Why I Believe a Literal Six Day Creation Is Important ~ Fight for Your Faith

Dennis Edwards --

Recently I had a letter from a friend explaining his questioning of accepting a literal six days of creation. In the following comments I try to give my reasoning for sticking to the literal six day interpretation.

My Friend writes. Many dedicated Christians differ in their views on how God created the world, and the exact interpretation of the six days, the age of the earth, etc. The question when Christians argue isn’t “Did God do it?”, but how He did it, and when He did it, or how long it took.

Dear Friend, I think it is those who have been intimidated by Big Science that feel it is necessary to agree with the millions of years and try to find a compromise in Scripture. People who want to sound intellectual or be accepted by other intellectuals find it hard to say they believe in a literal six-day creation as it sounds so unscientific and as if they have “blind-faith” in the Bible. Perhaps they do not feel comfortable with the religious right which very strongly defends a literal interpretation of Genesis chapter one and do not want to be stereotyped as such. I sympathize with you. I can understand how you would not wish to be included in that group. However, that should not affect your analysis of the question at hand.

I really enjoy listening to Dr. William Craig Lane, but when he says his expert on Jewish language says that “day” in Genesis chapter one does not necessarily mean “a twenty-four hour day,” I believe he is mistaken. Weston Fields has written Unformed and Unfilled: A Critique of the Gap Theory which comes to the very opposite conclusion of Lane and his Jewish linguist. Also, the late James Barr, a renowned Hebrew scholar and professor, said in a personal letter dated the 23rd of April 1984,

"So far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1-11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that (a) Creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of twenty-four hours we now experience; (b) the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to the later stages in the biblical story; (c) Noah’s Flood was understood to be worldwide and extinguished all human and animal life except for those in the Ark."[1]

Ken Ham commenting on the above quote said,

Please note that many, if not most of these world-class scholars do not believe in the Bible or Christianity anyway, so they are not interested in wrestling the Scriptures to somehow try to make their religion fit with evolution. Disbelieve it if you wish, but it is impossible to make out that Genesis is saying anything other than what it says. We can see now that those who say that the clear teaching of Genesis is not what it actually means are not doing so on the basis of literary or linguistic scholarship but because of partial surrender to the pressure of evolutionary/millions of years thinking. In actual fact, they are making man the starting point and his opinion the foundation -- not God and His Word.[2]

Dr. Davis Young, a Christian geology professor at Calvin College and an old-earth advocate has said,

It cannot be denied in spite of frequent interpretations of Genesis 1 that departed from the rigidly literal, that the almost universal view of the Christian world until the 18th century was that the earth was only a few thousand years old. Not until the development of modern scientific investigation of the earth itself would this view be called into question within the Church.[3]

I have talked about the history of the idea of millions of years in a previous article which you may have already seen in The Naturalistic Assumptions of Evolution and Modern Science, and will attach with this article if you have missed it.http://fightforyourfaith.blogspot.pt/2014/08/the-naturalistic-assumptions-of.html

Lane also seems to accept the millions of years. So although he does well on part of apologetics, which we can learn from and glean some techniques, I believe he hasn’t looked closely enough at the material available to understand the scientific arguments in favor of the six-literal days. The real problem is the doctrine of millions of years (of earth time). Evolution is the child of millions of years. Once you accept millions of years because you think science has proven millions of years to be true, then you need to look for ways to put the Bible in line with what one believes science has found to be true. You are actually putting science above the Word of God. There is just no place in a plane reading of Genesis chapter one for millions of years. People who accept the assumption that science has irrefutably proven “millions of years” succumb to looking for ways and reasons why Genesis chapter one does not really mean what it says. Satan’s ploy is still the same as in the Garden of Eden, “Did God say?” The millions of years is the problem.

In his book The Young Earth, geologist John Morris [4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FdUP_N8Xgr4 goes over some of the problems with the belief of millions of years and looks at the most recent scientific evidence especially analyzing the radioactive dating methods and the new RATE report[5]. View parts 1 – 4 on the link below.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xZmoGJC4YA4 If people would take enough time to really study the issue, I believe they will come to believe the six-literal days of Creation as the arguments and evidence seem to be most comprehensive in its favor. Some may want to flee from the six literal days, as many very conservative Christians are in that camp, and at times they can come across very self-righteous and intolerant. However, we do not need to buy into their self-righteousness or intolerance or to any other agenda they may support. Many of the scientists who give the talks on YouTube who are six-day Young-Earth Creationists do not sound self-righteous and are meek and humble Christian scientists and defenders of the faith.

My friend continues. Non-believers often start from the basis that God didn’t create the world. Christians who debate with other Christians on the subject are in a different arena altogether. I’ve seen that many sincere Christians are looking for ways to sync up those things which are considered scientific realities within the scientific community (including scientists who are Christian) and with Scripture. They believe that Scripture teaches that God created the world. They also believe that all science isn’t false or wrong. My understanding is that they believe both things are true, that God created the world from nothing (ex-nihlo) and that the age of the world is much older than is portrayed in Scripture.

The old age of the universe is the very point that is an assumption and not a fact. Once you accept the millions of years as fact, then you need to change your understanding of Genesis chapter one. Once you believe the millions of years then a literal interpretation of Genesis chapter one is incompatible. Once people believe the millions of years they have to adjust their reading of Genesis chapter one because a plane reading of Genesis chapter one leads only to a literal interpretation. The question therefore becomes did millions of years occur? Is the science of millions of years correct? And on the other side, is the Bible wrong? What is our initial assumption? Is our initial assumption that science can give us the truth? Or is it that the Bible really is a true revelation from God? If we believe the Bible is true, then maybe we should look and investigate the science and see if the science is somehow wrong or based on wrong assumptions.

When we are talking about the past, science cannot prove how things happened in the past. It can speculate and then test to see if their speculation is an agreement with the visible evidence in the present. Ultimately we will interpret the evidence in accordance with our belief system. Scientists view the evidence or data in the present and then extrapolate backwards and theorize about the past according to their initial assumptions in the present about the past. Scientists usually start with a belief and then do their science to confirm their belief system. Both creationists and evolutionists do their science in this way as there are no unbiased scientists. Each starts with initial assumptions which they believe are true and then do their science. The question becomes which bias is the best bias to be biased with? Since both theories are based on assumptions or belief systems we need to see which theory can more accurately predict future discoveries? Which theory more accurately is supported by the data or evidence we have in the present? Which theory has fewer contradictions or needs fewer supporting assumptions in places where the theory breaks down? And being Christians, which theory lines up with a simple understanding of what the Bible says?

Do we doubt whether Jesus walked on the water or was raised from the dead, even though science says is it impossible and never could happen? No, we don’t, because we have faith in God’s Word, and have experienced Him in our hearts and lives. But the world has accepted the millions of years as fact, because ‘science’ says so. We, therefore, find it hard to stand alone with God’s Word and Genesis chapter one, because ‘science’ seems to have proven that the universe is billions of years old, and it seems most people believe it. Since we do not have a very thorough understanding of the question or of the theological implications of our viewpoint or of the science available that supports a literal six-day interpretation, we succumb and compromise our stance. We do not want to appear old-fashioned and ignorant or to have just “blind faith.” Therefore, we adjust our literal view and say we just don’t know, or it is not important, or it’s a side issue. But the theological implications are immense.

If we accept millions of years of life before the Creation week, we end up with death before sin. Fundamental Christian doctrine says death is the result of Adam’s sin and therefore humanity needs a redeemer -- Jesus. By accepting evolution and millions of years, we unintentionally destroy the reason for our Redeemer -- Adam’s disobedience in sin. Jesus’ sacrifice in the end becomes unnecessary and meaningless. A very close friend of mine for many years and an active Christian had the following comment when I asked him his opinion of the importance of the six-day literal interpretation of Genesis chapter one. He said,

If it wasn't six days, then you basically have to throw the whole thing out, as without Original Sin, Jesus' death is pretty insignificant; and to try to say that as Monkey-man evolved there came a time when God zapped a ‘human’ spirit into two of them, it's pretty ridiculous, as well as contrary to Mat.19:4 where Jesus said ‘Have you not read, that He which made them at the beginning made them male and female’ -- which means that Jesus can't be trusted, as either He knew better and was lying, or He was deceived like the others, and hardly divine, in either case. It’s like cutting off a leg of a chair: the entire thing collapses, or you have to run all around making a hundred readjustments to everything else. The truth is that it’s either six literal days, or the Bible goes in the garbage. Another point to consider is about Gen.1:12-13, in juxtaposition with verses 16-19. So, God made vegetation, and then had it just sitting around in the darkness for an age or an eon or a season or period or epoch or whatever, and then He created the Sun. Twenty-four hours without sunlight for photosynthesis is fine, anything else means that the entire chapter, story, and book is worthless, leaving Moses as an invalid author.

It seems to me, there is not really any other alternative, no middle ground. Even evolutionists have recognized the importance of the millions of years in destroying the basic Christian doctrine of Original Sin. However, Christian scientists have found satisfying scientific possibilities that are in accordance with the literal six-day interpretation. Many evidences seem to indicate that the universe is not as old as old-earth scientists claim it is. Dr. Russell Humphreys is one scientist that goes over the different dating methods that seem to indicate that the universe is much younger than evolutionists would like us to believe. He shows that 90% of the dating methods used to measure the age of the earth and the universe indicate a much younger universe than secular scientists would have us believe.[6] www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z43s4tx9CxM

My friend continues. They are therefore looking into ways to show that both things are true. I personally don’t see those who believe in six literal days or those who believe in six different ages, as being better or worse Christians.

Whether or not they are better or worse Christians has never been the question, nor do young-earth creationists doubt the salvation or sincerity of old-earth creationists. The old-earth creationists may even come across more compassionate and tolerant and less dogmatic. Yet, it seems to me that for some reason the old-earth philosophers or scientists have not looked deeply enough into the questions of origins and for some reason have accepted a compromised stance. It may be that they don’t like religion or don’t want to become a conservative Baptist. It may be pride or it may be they are Roman Catholic and are comfortable with evolution and millions of years, and don’t realize the theological inconsistencies.

I believe if men continue in their search for truth, God will lead them into all truth as He has promised in His Word. Once they find that there do exist scientific answers that back the six literal day Creation they may be more willing to come over to the young-earth creationist view point and add a more compassionate face to the young-earth camp. It might be because of the sometimes self-righteous or solemn religious attitude of their older religious Brethren, the young-earth Creationists, which cause some to remove themselves from those who sometimes come across as less tolerant and accepting of others. Or it may be some other reason that they have not yet been illuminated by God’s Word to the truth found in Scripture. But if one does not accept the assumption of millions of years it is quite easy to accept the plane reading of the Scriptures, with no need for these other additional assumptions and theories. See one of the following links by Dr. Terry Mortenson[7] www.youtube.com/watch?v=gTmZs7DKK2k who gives a good history lesson of the millions of years and its affect on the Christian church.[8]

My friend continues. But rather as people who are seeking to really understand creation while being true to Scripture. As long as the belief is that God created all things from nothing and He created mankind, how He did it becomes a little less important.

They are important because it is the authority of God’s Word we are doubting. This is what happened to Billy Graham’s friend Charles Templeton. He ended up an atheist. We end up saying that Scripture is wrong and God didn’t mean what He said. Many of the famous American seminaries like Yale, Harvard, and Princeton started as learning centers of Christianity. Once they accepted the scientific postulation of millions of years in the 1800’s and then some form of the Gap Theory, they ended up with greatly-compromised Christian studies, and look where they are today.[9] www.youtube.com/watch?v=1eP_oGTZ4K4&list=SPB2C6579766755CC7 It is a slippery slope that leads away from the truth of God’s Word. It leads to the belief that God made a mistake when He wrote Genesis. Jesus was mistaken when He said that about believing in Moses and his words and when He quoted from the Old Testament. We end up not being able to trust the authority of God’s Word. Instead we believe the changing opinions of man’s scientific theories; theories that are based on naturalistic assumptions and the belief that there is no supernatural and that God does not exist. We end up believing that the Bible doesn’t mean what it says.

I believe we can be patient and understanding and loving without losing the conviction that God’s Word is true and means what it says. We can water down the message to become more mainstream and acceptable to others and the world in general, but is that what God wants?

If you need more information about the assumptions of naturalistic science, Dave Schoch does a good job of exposing them in his book The Assumptions Behind the Theory of Evolution. Phillip E. Johnson (a rational apologist) also has done some good work on the assumptions behind the theory of evolution. His book Darwin on Trial was one of the foundation books of the Intelligent Design movement. Dr. Russell Humphreys has also done some programs explaining the “proofs” for a young earth.[10] www.youtube.com/watch?v=tX9eDTNfQHY & www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z43s4tx9CxM

My friend continues. What is most important is the belief that God did it, that He is the creator of all things.

The Catholics say it does not really matter out of fear of the scientific/intellectual community. Look at what has happened here in Spain and Portugal as a result. We see very little resistance to the millions of years/evolution and young people are walking away from their faith in droves. If we want to ultimately throw away the Bible and its authority, then it does not really matter. But even a Catholic priest Father Victor P. Warkulwiz in England is fighting to bring the Catholic Church back to the six literal days of creation and young-earth belief which he believes is the traditional and correct interpretation.[11]

Continuing again: I agree with you when you said that Christians need a stronger foundation in their beliefs in order to be ready to give answers.

There are different ways to do apologetics. There is the Rational Apologetic which Dr. Wm Lane Craig and many of the Intelligent Design scientists use, Semi-Rational Apologetics and Presuppositional Apologetics. Weston Fields writing in the 1970’s explains it in the following way:

The Rational Apologetics is done by evidences which are not necessarily irrational to the natural mind (i.e., fulfilled prophecy, the internal coherence of the Bible, and the historical details of the resurrection), but frequently rational apologetics also try to defend such aspects of Christianity as its doctrine of supernatural creation and miracles. It is the conviction of rationalists that if only the proofs are presented, the unregenerate mind may be by these persuaded into accepting Christianity. The preoccupation with making Christianity reasonable is evident in many areas throughout Christian doctrine, but none are so susceptible to manipulation as the doctrine of creation and the facts of the Genesis Flood. For this reason, one’s system of apologetics becomes very transparent with respect to one’s views on these subjects. Some Christian apologetics reject the global Flood, Genesis so clearly presents and conclude that as far as the cause of the Flood, “the only reasonable course” is to confess that “we just do not know.” Some apologetics seem to have been led to their conclusions by the belief that a global Flood does not do justice either to the Bible or to the many facts of geology and archaeology…” One cannot but feel that such accommodation to modern science finds its roots in a belief that if the Bible is to be acceptable to modern man, it must be reasonable…..

If the Holy Spirit depends upon a certain degree of apologetic proficiency in order to enable a person to believe, most Christians are automatically disqualified from evangelism. An underlining motivating belief of many involved in the Bible-science controversy seems to be that a view of certain biblical teachings (creation, the Flood, etc.) which is not immediately in line with current scientific theories is both an embarrassment to the Christian and a barrier to the propagation of the Gospel. There seems to be an assumption that if Christianity is to realize its full potential of impact on the scientific community, the message that no conflicts exists between the Bible and modern science must be heralded. Such an idea is more often implicit than explicit, but one cannot miss it. Unfortunately, the results of this assumption often leads either to a reduction of the facts of the creation and the Flood to the level of agnosticism (“we just do not know for sure”), or a wrestling of Scripture to make it harmonize with contemporary (though often out-dated) “science.” Under the guise of removing barriers to the Gospel, the truth is diluted or denied, and the Holy Spirit and His sovereignty disgraced. Biblical Creationism can never be a barrier to a sinner’s salvation; only a Christian’s refusal to propagate the Gospel message can be that, and that only temporarily. Those who believe that recent Creationism or Flood Geology are barriers to the Gospel either completely misunderstand the biblical statements about the dynamics of salvation, or they have rejected them, for they are relying on a system of apologetics which is totally autonomous-man-centered, not sovereign-God-centered.[12]

Fields goes on to explain the Presuppositional Apologetics:

It is important to recognize that the sovereignty of the self-contained God is the key to every field, in that only the God of Scripture makes all things possible and explicable and is thus the basic premise not only of theology but of philosophy, science and indeed all knowledge. One either presupposes man’s autonomy or God’s sovereignty. One either presupposes that the natural man’s reason can rightly judge religious truth, or that special revelation from God is needed….In seeking to fulfill the Great Commission to propagate the message of salvation through Christ to the lost world, some Christians have abandoned their God-given offensive weapons in favor of proving the existence of God and the infallibility of the Bible by means of logic, philosophy, archaeology, and science. Such arguments, however, assume that (1) man is autonomous and can either reject or accept God and His Word at will, and (2) that God needs such common ground to accomplish the salvation of the sinner.[13]

I had wanted to type more but it is quite a big section which generally argues that the presuppositional approach is the more biblically-correct manner of doing apologetics. The book may be worth your while to invest in. Obviously, we can and do use both types of arguments in our witnessing and we can learn from each type of apologetics.

Ken Ham has also written a book The Lie: Evolution/Millions of Years where he argues that,

Compromising Genesis has led to a generational loss of an acceptance of the absolutes of the Word of God, leading to an exodus of young people from the church; Genesis remains critically important in presenting the Gospel; How you handle of the biblical account of creation impacts your understanding of all of Scripture and your worldview.[14]

His book may also help to further understand the presuppositional argument and the theological importance of Genesis chapter one. Brain Young has also written a book called Doubts About Creation? Not After This!, Creation Instruction Publishing, 2008, which may be interesting.

My friend continues. I appreciate the links to YouTube videos, the articles you’ve sent and the books you named.

I have also read the following books besides the In Six Days: why 50 scientists choose to believe in Creation by John F. Ashton Ph.D. which I mentioned in the former communication. I have read a book on fossils by Dr. Carl Werner, Evolution: The Grand Experiment, New Leaf Press, 2007. Dr. Werner shows that the animal fossils do not make evolutionary sense and support recent creation instead.[15] www.youtube.com/watch?v=noljXQOW9qA Bones of Contention: A Creationist Assessment of Human Fossils, by Marvin L. Lubenow, Baker Books, 2004, shows how the human fossil bones support creation rather than evolution. Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds, by Phillip E. Johnson, Inter Varsity Press, 1997, is another good book. Phillip’s writings were what helped spark the initiating of the present Intelligent Design movement.[16] www.youtube.com/watch?v=ww6T8xjp9Vo Big God vs. Big Science: a rebuttal to the theory that the earth is billions of years old, by Bill Sardi, Here and Now Books, 2001, gives easy to understand arguments in favor of creation . Noah to Abram: the turbulent years by Erich A. von Fange, Ph.D., 1994, explains what may have happened between the time of Noah and Abraham. Creation Panorama, by Carl E. Baugh, 1992, Bible Belt Publishing, offers some interesting ideas of how the earth may have been before the Flood. Scientific Creationism, by Henry Morris, Master Books, 1974/2006, goes over the scientific arguments for creationism. Dragons or Dinosaurs? Creation or Evolution? by Darek Isaacs, Bridge Logos, 2010, shows how dragons and dinosaurs were really the same animal.[17] www.youtube.com/watch?v=qHec_CM2ngU

Flood Legends: Global Clues of a Common Event, by Charles Martin, Master Books, 2009, is a review of the hundreds of flood legends from around the world and how they relate to the Genesis account. Refuting Evolution by Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D., CMI, 1999/2008 and Refuting Evolution 2, by Jonathan Sarfati, CMI 2002, offer arguments against specific evolutionary programs or literature. Dr. Sarfati is also a former National chess champion of New Zealand and has played chess blindfolded against 10 different opponents simultaneously. Frozen in Time: Woolly Mammoths, the Ice Age, and the Biblical Keys to their Secrets, by Michael Oard, Master books, 2004, explains where the ice-age fits in within a biblical interpretation of history. Oard is a meteorologist among other specialties.[18] www.youtube.com/watch?v=o5jNFLiPaGY The Long War Against God: the History and Impact of the Creation/Evolution Conflict, by Dr. Henry Morris, Master Books, 1989/2000, is a good history lesson on the war we are in. The Ultimate Proof of Creation, by Dr. Jason Lisle, Master Books, 2009 goes over some of the fallacies found in evolutionist’s arguments and how to recognize them and presents an ultimate logical proof for creation.[19 ] www.youtube.com/watch?v=CvRy6AjeyLc Eternity in their Hearts, by Don Richardson explains how God reveals Himself to every tribal group in some way.[20]www.youtube.com/watch?v=FgriSWZv6Vg

There are also documentaries by Werner Gitt on the problem of information within the DNA molecular called The Origin of Life in the Light of Information: Is Evolution Scientifically Logical? Gitt shows that the information in DNA is proof of God’s existence.[21] www.youtube.com/watch?v=8d1z94epGN8 He is also a six day young earth creationist. Ben Stein’s film Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed exposes the persecution which creation scientists receive at the hand of their evolutionary superiors throughout America relating it to the persecution of the Jews in Nazi Germany.[22]www.youtube.com/watch?v=c63awtAyHdU Unlocking the Mystery of Life: the scientific case for Intelligent Design, Illustra Media follows Dr. Michael Behe’s ideas as expressed in his bestselling book Darwin’s Black Box . The documentary looks at the DNA molecule’s complexity.[23] www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Jtp2IRk_y4 Icons of Evolution: the growing scientific controversy over Darwin, by Cold Water Media reviews some of the bad evolutionary arguments still in use.[24]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jPKkxaZwXJ0&list=PL3E68C794E1D66A08 The Privileged Planet, by Illustra Media goes over the Cosmological Anthropic Principle or fine-tuning of the universe based on the book by the same name by Guillermo Rodrigues.[25]www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kn1kShCWLzU

Mount St. Helens: modern evidence for the world-wide Flood with Geologist Dr. Steve Austin shows how the explosion of Mount St. Helens in 1980 gives a confirmation that the Grand Canyon was formed rapidly by receding flood waters.[26]www.youtube.com/watch?v=M0f4URsDWy0 Spike Psarris also does a nice job of describing some of the anomalies found in our solar system which evolutionary ideas cannot explain in Astronomy: what you aren’t being told about.[27]www.youtube.com/watch?v=dfJmKIJjpPY Bruce Malone has written a good book which can be used for witnessing called Search for the Truth and has sold over 40,000 copies.[28]http://logosresearchassociates.org/team/bruce-malone/ Here he is on YouTube discussing some of the points I have shared above.[29] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n042X-Fuihg Dr. Barry Gates does a good job of explaining the connection of aliens to evolution in his bestselling book The Alien Intrusion seen here speaking on YouTube.[30] www.youtube.com/watch?v=1BofzIfxH4M&list=PL256C36E18BB5B231

Dr. Wilder-Smith talks about creation and time using the Flatlander example.[31] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fbMVP0fNaDg He has many other good lectures explaining science in a very interesting fashion. Mike Riddle also does a good job explaining the Big Bang in relation to Genesis chapter one.[32] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FvAT9GDSjOs Besides the above, I have seen other documentaries too numeral to present here.

I have recently found Dr. Greg Bahnsen’s lectures also very inspiring.[33]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E7Ta39yeXbs or http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HlhaAUKzgJE&list=PLFCE0E452DB4851A4

My friend’s final comments: I’m sure that they will be helpful to me in my studies. I’ll be keeping you and all you do to give others the message of His love in my prayers.

Thanks, we certainly need it in these trying times. Please pray for our financial solutions.

Footnotes:

[1] Douglas F. Kelly, Creation and Change: Genesis 1:1-2:4 in the Light of Changing Scientific Paradigms- Great Britain: Christian Focus Publications, 1997, pg. 50-51.

Fight for Your Faith

Monday, September 8, 2014

Why I Believe a Literal Six Day Creation Is Important

1 Comments:

Blog Archive

Featured Post

Where is America in Bible Prophecy? Books 1&2 and Bits'n Pieces Books 1&2&3&4 - Index to Chapters of Books

Popular Posts

My Story

Followers

Translate the Website

Contact

Donate Now