Preacher man Dan

"Prove all things..." 1Thess 5:21

Placeholder Picture

Discover anew Christ who indwells you

Inerrancy of the Bible Requires
Literal Six Day Creation

by Daniel J.M. Galpin

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.

Defense of the Literal Six Days, 24hr. Day, Creation

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.

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.

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.

Defense for No Gaps in the Genesis

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.

Evidence for No Gaps in Genesis

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).

Genealogy from Adam to Abraham

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.

Other Erred Thoughts

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.

Conclusion

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