How can I state as fact, the inerrancy of the Bible requires a literal six-day creation? Follow the Scriptural evidence. This is a rebuttal to Dr. Norman Geisler's claim to the possible alternatives to a literal six-day creation while maintaining Biblical inerrancy in the article: “Does Believing in Inerrancy Require One to Believe in Young Earth Creationism?”
First and foremost, if we cannot trust the first three chapters of Bible (Genesis), as God's divine Word, we are hard-pressed to hold credence to the rest. The book is either Divinely written or it is not. Understandably, there are questions of interpretation among Christians, however based on basic rules of interpretation we accept what is plainly written as truth and take it, in context, as Scripture interoperates itself, as literally written, unless it is clearly figurative as in Rev 7:1 when the Scripture refers to the four corners of the earth, which we know is figurative because Isa 40:22, written hundreds of years prior, states the earth is circular and the Bible does not contradict itself. We can then look at the world around us and see the proof for the Bible's claims, which since inspired by God, holds true to the evidence around us: DNA is one of the greatest proofs of Scripture! DNA is testable, observable and we can repeat these tests. We know by DNA that a kind can change in variety within a kind without being able to change from one kind to another kind, showing the account in Genesis of animals and mankind to be true: each produces after its own kind (Gen 1:11-12, 21, 24-25).
Sadly, the author of the article in question correctly states, this issue is of hot debate among evangelicals. Primarily because we have been trained outside of the Bible that the earth is old, billions of years old, and this flawed thinking, with its flawed assumptions, has overrun the church because leaders have not taken a stand to learn about science and rightly accept science, which actually helps defend the claims of Scripture. Science at its core is a method of testing, observation and repeated testing and observation. This cannot be done in the arena of origins: we cannot test, observe and repeat. The world is here already and it cannot be contained to test and observe and repeat. Therefore, it is not scientific to claim any study of our origins as science. All matters of origins, evolutionary or creation, are matters of faith, not science.
While time could be spent disproving numerous claims of evolutionary theory, flawed dating methods, discredited ape to human links, flawed assumptions, which produce flawed results and alike, that is not the point of this writing: inerrancy is required by a literal six-day creation. Available to the reader are numerous books and articles which attest to the flaws of evolution, one need only look for them. The article in question states two pillars upon which a Young Earth must stand: no Gaps in Genesis and a literal six 24hr. days of creation. Then the author proceeds to attempt to disprove them or at least weaken them to make the Christian willing to consider other possibilities to a Young Earth. Here are two quotes from the article in question, one of which falsely asserts the two pillars of a Young Earth are open to serious objections: “If there is evidence for Gaps in Genesis and longer period of time involved in the six-day of Genesis, then the Young Earth view fails to convincingly support its two pillars” and “As we have seen, both premises of the Young Earth View are open to serious objections. There is no air-tight case for a Young Earth from a biblical point of view.”
Herein is offered evidence for the articles flawed attempts and false assertion that the two pillars were disproved enough to cause reasonable doubt to a Young Earth, thereby allowing for the many possible Old Earth theories offered by the article in question.
Reading Genesis, we see that God spoke into existence His creation in six days, mornings and evenings; it is these qualifiers which close the case. The word day in Genesis is yowm and has two possible meanings shown below: literal 24hrs. OR figurative as defined by an associated term, emphasis added. The associated terms, morning and evening, also defined as:
Now look at author's claims regarding “day” from his article, named prior, and see if there are any issues to address with his claims. Noting we must hold to the Biblical definitions of day, morning and evening as just shown. The author's quotes are listed first under each point.
1. “First, the word “day” (Hb. yom) is not limited to a 24 hour day in the creation record. For instance, it is used for 12 hours of light or daytime (in Gen.1:4-5a).” Defense: We know from the definitions stated above, a day can be defined by an associated term. The associated term, in this case, is “light” or 12hrs as stated.
2. “It is also used for a whole 24 hour day in Genesis 1:5b where it speaks day and night together as a “day.” Defense: Interestingly, the passage referred to does not speak of day and night together as a day, rather it uses the terms evening and morning, which are defined above. Genesis 1:5b is in bold: Gen 1:5 "(5) And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day." Therefore if we hold to the same standard of interruption in point 1 and point 2, day means 12hrs. and 24hrs. respectively and thereby the day in verse 5 is both 12hrs. of light and 12hrs. of night or 24hrs. While unintentional, the author actually admits to a 24hr. day definition for the word day by using context as his source, which is correct Biblical interpretation, although referring to day and night in error instead of evening and morning.
3. “Further, in Genesis 2:4 the word “day” is used of all six days of creation when it affirms: 'These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created in the day [yom] that the LORD God made them' (Gen. 2:4).” Defense: We know, as with all Scripture, context is king. What is the context of Genesis 1-3, knowing there were no chapters and verse numbers in the original text? The context is creation and the fall of man. In this context, is it wrong to use day as a period of time encompassing all of creation? No! Why and how do we know this? Day is defined by associated terms. What is the associated term in Gen 2:4? Generations. Generations is defined below and has two meanings: descent OR history.
Since we know the context is not speaking of descents because Adam and Eve had not yet had children, the meaning is history. The history of creation, which is the direct context, was completed in the day, generations (history as previously described in detail in Gen 1), that God made them. Again, day is defined by the associated word in the context of the passage. Gen 2:4 is referring back to Gen 1 as a whole. Chapter two then proceeds to give other detailed information about creation not mentioned in chapter one of Genesis.
4. “What is more, on the “seventh day” God “rested” from His work of creation. But according to Hebrews 4:4-11, God is still resting and we can enter into His Sabbath rest (v. 10). So, the seventh day of creation rest is still going on some 6000 plus years later (even by a Young Earth chronology).” Defense: This claim is a bit of a stretch: there are problems with it listed below, yet such may not be limited to those alone. All of Scripture must aline with itself to be inerrant.
5. “Further, there are biblical alternatives to the strongest argument for a 24 hour day.” Several points are given under point five by the author of the article of question, each is quoted below with a response:
6. “Others like Hermon Ridderbos (Is There a Conflict Between Genesis 1 and Natural Science?) took the “days” of Genesis as a Literary Framework for the great creative events of the past. Still others (Bernard Ramm, The Christian View of Science and Scripture) considered the “days” of Genesis to be six 24 hour days of revelation (wherein God revealed what he had done in the ancient past to the writer of Genesis) but not literal days of creation.” Defense: To insert the idea of “revelation” into Genesis is to add an assumption into Scripture that is not offered, therefore one is not being true to the context. We cannot add or subject or interject our views into Scripture, rather we must take only what God has provided and accept it or reject it; a Christian will accept it, religious people claiming to be Christians or non-Christians will reject it: John 14:23 "(23) Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him." The word “keep” and “words” are defined below. A Christian does not merely seek to follow the words of Christ, as in doing them, thereby becoming more Christ-like, additionally, the Christian will seek to guard and protect the Word of God against attack, from without or within. This is the very meaning of the words: “keep my words.”
Additionally, under point six the author stated: “Again, the point here is not to defend these views but to point out that there are alternatives to a Young Earth View, most of which are not incompatible in principle with a belief in the inerrancy of Scripture.” The key word here is “most” or the key phrase: “most of which are not incompatible in principle with a belief in the inerrancy of Scripture.” One's theory is either fully correct and fully compatible with inerrancy of Scripture or it is not because the Bible is fully inerrant. God is not a God of confusion (1Cor 14:33), He plainly stated what happen, we either believe or do not.
7. “The Relative Time View claims the Earth is both young and old, depending on how it is measured. Gerard Schroeder, a Jewish physicist (in Genesis and the Big Bang), argued that measured by God’s time when He created the universe it was only six literal days of creation. But measured by our time, the creation of the universe is billions of years old.” Defense: The problem lays in the refusal to accept Scriptural evidence for a literal six-day creation from both God's view and ours. Anything beyond the acceptance of the timeline provided by Scripture is a rejection of Scripture, in part or in whole, which is a rejection of the Scripture as a whole because we are calling God a liar. More regarding a Scriptural timeline will be under Evidence for No Gaps in Genesis.
8. “The Apparent Age View proposes that the universe just looks old, even though it is young. The book by Philip Henry Gosse was titled Omphalos (1857), meaning navel, proposing that Adam had a navel, even though he was created as an adult. Likewise, on this view, the first tree would have had rings in them the day they were created.” Defense: The points brought out in the quote are possible, yet I do not state the view is possible, not having its claims available at the time to this writing. If all this view claims is that man, plants and animals were created in a fully completed state, God could have easily done so: He did with Adam. Scripture says Adam was formed from the dust of the ground and God breathed life into him (Gen 2:7). There is no evidence Adam was never a baby or a child, yet he named all the animals God brought to him (Gen 1:19-20). Therefore he was created with full intellectual capabilities. Similarly, trees, which came from the ground would be created with age, since it was done in one day, day three (Gen 1:11-12), interestingly even before the sun and moon, on day four (Gen 1:14-19). These trees then produced new trees; light, although it travels far, was easily created in place and traveling already: it appeared at the command of God in day one (Gen 1:3-5).
The author of the article in question brings up a number of possible gaps in Genesis, each numbered in his article and addressed below. As shown in defending the six literal days of creation, the days stand according to Scripture as six literal days, whereby it was shown the author in question erred in each of the his attempts to prove the six days where not literal. According to Scripture interpreting itself and the examples we have reviewed, the six days have been shown to be literal, which aides to discredit some of the supposed gaps in Genesis presented by the other author. Also known by Christians is the Bible is our final authority and by it is our claim of inerrancy and our claim of Christ's resurrection, which stands as correct unless it can be proven wrong, at which time, it would hold no weight at all. Paul said it best: 1Cor 15:14-19 "(14) And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain.(15) Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not.(16) For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised:(17) And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins.(18) Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished.(19) If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable."
Most, if not all, of those who try to propose an Old Earth, do so to try and aline man's fallible knowledge of the universe to God infallible statements, rather than questioning what they are being taught by the worldview to see if they are true. As stated prior, there is an abundance of material showing the evolutionary time frame to be incorrect, go research it, see ICR.org for one. Below are the four points listed in the questionable article.
1. “There could have been a gap of long periods of time before Genesis 1:1 (called Recent Creationism).” Defense: Eternity is a long time before Gen 1:1 and did exist as a part of eternity past. What occurred, God has not revealed. Eternity past is time before day one of creation and holds no value towards aging the earth, therefore it is an invalid point.
2. “There could be a gap between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 (called the Gap Theory with or without and intervening fall of Satan, as C. I. Scofield had it).” Defense:
3. “There could be long gaps between the six literal 24-hour days (Alternating Day-Age Theory).”
Having shown clear Scriptural evidence for a literal six-day creation in the defense of the same and having shown defense for no Gaps in Genesis, below will show actual Scriptural evidence for there being no gaps in the Genesis genealogies: Gen 5, 11, which are the genealogies with prior to Abraham. There is a chart below with verses for each descendant.
God has offered us enough evidence to take Him at His word, which is the meaning of faith, defined after the chart. God gave detail genealogies, Gen 5, 11, with the age of the father when his son was born and how long the father lived after. Plus, bonus information affirming the detailed account: Enoch in the genealogies is seventh from Adam, yet how can we know for a fact Scripturally that it is true? We know there were no gaps from Adam to Enoch: Jude 1:14 "(14) And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints." Seth is directly named as Adam's son (Gen 4:25; 5:3), Noah is named as Lamech's son (Gen 5:28-29), Shem is Noah's son, he had to be on the ark with Noah because his son, Arphaxad, was born to Shem two years after the flood (Gen 11:10) and only Noah's family was on the ark (Gen 6:18; 1Pet 3:20).
|Generations||Age Having Descendent||Direct Ancestor||Evidence|
|1||130||Adam||Gen 2:7; 4:25; 5:3|
|2||105||Seth||Gen 4:25; 5:3, 6|
|3||90||Enos||Gen 5:6, 9|
|4||70||Cainan||Gen 5:9, 12|
|5||65||Mahalaleel||Gen 5:12, 15|
|6||162||Jared||Gen 5:15, 18|
|7||65||Enoch||Gen 5:18, 21; Enoch was seventh from Adam (Jude 14)|
|8||187||Methuselah||Gen 5:21, 25|
|9||182||Lamech||Gen 5:25, 28-29|
|10||500||Noah||Gen 5:28-29, 32; 6-9|
|11||100||Shem (two years after the flood)||Gen 5:32; 6-9; 11:10|
|12||35||Arphaxad||Gen 11:10, 12|
|13||30||Salah||Gen 11:12, 14|
|14||34||Eber||Gen 11:14, 16|
|15||30||Peleg||Gen 11:16, 18|
|16||32||Reu||Gen 11:18, 20|
|17||30||Serug||Gen 11:20, 22|
|18||29||Nahor||Gen 11:22, 24|
|19||70||Tereh||Gen 11:24, 26-27|
|20||100||Abraham (Abram)||Gen 11:26-27|
Christians do not live by blind faith or place our faith on upon assumptions, of which prove to be false, as do those who cling to evolution, our faith is confidence in the truthfulness of our God. If you cannot trust God of want His as written, you may wish to question your salvation, to know if it is true. If scientists claim to know the origins of the universe, yet they are continuously proved wrong and/or changing their theories to adapt to new evidence, and you choose to believe them over what God has written, then in whom is your faith actually resting in? Hint, it's not God.
In the article in question, there were a few other points brought out by the author, which are not related directly to the two pillars: Literal Six, 24hr., Days and Gaps in Genesis. However, they merit correction.
First, “A Theological Assumption,” wherein the author says since God is so powerful, why did He take so long to create, instead He could have done so in a mere six seconds. Scripture offers an answer: Exod 20:9-11 "(9) Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:(10) But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:(11) For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day and hallowed it."
Second, “The Evolutionary Fear,” the author seem to think, falsely, that Christians fear evolution. We do not fear it, we reject it because it is not compatible with Scripture as shown.
Third, “Historically,” the author states St. Augustine as an example that literal six-day creation was not a fundamental issue of the early church, without stating the issue of an Old Earth never carried much merit until made popular by Darwin, about 1,500 years later. Then the author lists a number of points: (1) the literal six-day creation was not given creedal status, why would it? For the most part, the early church accepted God's Word for what it said and where they did not, we were warned of false teachers already active in the early church (2Pet 2:1), which bring up an important point: do not rely on someone to teach you, rather seek to learn the Word of God for yourself. In the day we stand before God, we cannot say, but the preacher said or the scholars
said; God will ask what He said; (2-4) the author tries to say, if the issue was important, it would have to be brought up by this group and that group, however, regardless of any group thinking it important, God thought it important enough to list detailed genealogies for us to know the truth.
The author continues by saying if the Young Earth be true, let Biblical and Scientific evidence prove it. The Bible has proved it as shown. Science also has proven the Scripture true, in as much as science can, such as DNA, as stated in the beginning of this writing or science having enabled space travel and satellites whereby we can see the earth is circular as Isa 40:22 proclaimed. Where science is limited and can never prove creation, or evolution for that matter, is at the heart of what science is: a testable, observable, repeatable process.
Let God be true, but every man a liar (Rom 3:4a). While in the early church a creed may not have been needed, which included an acknowledgment of a literal six, 24hr., day creation, evidence today suggests a need of one. God's Word must be defended from attack, both without and within, the church. Christians are saved to glorify God with good works (Mt 5:16), to renew our minds to think as God and not as the world (Rom 12:1-2), to let God reign through us (Eph 3:19-20) and to guard and protect the Word of God, remembering, keep is to guard and protect and sayings is what God has said, orally or in writing: John 14:23-24 "(23) Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.(24) He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings: and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father's which sent me." May all those