Young Earth Creation vs. Old Earth Creation

I got a provocative blog comment from Young Earth Creationist B. A. Christian:Fish Fossil

Question: Do we need “Special Knowledge” in this case brought in from something called science to rightly interpret the passages? Or does it mean what it says? Is death the hero of the plot or the last enemy? Does consensus of geologists, biologists and astronomers determine truth?

Answer: It IS necessary

to incorporate what we know about nature to properly interpret Genesis.

 
It is not possible to understand the Bible – not even Jesus’ parables about seeds – without accurate knowledge of the physical world.

I need to point out the presumptuousness of the statement “Does consensus of geologists, biologists and astronomers determine truth?”

Well, strictly speaking, the consensus of scientists does not itself determine truth.

Any honest philosopher of science will freely admit that.

However in science we do have many things that any person can reasonably verify as fact. Like the phenomenon that gravity operates very consistently.

Any reasonably educated person can follow the logic and confirm the process that is used to determine that a star is 100 million light years away.

Any reasonable application of logic and knowledge of the speed of light (which you can measure and which in measurements is not changing) verifies that yes, that star is in fact more than 100 million years old.

It was not clear 1,000 years ago that the earth is old. But it is very clear now, except to a very small pocket of people who follow Answers In Genesis and Institute for Creation Research.

Nobody else believes the earth is young on empirical grounds – at all – unless they are married to a very particular and peculiar Biblical exegesis.

Contrast this with old-school Neo-Darwinism. It is the most troubled theory in the history of science. Why? Because it is challenged on empirical grounds by people in MANY MANY fields, many times having no religious dog in the fight whatsoever.

See my article about the “Salem hypothesis” for example http://evo2.org/salem-hypothesis/.

Now I certainly can respect people for holding to unpopular views because of their faith convictions. I can observe Mormons believing, in faith, that the American Indians are actually a lost tribe of Jews; and to an extent I can respect them for enduring ridicule for that.

But this belief is not supported by genetics. We have tools for proving or disproving this that Joseph Smith never had, and science proves the book of Mormon wrong.

And I believe we should incorporate such knowledge. I believe an honest Mormon should question his or her confidence in the Book of Mormon by the use of empirical evidence.

Young Earth Creation is equally without support from empirical science.

The same Christian who argues against the Mormon position on American Indians with modern science – or defends Biblical history with archaeology – is being hypocritical when he insists modern science is wrong about the age of the earth.

That is especially sad since 1) The Bible generally is a very reliable historical document and every Christian ought to know that, and 2) an Old Earth concordist interpretation of scripture works quite well.

What YEC commonly defends itself with is a pharisaical attitude that says, “We have the truth, we are the righteous ones, and those ignorant secularists are walking in darkness.”

It smacks of religiosity and it reminds me of the pharisees we read about in scripture. They hold to the letter of the law but miss the spirit.

In this case it is the religious people who are walking in darkness – because they cannot even see something that is right in front of their face – evidence from a dozen scientific disciplines that the earth is very old.

You will see the speed of light coming up again and again in comments on my site. Nowhere has any YEC person adequately addressed this problem. Not in any book or blog or website or anywhere.

Speed of light all by itself invalidates YEC. The universe is old, plain and simple.

Does that make death the hero? No it does not, and if you study my model of evolution, even death itself cannot exist without life being here first. Life is the prevailing driving force.

But make no mistake. This one fact – earth is old and not young – does force the YEC to re-evaluate LOTS of components of their theology.

This is not an indication that science is wrong. This is an indication that portions of YEC theology may also be wrong.

So yes, that means the YEC person may have to re-think a lot of things. That is scary and painful. It is inconvenient. It alters your theodicy. It challenges large assumptions about God and how He made the world.

If you have a significant Biblical education, you will have to relax your grip on any number of assumptions and re-evaluate them.

I never said this was going to be easy. I grew up YEC and it wasn’t easy for me.

But the process is necessary. And frankly for the thinking Christian it never really ends. Theology is always a work in progress.

Some folks are simply unwilling to do this.

But if you’re not willing, your faith is old wineskins. And it is being held in place by religious pride which is actually sin.

So I respectfully submit to you that none of us can afford to cling to provably false beliefs.

The arrogance of YEC and its contempt for scientists… as well as its presumption that they believe what they believe because they’re all sinful and depraved and lying to us etc etc… is giving Christianity a black eye.

This is no minor problem. This is a major issue. Many Christians are on the wrong side of this one.

It’s one of the many reasons why young people leave the church. It’s a major reason why my brother went from being a missionary to almost an atheist.

YEC and its champion ministries are unwittingly and systematically turning a percentage of Christians into agnostics and atheists because they’re forcing people to choose between science and the Bible.

Which is totally unnecessary, because there is no conflict between the Bible and science.

 

28 Responses

  1. Peter Russell says:

    That’s part of the problem. The stars aren’t very far away and neither the sun and moon. But science, and their lies would have you believe so. The true science is not what we learn in school. Unfortunately it’s so wide spread the counter to it is not excepted due to majority of sheep. I guess we should all open the new real window, that the earth is actually flat. It’s the largest overtaking of the liars and it’s winning big time. As long as the other isn’t considered your only option!!!

  2. Steve Wood says:

    You hang your hat on the speed of light. There’s much evidence that it’s slowing down and may have been much higher in the past. Many many other things also point to a young earth, including the words of Jesus himself. Soft tissue inside a “68 million year old” dinosaur bone, trees growing up through 10s of millions of years of strata, the predictable number of mitochondrial mutations and extrapolating that back, etc. etc.

    • Perry Marshall says:

      Please present the evidence that speed of light is slowing down.

      NOTE: I’ve been through this before. I suggest you look elsewhere on my site before you answer.

  3. Bob Hayford says:

    Evolutionist offer unaided dead matter producing life, the cosmos out of chaos, design without a Designer, creation without a Creator, effect without Cause. It’s the riddle of science without God. I’m sorry I don’t have enough faith to accept “science” without God.

  4. Brian says:

    I believe in Intelligent Design and feel there is room inside the I.D. umbrella to house both Young and Old Earth Creationist. I personally believe in a young earth creation and feel there is ample proof in nature to provide a convincing argument for that belief. I also an willing to hear arguments against it. Neither evolution or creation can be proven scientifically since neither can be recreated in a laboratory. The scientific method requires empirical data to be tested and retested before it becomes fact or law. Ultimately there are two theories and we are asked to place our faith in one or the other. I place my faith in a young earth theory because I feel the evidence for this is stronger and the bible seems to support this. Many disagree and I can live with their position. The central question we all must answer is not the age of the earth but to you who is Jesus? Either He is your Lord and Savior or not. That is the question that matters most.

    • Perry Marshall says:

      Evolution is experimental, empirical and verifiable in real time. You can do specific things to create new species. See http://evo2.org/evolution-untold-story/ and http://evo2.org/darwin-troubled-theory/

      • Brian says:

        It would appear that confusion exist between evolution and adaptation. God has created species with amazing abilities to adapt to stimuli in their surroundings. No one would argue that. Evolution, as taught in modern science, basically says one organism morphs into new organism. For example, simple aquatic life evolve into fish which evolve into reptiles which evolve into mammals of which eventually humans came. To my knowledge no fish has been recreated into a reptile, or any other animal, in a laboratory. My dog’s body adapts to temperature changes every year. I witness the growth and loss of fur at predictable times related to the temperature. This doesn’t mean my dog ceases to be a dog.

      • Jim Herald says:

        I am an YEC. Materialistic evolutionists cite the observed adaptations within the kinds, then infer common ancestry of all living things. What observable evidence do you cite for common ancestry? If you go to the fossil”record”, what is your evidence of old age? Radiometric dating methods are inaccurate for dating the known age of objects, are they trustworthy for the dating of unknown ages of objects? Do you agree with geologists who date the fossils by the rocks they are found in, but date the rocks more accurately by the fossils that are in them? What of poly-striate fossils? What of the time clocks which limit the age of the earth, such as decreasing electromagnetism, the moon moving away from the earth, measurable amounts of carbon 14 in coal, diamonds and dinosaur bones, and let’s not forget soft tissue, red blood cells, and DNA found in Dino bones.
        Also interesting is the recent study of zircon radioactive halos captured in granite. The existence of granite is a strong indicator that the earth was made suddenly and cool. The remaining daughter element, helium, has not dissipated, and indicates an age of thousands of years old, not millions or billions of years old.

        150 years ago Darwin lamented the complete lack of transitional fossils. To this day, we have examples of complete successful creatures both living and fossilized. Since change from one KIND to another KIND of living thing is slow, where are all of the unhappy misfits which are caught in the middle of changing from one KIND of successful being into a different KIND of living creature? Any fossilized or living evidence? Evolutionary scientists claim evolution is more like a bush than a tree. If this is so, where are the living examples of of all these bushy failing misfits of living things? Seems to me all living things seem to be in happy stasis.

        There are many evidences which indicate a young earth. He Bible says the wisdom of man is as foolishness to God. Why would you trust the wisdom of man (inwhich limits itself to NATURAL causes) to explain the age of the earth, and origins.

        • Perry Marshall says:

          Jim,

          Change from one kind to another is not slow. it is fast. See

          http://evo2.org/darwinists-creationists/

          This is why there are few transitional fossils. It’s because in some cases there is no intermediate form.

          In my book Evolution 2.0 I show new species in one to a handful of generations (not millions of years) and a tremendous level of real-time adaptations that atheists do NOT want Christians to know about. Click to the home page and you can get 3 free chapters.

          Every single field of science (biology, geology, paleontology, anthropology, archeology, physics, astronomy, electrical engineering) indicates an old earth is far more likely than a young one. For the most part, only people who say “there are many evidences which indicate a young earth” are people who selectively read only literature that agrees with YEC. I’m sorry if that sounds harsh but it is true.

          The list of atheists (never mind other religions) who have issues with Darwinian evolution, for example, is long indeed.

          But the list of people who have issues with an old earth is pretty much limited to a peculiar strand of American evangelical Christians.

          You really only need to know one thing to be certain the universe is old – and that’s the speed of light:

          http://evo2.org/not-young-earth-creationist/

          I respectfully challenge you on your YEC views. I do not believe the Bible teaches young earth (see www.cosmicfingerprints.com/genesis1) and I do not believe science does either.

          You are not in danger of “compromise” by exploring the evidence for an old earth. There is MUCH literature on this topic and I invite you to let your curiosity take you on an adventure of new discoveries.

          • Ralph says:

            You claim that the speed of light is the only thing needed to prove that the universe is old, but that is not true. The speed of light by itself is not enough. You also need visible stars that are far more distant than the 6,000 years prescribed by YEC. And I do not deny such stars. However, this also fails to account for the fact that time is not constant. It has been proven to slow down in relation to gravity (or speed). Also take into account that the universe is expanding. All of this suggests that the universe emerged from a black hole. But for anything to escape a black hole, it must be a white hole. Time at the surface of a black hole (or a white hole) is frozen. There is much speculation on what could possibly cause a black hole to turn into a white hole. One is if time were running backward. But that is not really a viable option, for too many reasons. But another possibility is if the fabric of space were being stretched out. This can happen far faster than the speed of light and the objects on the fabric would be unaffected by that speed. I won’t go any further on this. I’m sure that you are likely already familiar with the White Hole Theory by Dr. Russ Humphreys. It’s only a theory. But it’s a good one. All the attacks I’ve seen on his theory have shown me that the person attacking it doesn’t understand it. Bear in mind that I do not apply this observation to ALL attacks on his theory, but only to all of the ones I’ve seen so far. I really would like to see one which shows that the attacker correctly understands Dr. Humphrey’s theory, and has found a real flaw in it. But if such an attack has been made, I have yet to see it. Simply put, his theory allows for the Earth to be only a few thousand years old, the universe to be billions of years old (at least the outer reaches of it anyway), while all of it created just a few thousand years ago (Earth time), in just 6 days. I realize I will not change your OEC position. And you won’t change my YEC position. The number one reason why you cannot change my position is that I know that death cannot have preceded sin. “Sin entered into the world through one man, and death THROUGH sin.” Death is the penalty of sin, spiritually immediate but physically by way of process. A careful reading of the first few chapters of Genesis makes this clear. I have studied this closely. That alone precludes the possibility of the evolution of kinds. And without the evolution of kinds, there is simply no need whatsoever for a belief in OEC. You can cite all the opinions of fallible Man that you want, and so can I. But the bottom line is that death is the penalty of sin. Sin preceded death. On that, we have the infallible Word of God. Without the context, it has been argued that the penalty of sin was merely spiritual death, and that physical death preceded sin. But the context won’t allow that.

            • Perry Marshall says:

              I will be happy to accept propositions that time stretches because of gravity and relativity, but at that point I can’t see why YEC is justified in insisting on 24 hour days. The following explanation is quite elegant for example:

              http://evo2.org/bible-science-reconciled/

              Regarding “context” – I’m sorry but you need to look closer. If you read Romans 5 very carefully it is quite clear that Paul is not talking about physical death he is talking about spiritual death. Substitute the word “death” for “physical death” vs “spiritual death” – as I have done here

              http://www.coffeehousetheology.com/who-is-adam/

              And see for yourself.

              Plus Paul is most certainly not talking about plants or animals at all.

              SPIRITUAL death is the penalty for sin.

        • Gary Mayer says:

          Jim, I don’t believe that the Bible requires a young earth. Please see my reply to Brian above.

    • Gary Mayer says:

      Brian, I am 77 years old. I used to be Young Earth, but now I am not. Have you ever considered Genesis 2:5? It reads, “Now no shrub of the field was yet in the earth, and no plant of the field had yet sprouted, for the LORD had not sent rain upon the earth; and there was no man to cultivate the ground” (NASB). Here “sprouted” means to come up from the ground and be visible to the sight. The creation account was given from the view that would have been seen by a person on the earth. If “earth” here means the whole earth and days were 24-hour days, why would the lack of rain be a problem since the continents were brought above the oceans only three days before this?
      The first day of creation is defined by the statement, “And there was evening and there was morning, one day” (NASB). The phrase “one day” apparently defines the end of the first day of creation. One would have thought that Moses would have written “day one: or “the first day.” Twelve-hour days were just defined earlier in this verse as daylight. Why define day twice? Besides, a Hebrew’s day ends in the evening. The best way to understand Genesis 1 is to see the six days as God’s long days and to see the words “evening and morning” as LITERAL 12-HOUR NIGHTS between adjacent long creation days. As the day is the bases unit of time, Moses cut God’s long days (as we also do) at the junction of two 12-hour days. You may want to see my blog at http://www.garytmayer.blogspot.com.
      It was not uncommon for God to call the part of a great thing by the same name as the larger—for examples, the sky was called “heaven” that was a part of the larger heaven where the stars are and the earth that came up from the sea was named for the total earth and compared to the heavens containing the luminaries. In this case, the smaller days, the 12-hour days of daylight, were named for God’s longer days.
      I had to solve many problems in both the OT and NT when I formulated my scenario for my book.

  5. David Schultz says:

    I am a Christian, a follower of Jesus. Both sides of the argument are pointless. If God, being God, wanted a young earth process, remember he is the Creator, he could do so. If he wanted an old earth process, he could do so. The point is, he created. If we are to apply the standard that some use, a day is a thousand years, which I believe is symbolism for time being irrelevant, an expanse of time, which God lives outside of as eternal, then we must apply that same theory to every mention of time in Scripture and not be selective. In Revelation there is a king that is in power for one hour. Apply the theory and one hour translates into 42 years. If the Tribulation is seven years long, is that seven years or is it ten minutes, if you apply the theory. The point is this, IT DOESN’T MATTER IF THE EARTH IS OLD OR YOUNG! The critical questions are, Do we love God, Do we love people, Are we following the teaching of Christ, Do we love our enemies (even those that dare to disagree with our ‘I’m right and you’re wrong position), Do we love lives filled with Grace and Mercy, Do we esteem others as better than ourselves, Do we turn the other cheek, Do we bless those that use us? If we can’t answer yes to the above, why are we wasting our limited time on this earth in a meaningless debate?

    • Jeremie Lederman says:

      …respectfully.

      to the people that this discussion DOES matter to, they may find salvation through the process of discussion and learning. God meets us where we are.

  6. Joe says:

    If God is powerful enough to create that star that is 100 million light years away, isn’t He powerful enough to create it and then make sure it’s light reached earth immediately after creating it? Also, just curious…do you believe the Bible is God’s Word, therefore truthful in what it tells us?

    • Perry Marshall says:

      God is not powerful enough to engineer 99.99999% fake history into the universe (appears old, with exquisitely detailed features of age) because God is not a liar.

      If the universe appears old but is really young, then all historical science is the study of an illusion.

      I would not expect anybody to worship that kind of god.

      Yes I believe the Bible is God’s word.

      I do not believe that Ken Ham’s interpretation is God’s interpretation.

    • Jeremie Lederman says:

      the premise of the question is:

      “Can God create a law so powerful that He has to break it?”

      Why would God create laws to govern the universe then have to break them, meanwhile overpowering the consequences in matter and timespace to do so. Then after his OWN laws that became an obsitcle to him were done being manipulated, he overpowered the consequences of returning the universe BACK to the normal control of his own laws.

      that kind of God sounds like a human creation. Only a human with limited brain power would have to dance so insanely around themselves like this.

      God would never create something that created disorder. He is not capable of disorder.

  7. David Sweet says:

    I’m not dogmatic young, medium or old earth but am creationist. Is the speed of light and the expansion of the universe the only evidence for the age of the universe? Could God not have created the universe at some other time than the singularity? Just as Adam and Eve are portrayed as created as adults, could not the universe be expanding, yet have begun in adult stage?

    • Perry Marshall says:

      Just about every branch of science has considerable evidence for an old earth. Biology, geology, astronomy, anthropology, linguistics, engineering. See www.cosmicfingerprints.com/not-young-earth-creationist/

  8. Pat Sloan says:

    “[c, speed of light] verifies that yes, that star is in fact more than 100 million years old.”
    It does no such thing. It only verifies the star light we see was produced 100 million years ago. For all we know it was born 100.00001 million years ago and died 99 million years ago, but we’ll only see that event 1 million years from now. None of which has anything to do with the age of earth.
    For the record I’m not a YEC, but scientific “consensus” is an oxymoron. A simple example; an entomologist will tell you bees make honey using enzymes, a sciency-sounding name for magic juice. Humans have dissected millions of bees but have been unable to make synthetic honey out of pollen.

  9. David Garske says:

    Actually-go out and really look at the rocks! Many sedimentary rocks show rhythmic banding, forming different types of layers depending on the time of year they were formed. There are thousands of rocks that show millions of continuous layers, showing they formed over millions of years. We can trace evolution of a species from very primitive in older rocks to more complex in younger rocks. They can be dated by radioactivity or by looking at the fossil remains as they change from the bottom to the top of the rock. The more we learn, the more evidence exists that the age of the earth is old, and the universe is older. “Germs” are continually evolving, and new ones keep appearing, such as aids, from minor changes in earlier “germs”.

  10. Anees shah says:

    How old is the earth? Planet earth does not have a certification to record its origination. Researchers and scientists spend hundreds of years to calculate the real age of the earth.
    With current data, it is estimated that the age of planet Earth is 4.543 billion years. In addition, this estimate has a margin of error of 1%, which makes it quite accurate.
    HOW DO YOU KNOW THE AGE OF THE EARTH? Click the link below for the answer
    https://everydayscience.blog/how-old-is-the-earth/

  11. Christiane Smith says:

    Gerald Schroeder rabbi and scientist
    author

    attempts to reconcile science and YEC stuff – controversial, but something to look at still

  12. Gary Mayer says:

    Perry,
    I must persuade you to see that the stalemate between the Young Earth and Old Earth Creationists is partially due to the OECs’ poor exegesis of Genesis and the NT. Those who believe in the literal, non-mythical interpretation of the Bible are never going to accept the way many OECs interpret Genesis. If this view was an acceptable view, I certainly would not have spent ten years working on writing my first edition of my book, giving nearly all my spare time on it, and some of this time was after I was fully retired. As there is no book like your Evolution 2.0, which explains evolution so well and shows how life depends on code, so there is no book like New Evidence for Two Human Origins: Discoveries That Reconcile the Bible and Science. This is because God put me through many disappointments to prepare me to be able to write this book.
    Sarah Salviander made a great attempt to explain the days of creation (http://evo2.org/bible-science-reconciled/), and I even mentioned a similar conclusion in my book, which notes that “Gerald L. Schroeder in The Science of God devotes two chapters to discussing a surprising conclusion of some scientists. They calculated the average of the time that passed as viewed from each bit of space throughout the entire universe. They found the result to be six of our twenty-four-hour days! And this time would have ended about 6 or 7,000 years ago.[Gerald L. Schroeder, The Science of God: The Convergence of Scientific and Biblical Wisdom (The Free Press, 1997; Broadway books, New York, 1998), 41-71. Citations are to the Broadway edition.] These conclusions may or may not be true, and it may help some readers to accept a long-day view, but this is not what Moses was teaching the early Hebrews when he wrote Genesis 1. It becomes still necessary to see why the Spirit inspired Genesis as he did.
    Moses was concerned about the early Hebrews’ lack of thankfulness. He wanted them to be thankful for the reoccurring aspects of life; therefore, he related how God created the day-night cycle on the first day, the water cycle on day two, the reproducing of plants on day three, etc. In each case, God stated that it was good to encourage the reader to give thanks. The first day of creation ended between a literal night and a morning. Days are the basic blocks for measuring time. “[E]vening and morning” are not to be taken figuratively because the context of day one will not permit it; however, the creation days are to be taken as long days because the first day in based, not on the presence of light, as the 12-hour days were defined, as God’s long days. For example, the first day is the time form the beginning of creation until the cut of time between a 12-hour day and the day following. We can see a defining period of time here because the text says, “And there was evening and morning, one day (Gen. 1:5, NASB), not “day one” or “the first day.” The Hebrew day ended in the evening so that it must not be talking of a 24-hour day. Besides, if the first day ended in the morning it actually would have been the second say because it had already gone from darkness to day to night and then back to day.
    On slide 79 Salviander says that we are looking at the creation account from God’s perspective and His perspective pervades the universe. This was what Schroeder was explaining; however, Genesis 1 actually is taking the view of a person standing upon the earth all during the creation account. We know this because it repeats “And there was evening and there was morning…” (NASB). Any other perspective than from the surface of the earth would not produce the evening and morning effect.
    Genesis 1 is writing about two aspects of the universe; verse 1 refers to the whole universe, and verse 2 narrows in on the earth. You cannot put these verses together somehow and conclude that they are referring to quarks, as Salviander seems to do. Also you cannot say that the Bible actually states that the luminaries became visible on day four, because it says, “And God made the two great lights, the greater light to govern the day, and the lesser light to govern the night; He made the stars also. And God placed them in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth…” (Gen. 1:16-17, NASB). It is true that the timing when these luminaries become visible agrees with the findings of science, but that is not what the Bible says. As long as we do not take the Bible for what it actually says, we will never understand what the author was trying to explain, and worst of all, we will never be able to harmonize the Bible and science. Please notice it says that the greater light (the sun) was placed there to “govern the day,” reminding us of the creation of the day-night cycle in verse 4-5. We must also note that God called the light good in verse 4. Also God then “called the light day, and the darkness He called night” (NASB). Next it says there was evening and morning. Notice that the system of night and day, according to the author of Genesis, seems to include not only the sun but the moon also (v. 16). When you put all this together to try to determine how you can have the day-night cycle created on day 1 and the luminaries which “govern the day and the night” (v. 18) created on day 4, you must come to only one conclusion—he is consolidating the aspects of creation into blocks so that the readers can feel the impact of the goodness of their Creator. His method is now seen to be simplification and consolidation. If this is true of the day-night cycle and of the luminaries, it must be true of the other days also. Remember, the stars in the heaven came into existence as time passed from long creation day to the next. Moses could have placed the creation of the luminaries on almost any day of creation. But this is true of the other aspects of the creation account. As it turned out he organized the days of creation into two triads with a total of eight aspects. This is all explained in chapters 10 and 11 of my book. Arie Noordtzij was the first to use this general approach to explain the ordering of the days of creation; in any case, this was whom Meredith G. Kline credits with it (my book, 280); my conclusions, however, are not exactly like Noordtzij’s or Kline’s.
    In regards to the notion expressed by Salviander (slide 127) and many other interpreters that verses 16-19 are saying that the luminaries became visible only on the fourth day, if it were true that the point of observation of the author in Genesis 1 was from God’s omnipresent view, then how can we switch to viewing creation from a person standing on the earth on day 4. Actually, the view is basically the view of a person on the earth in all cases. It is best not to switch the viewpoint from day to day as best fits the author’s scenario.
    Next I would like to comment on the popular view of many theistic evolutionists, (and remember, I am a theistic evolutionist), the view that the account of the creation of Adam in Genesis 2 is to be interpreted as a spiritual creation. This view cannot be true for many reasons. Of course, the first reason is that the text itself describes a physical creation. It says Adam was created out of the ground and Eve from the side of Adam, very straightforward text. In slide 132, Salviander explains that Nahmanides believed that the inclusion of the Hebrew prefix that is often translated into English as “to” serves to give Genesis 2:7 a special meaning. Genesis 2:7 says, “Then the LORD God formed man [Heb., the man] of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and the man became a living being” (NASB). The to-prefix is inserted before “living being [also trans. soul].” This is supposed to give some extra meaning to this verse that would not otherwise be there. But Nahmanides is simply wrong! You may check out these verses that also include this prefix; this will show you that this was bad exegesis: Judges 17:12; 1 Samuel 10:12; 22:2; 2 Samuel 8:6, and Ezekiel 17:6. The Hebrew term for living soul is also used in Genesis 1:24 to refer to animals. It was necessary for God to transform this lifeless soil into a live breathing soul.
    And we can go on to 1 Corinthians 15:35-49, especially verses 44-49: “[I]t is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. So also it is written, ‘The first MAN, Adam, BECAME A LIVING SOUL. The last Adam became a life-giving spirit.’…And just as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly.” Paul wants to show the reader that the resurrected body will be different from the physical body; he, therefore, compares the natural (or physical) body of Adam with the spiritual body of the resurrected Lord Jesus Christ. He quotes Genesis 2:7 to contrast the natural body with the spiritual body. He says that Adam became a live soul; this has to mean a physical body. This whole passage deals with bodies, not spirits. Someone will say, “But it says here that Adam was ‘the first man.’” By this statement he shows that he thinks this verse means that Adam was the first human. But this is not the context of the passage, which will not allow this interpretation. This is because Christ is the last man, according to 1 Corinthians 15:45. Christ was only the last man of His personal genealogy; so the text is not saying that this “first man” was the first man of all men, but rather that Adam was the first man of Christ’s genealogy.
    If Adam’s creation was only a spiritual creation, why did his descendants live to be an average of 929 years, 13 times what ancient life spans were, that is, about 60 years? And why did they drop in one generation to Shem’s life span of 600 years? And why did they decrease to their average age of 445 years at the Tower of Babel, remain at this time very little changed, and then fall to approximately the average of their 445 and 60 years? Peleg lived to be 239 years. And why do the actual life spans of the genealogies given in Genesis 5 and 11 fall near to one of the most probable calculated life spans based on the dual origins thesis?
    If the death of Adam and Eve were only spiritual, then why did God place guards by the entrance to the Garden so that no one could get to the tree of life? If the tree of the knowledge of good and evil brought spiritual death, would not the tree of life bring spiritual life? Going to the New Testament, it becomes clear that the death that Adam experienced was both spiritual and physical because otherwise Paul’s argument in Romans 5 would not hold water. Paul proves that Adam’s sin brought physical death by showing that the people who lived between Adam and Moses died (v. 14). What people do not realize is that Roman 5:12 is making reference to a sin against a direct command of God, and that the rebellious disobedience of Adam resulted in God’s imputation of sinfulness to the whole human race, those before Adam and those after Adam. As is often the case where verses are referencing Adam and Eve and their transgression, the English translations do not give the best translation of the Hebrew or Greek text. Romans 5 actually says, “Therefore, just as through one man [the] sin entered into the world, and death through [the] sin and so death spread to all men, because all sinned [that is in God’s judgment]” (NASB). If Paul uses the word sin to refer to sin which is not against a command of God or the Law, he omits the article, but if he means a sin that was committed against either of these, he adds the article. This is why even though Eve sinned before Adam sinned and Eve “fell into transgression” (1 Tim.2:14), Adam was the one who showed forth the rebellious nature of mankind. This is why it was Adam’s transgression that caused God to declare all men sinners, not Eve’s transgression. Paul attributes this to the fact the Eve was deceived by the serpent, but Adam was not. This is why Romans 5:12 is not saying that Adam was the first human to sin in any manner. This causes much misunderstanding in the church. Pre-Adamic man sinned but not against a direct command of God. Now Paul in Romans 5:13-14 begins to prove that man is under the judgment of death even though he does not sin against a direct command of God as Adam did. So he mentions that the people who lived after Adam, but before the Law of Moses was given, all died. Here he was pointing to the obvious—something that you could not debate as to whether the person was spiritually alive or not. He was definitely referring to physical death to prove his point that we are all judged to be sinners. But thank God he goes on to say, “But the free gift is not like the transgression. For if by the transgression of the one the many died, much more did the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abound to the many” (Rom. 5:15, NASB). It is true that both physical death and spiritual death are Paul’s concerns, but he uses physical death to help prove his point.
    In summary, people who are concerned about harmonizing the Bible and science and are aware of the evidence for an old earth and the evolution of man, are driven to accept all kinds of unbiblical and contradictory interpretations of the Bible. They are many times very intelligent, but they lack the experience in biblical exegesis; their profession in usually in some other field. But theologians also have let us down in their lack of concern for finding a true and workable solution. I would have wished rather that I could have read a book that explained the OT Hebrew and the NT Greek in such a way that I would have understood the dual origin thesis, but there were no such books written; I had to, therefore, put my engineering background, my Bible school and seminary education, and my linguistics training together and with the help of the Holy Spirit figure it all out. It was my hope that my book would cause people who never even consider the viability of Christianity to discover its truths and the Truth, but hardly anyone goes to my blog and the same has been the fate of even my latest edition (2015) of my book. Hopefully someone will be convinced of its worth and give me a hand since I am 77 years old. The first half of my book is no academia.edu.

Leave a Reply

You must use your real first and last name. Anonymity is not allowed.
Your email address will not be published.
Required fields are marked *