of Genesis. If the days were consecutive 24-hour periods, and if the earth was created on the first day, then calculations based on biblical genealogies reveal that the earth was created only thousands of years ago. If the days were either of indeterminate length or nonconsecutive, then the Bible does not reveal when the earth was created. Interestingly, both sides agree that the genealogies reveal that Adam and Eve were specially created only thousands of years ago.
Young earth creationists (YCs) interpret the days as 24-hour, consecutive periods for reasons such as the following: (1) The days in Gn 1 are consecutively numbered and comprised of an "evening and morning." (2) Exodus 20:8-11 commands a literal week of six days of work and one day of rest based on God's original creation/rest week. The two weeks would seem, then, to be of equal duration. (3) According to Rm 5:12, "sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin," but old-earth creationism would have animal death entering the world before the sin of Adam and Eve.
Old earth creationists (OCs) argue against 24-hour creation days for reasons such as these: (1) The Hebrew word for "day" (yom) is used in different ways in the creation account. For instance, Gn 1:5 refers yom only to daytime (daylight), not nighttime. Also, Gn 2:4, literally translated, speaks of "the yom that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens." (2) God's rest on the seventh "day" has no evening and morning (Gn 2:2-3), and Heb 4:3-11 portrays this same Sabbath as continuing to the present time. (3) Adam could not have named all the birds and animals in 24 hours according to Gn 2.
Both sides believe they have strong arguments favoring their interpretation and rebutting the other side. And historically, debate regarding biblical interpretation has often led to a clearer understanding of God's Word. But it is also highly debatable whether this issue merits the rancor and division often attending it. Some YCs accuse OCs of compromising the Bible with evolutionary science. Some OCs charge YCs with undermining biblical credibility by generating a false conflict between science and the Scriptures.
Happily, one thing is not debatable among those who believe the Bible: even if the correct interpretation of the creation days is not readily apparent in the present generation, the Bible can be trusted in every way. Debates about biblical interpretations should not be interpreted as the failure of Holy Scripture.
Evolution: Fact or Fantasy?
by Phillip E. Johnson
Evolution is a fact only at a very small scale. It is fantasy when it is used to explain how plants and animals came into existence or how human beings supposedly evolved from apelike ancestors. We might summarize the fantasy by saying that, where the theory of evolution is true, it is not very interesting, and where it is most interesting, it is not true.
If "evolution" merely refers to a process of cyclical (back and forth) variation in response to changing environmental conditions, then evolution is a fact that can be observed both in nature and in laboratory experiments.
For example, when a population of insects is sprayed with a deadly chemical like DDT, the most susceptible insects die but the individuals most resistant to the poison survive to breed and leave offspring, which inherit the genes that provide resistance. After many generations of insects have been sprayed, the entire surviving population may be comprised of the DDT-resistant variety, and some new form of insect control will have to be applied. Such changes are not permanent, however, because the resistant mosquitoes are more fit than the others only for as long as the insecticide is applied. When the environment becomes free of the toxic chemical, the insect population tends to revert to what it was before.
A similar effect explains how disease-causing bacteria become resistant to antibiotic drugs like penicillin, which then are no longer as effective in controlling the disease as they formerly were.
Almost all illustrations of "evolution in action" in textbooks or museum exhibits are similar to these examples. They involve no increase in complexity or appearance of new body parts or even permanent change of any kind. Small-scale, reversible population variations of this sort are usually called microevolution, although "adaptive variation" would be a better term.
It is misleading to describe adaptive variation as "evolution," because the latter term commonly refers also to macroevolution. Macroevolution is the grand story of how life supposedly evolved by purely natural processes from very simple beginnings to become complex, multicelled plants and animals, and eventually human beings, without God's participation being needed at any step along the way.
Charles Darwin assumed that macroevolution was merely microevolution extended over very long periods of time. Biology textbooks, museums, and television programs still teach people to make the same assumption, so that examples of microevolution are used as proof that complex animals and even human beings evolved from simpler organisms by a similar process.
The primary flaw in the story of macroevolution is that all plants and animals are packed with information—the complicated instructions that coordinate the many processes enabling the body and brain to function. Even Richard Dawkins, the most famous living advocate of Darwin's theory, admits that every cell in a human body contains more information than all the volumes of an encyclopedia, and every one of us has trillions of cells in his or her body, which have to work together in marvelous harmony.
The greatest weakness of the theory of evolution is that science has not discovered a process that can create all the necessary information, which can be likened to the software that directs a computer. Without such a demonstrated creative process, evolution is merely a story, because its supposed mechanism can neither be duplicated in a laboratory nor observed in nature.
It is true that there are patterns of similarity among living creatures. For example, humans, apes, mice, worms, and even plants have many similar genes. The important question is not whether there are similarities among all living things but whether those similarities came about through a natural process akin to the observable examples of adaptive variation that we find in textbooks and museum exhibits.
One mistake Christians often make in debating evolution is to take on too many issues at once, rather than starting with the most important problem and solving it first. For example, evolution requires a time scale of many millions of years, while many people understand the Bible to allow for an earth history of only a few thousand years. The evolutionary time scale is debatable, but debating it involves several complex scientific disciplines and distracts attention from the most important defect of the theory of evolution. The only mechanism the evolutionists have is a combination of random variation and natural selection, illustrated by the survival of the insects that happened to be resistant to an insecticide. This Darwinian mechanism has never been shown to be capable of creating new genetic information or new complex body parts such as wings, eyes, or brains. Without a mechanism that can be demonstrated to be capable of the necessary creation, the theory of evolution is just a fantasy with no real scientific basis.
The Bible teaches, "In the beginning God created" and "In the beginning was the Word." A simple way of explaining this basic principle is to say that a divine intelligence existed before anything else and that intelligence was responsible for the origin of life and for the existence of all living things, including human beings. No matter how much time we might allow for evolution to do the necessary creating, the evidence shows that the process would never get started, because all evolution can do is to further minor variations in organisms that are already living, without any change in their basic classification. When the Bible says, "In the beginning God created" (Gn 1:1), it is presenting us with a fact, which we need to know to understand everything else, including what we were created for and how God wants us to live.
The Bible also says that God created men and women in His own image. That, too, is a fact. If it were not true, there would be no science, because no theory of evolution can demonstrate how intelligence came into existence, including the intelligence of misguided people who misuse science to try to explain creation without allowing any role to God.
"In the beginning was the Word." The Bible says it and, properly understood, the evidence of science confirms it. Anyone who says otherwise is peddling fantasy, not fact.
Are the Biblical Genealogies Reliable?
by Kenneth A. Mathews
Biblical genealogies must be understood in the context of the ancient Near East. Typically, genealogies expressed more than family descent. They reflected political and socioreligious realities among people groups. For example, "Salma fathered Bethlehem" (1 Ch 2:51) describes the founder of the village Bethlehem. Therefore the genealogies were fluid, showing differences due to changing political and social realities.
The adoption of Joseph's sons, Ephraim and Manasseh, by Jacob created a new way of interpreting the 12-tribe configuration (Gn 48:5). "Joseph" appears in the blessing of Jacob (Gn 49:22-26), but the blessing of Moses counts 12 tribes by deleting Simeon and dividing the house of Joseph into Ephraim and Manasseh (Dt 33:17). Thus, as we see from this example, the contents of genealogies were selective and not intended to be exhaustive and precise.
Shortening genealogies by omitting names was commonplace. Matthew's genealogy of Jesus exhibits a pattern in which three sets of 14 generations are achieved (Mt 1:17). The number 14 was desirable because of the importance attributed to the symbolic meaning of seven ("complete, perfect"). Thus "Joram fathered Uzziah" (Mt 1:8) omits three generations (2 Ch 21:4–26:33) so as to accomplish the desired number (cp. Ezr 7:1-5 with 1 Ch 6).
From this example we discover another unexpected feature in biblical genealogies. Genetic terms, such as "son of" and "father," were flexible in meaning, sometimes indicating a "descendant" and "grandfather or forefather." The word "daughter," for example, could mean a subordinate village affiliated with a nearby city and thus be translated "surrounding settlements" (Jdg 1:27, NIV).
One technique in the ancient world for legitimizing a new king was the concoction of a fictional ancestry. Moreover, scholars often assume that persons named in genealogies are metaphors for tribes and actually have no familial connection. The charge of fiction has been leveled against the genealogies of the 12 tribes of Israel as descended from the one person Jacob (e.g., Gn 46:8-27; Nm 1:20-43; 1 Ch 2:1-2).
The argument that the term "sons of Jacob" reflects only an evolving social reality and not a reliable domestic one is an unnecessary assumption that contradicts the plain meaning of the biblical witness. The biblical account of the patriarchs reveals a family story primarily and a national one secondarily. Also, since genealogies impacted domestic, legal, and religious matters of importance, reliable genealogical records and censuses were fastidiously maintained (Nm 1:45; Ru 4:10; 1 Ch 4:33; 9:1; Neh 7:5; see Nm 27:1-11; Ezr 2:62).
A special problem is the long life spans in Genesis 5:1-32. In that passage, for example, Adam is said to have lived to be 930 years old.
The Sumerian King List presents a list of the reigns of kings and includes a reference to a great flood. The King List claims fantastic numbers, the longest reign at 72,000 years. After the flood the regal years diminish. Despite its fantastic numbers, however, the King List includes historical individuals, not just legendary ones.
Both Genesis and the Sumerian King List remember a time in the ancient past when people lived for long periods. The life spans before Noah's flood were longer and afterward gradually decreased. The long lives of the patriarchs, such as Adam and Noah, shrink to moderate figures when compared to the Sumerian King List. A significant difference is that Adam's genealogy is not for political purposes but instead shows that the descending ages of humanity were due to a moral factor when God judged a corrupt humanity (Gn 6:1-8).
Although the years are reliable, this genealogy cannot be used to reconstruct the age of the earth. Genesis does not present genealogies for establishing absolute chronology (see 1 Kg 6:1). Also, Genesis 5 does not possess a complete list. Genesis 5 and 11 exhibit 10-name genealogies that consist of stereotypical patterns. The two genealogies are also linear, meaning that they include only one descendant per generation (segmented genealogies have more; see Gn 10:1-32). Since genealogies may telescope generations (see above), and since Genesis 5 is highly stylized, it is likely an "open" (selective) genealogy that spans many generations.
Did Those Places Really Exist?
by E. Ray Clendenen
The ancient Egyptian equivalent of a "voodoo doll" was to write one's enemy's name on a clay statue or pottery vessel and then smash the pot while pronouncing a curse. Archaeologists have uncovered hundreds of such pottery pieces, called "execration texts." Dating about the time of Joseph (nineteenth–eighteenth century b.c., Egyptian twelfth dynasty), they contain the names of many towns in Palestine and their rulers considered at the time to be enemies of the Egyptian state. Many of these are towns mentioned in the Bible, which underlines the authenticity of the biblical account. They also verify that cities were ruled at the time by "kings." Some of the towns identified are Acco (Jdg 1:31), Aphek (Jos 12:18), Achshaph (Jos 11:1), Ashkelon (Jos 13:3), Beth-shean (Jos 17:11,16), Beth-shemesh (Jos 15:10), Bozrah (Gn 36:33), Damascus (Gn 14:15; 15:2), Ekron (Jos 13:3), Laish (Jdg 18:29), Midian (Ex 2:15-16), Migdol (Ex 14:2; Nm 33:7), Rehob (Nm 13:21; Jos 19:28,30), Shechem (Gn 12:6; 33:18; 37:12-14), Byblos, and Jerusalem (Jos 10:1).
Although not referring to the patriarch of Israel, the name Aburahana as an Egyptian transcription of a Semitic name is also found in these texts (m and n often interchange in such transcriptions).
The Hebrew word chanikim, rendered "trained," found in the Bible only in Genesis 14:14, is also found in the execration texts, supporting the credibility of the Genesis 14 account.
Does the Old Testament Teach Salvation by Works?
by E. Ray Clendenen
According to Genesis 15:6, Abram did not buy righteousness with his faith. Rather, God gave Abram righteousness, which means right standing or acceptability before God. The biblical message is clear and consistent in both testaments: the curse of condemnation and death that rests on everyone because of Adam's sin (Rm 5:12-21) cannot be removed and exchanged for righteousness through any amount of good deeds that one might do. The exchange can be effected only by God as a free act of His grace in response to a person's faith (Hab 2:4; Rm 1:16-17; 4:1-25; Gl 3:6-9).
What matters in this exchange is not the quality or degree of faith but rather God's grace; faith is not a means to earn acceptance with God. The apostle Paul considered Abraham a model of transforming faith even though the content of Abraham's faith was different from Paul's. Abraham simply trusted God and His promise to give him a son and then other descendants. Presumably Abraham would have supplemented God's promise here with that of Genesis 12:1-3, trusting that his offspring would be vast not only in number but also in significance, bringing blessing to the world. The content of Abraham's faith was not inconsistent with that of Paul, only less specific. Also, Abraham believed what God would do, and Paul believed what God had done.
Finally the New Testament explains that faith itself cannot purchase or serve as the foundation for acceptance with God. Only the cross of Christ can purchase our salvation. But since the eternal and timeless God is sovereign over events, He could apply the work of Christ to Old Testament believers in response to their faith, even though they had no specific knowledge of Christ.
Is Mormonism Compatible with the Bible?
by Chad Owen Brand
Joseph Smith Jr., the founder of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, claimed he was restoring the genuine church to the earth, a church absent since the first century. But is Mormonism truly Christian?
Students who ask such questions often differentiate among denominations, sects, cults, and world religions. Denominations are movements that differ on doctrinal issues but hold to a common core of beliefs about God, Christ, and the Scriptures. They see God as trinitarian, Christ as unique in His human-divine person, and the Scriptures as the authoritative text passed down from the prophets and apostles. Sects agree with the denominations on these matters, but they often have some characteristic that places them on the fringe of Christianity, such as the radical separatism of the Amish. Cults are connected to Christianity in that they employ Christian Scripture and appeal to Jesus, but they also differ from the traditional faith in certain core areas. They may deny or reinterpret the Trinity. They may have novel views about Christ. They may reject part of the Christian Scripture, add new texts to it, or claim to have an infallible interpretation that replaces traditional doctrine with a new approach. World religions are those historic traditions that include the Christian religion as well as others, such as Islam and Hinduism.
Is Mormonism Christian? If the question asks only whether Mormonism is connected to Christianity in some sense, the answer would be "Yes." But that is not enough. Religions such as Baha'i claim some connection to Christianity, and Muslims believe in the second coming of Jesus. In order for a faith to be Christian it must pass both the doctrinal test and the experiential test. Doctrinally it must be orthodox on the key issues outlined above, and experientially it must see salvation as a faith encounter with Christ alone as the pathway to being right with God. How does Mormonism stack up?
Mormonism is neither monotheistic nor, technically, trinitarian. In one of the Mormon scriptures, The Pearl of Great Price, we are told that the world was fashioned "by the Gods." In his famous King Follett sermon, Joseph Smith stated that God was once as we are and that we may become as He is—a God. Mormonism teaches that Father, Son, and Spirit are all God, but it denies the historic Christian view on the Trinity. Mormon scholar Robert Millet has written that the Trinity is comprised of "Three Beings." Mormonism is not trinitarian but tritheist. Mormon theology teaches that Jesus is an incarnation of Elohim, conceived as the literal son of God. But He is not the unique incarnation, since we also can be incarnations of the Father. Jesus is important to the whole of Mormon theology but in a different way than for traditional Christians. In Mormonism we are not saved by the atoning work of Christ but by obedience to Mormon principles. Mormons follow the Bible as Scripture, but they have placed three other texts alongside the Bible—The Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and The Pearl of Great Price. It is in the last two books in particular that the novel Mormon doctrines can be found.
Because of these departures from standard Christian teachings, Mormonism falls outside orthodox Christianity.
Does the Bible Provide Guidance Regarding Genetic Engineering?
by Scott B. Rae
Since human beings weren't able to manipulate the genetic code when the Bible was written, it doesn't directly address genetic engineering. It does, however, give general principles regarding medical technology that apply to genetic technologies.
Humans are created in God's image and likeness, and so He charges them to exercise dominion over His creation (Gn 1:27-28). Their mandate? To subdue and kindly master the earth, unlocking its resources to benefit themselves and their successors—in a sense continuing the spirit of creation by being subordinate "creators" with God in unlocking the secrets of the creation to benefit humankind.
The command to subdue the earth takes on added complexity after the entrance of sin into the world in Genesis 3. Exercising dominion over creation after the fall now involves dealing with sin's effects in the world. Dominion includes working toward improving the creation or reversing the effects of the entrance of sin. The most important of sin's effects is the reality of death (Gn 3:2-3), which is universal in its scope (Rm 5:12). That is, after the fall, death, decay, and deterioration face every person. Thus dominion over creation largely involves dealing with death and disease (disease being the cause of death in most cases), which can alleviate the harshness of life after the fall, even genetic disease. In order to exercise dominion God (through general revelation) provided human beings with resources necessary for accomplishing that task. That ingenuity and wisdom come from God as His "common grace" gifts to humans (Is 28:23-29).
The knowledge and skill necessary to develop the kinds of technologies that enable humankind to subdue the creation are part of God's general revelation. Humans didn't acquire the ingenuity and skill to develop sophisticated technology on their own apart from God. It's not an accident that these technologies came to be so useful in our exercise of dominion over creation. They are gifts from God. Thus technologies that generally improve the lot of humanity and specifically help reverse the effects of sin's entrance into the world are part of God's common grace. The skill and expertise needed to bring about these creation-subduing technologies come ultimately from God, being His good gifts to humans in harnessing creation.
This is particularly the case when it comes to medical technology. Since death is one of the primary consequences of the entrance of sin into the world, and disease is the primary cause of death and physical deterioration, medical technologies bringing cures to diseases and other afflictions are among God's most gracious gifts to the human race.
Medical technology can be part of God's common grace to assist humans in fulfilling their role in exercising loving dominion. The more controversial technology of genetic engineering should be used only for therapeutic reasons (repairing damage), in keeping with the creation mandate. It should not be used for eugenic reasons (creating a kind of super race, as Hitler and the Nazis hoped to do, considering other races inferior to the so-called Aryans). C. S. Lewis warned that if "the dreams of some scientific planners are realized" by using their power to make their descendants into what they please, then their "conquest of Nature . . . means the rule of a few hundreds of men over billions upon billions of men."
Notable Christian Apologist: William Paley
by Ted Cabal
In an era that dignified science while degrading revelation, God raised William Paley (1743–1805). Receiving his education at Cambridge in mathematics, he would go on to produce history's most influential argument from design for God's existence. Written while suffering a debilitating disease, Paley's Natural Theology compares nature's intricate design to the complexity of a watch. If a person walking in a field stumbled upon a timepiece, they would assume it had a designer even if they had never seen a watch before. How much more should those who examine the exquisite craftsmanship of objects such as the eye infer a master Craftsman.
Many believed for much of the twentieth century that David Hume and Charles Darwin had definitively demolished the argument philosophically and scientifically. But Paley's argument is making a comeback. Mathematician/philosopher William Dembski has demonstrated recently that design inferences of the watch/Watchmaker sort can legitimately be philosophically constructed. And biologist Michael Behe has presented a powerful contemporary scientific version of the argument in Darwin's Black Box.
Paley also produced A View of the Evidences of Christianity in which he defended the veracity of biblical miracles. Unlike miracle claims from other sources, the stellar character of Christ and the willingness of the apostles to die for their message vouchsafe biblical miracles. Paley, in the mainstream of Christian apologetic tradition, also pointed to fulfilled prophecy as reason to trust the Bible.