Tuesday, January 31, 2012


Many people believe that they can add evolution to the Bible. They think that by doing this they can explain life coming about as a result of God’s use of evolutionary processes. This position is known as "theistic evolution." However, this is totally inconsistent with Scripture. (An offshoot of theistic evolution, which is sometimes promoted by Christians who are sensitive to criticism of evolution, is known as progressive creation. This idea holds that while life was developing through the vast ages imagined by evolutionists God stepped in at various times along the way. At each point He created something new which the evolutionary process could not accomplish without this help from God. Progressive creation implies that God’s forethought in creation was not adequate for the complete evolutionary process at the beginning. It will be seen that the arguments against progressive creation are covered by the arguments against theistic evolution, particularly with reference to death and struggle existing before man.)
Evolution teaches that for millions of years before man things have lived and died. They have fought and struggled, killed and been killed. It was a world without mercy—"nature red in tooth and claw." This history of evolution is a history of death. Death has been "from the beginning."
The Bible clearly teaches that death, particularly the physical and spiritual death of man, entered the world only after the first man Adam sinned.
In #Ro 5:12 the Apostle Paul wrote: "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned." In #1Co 15:21-22, "For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive." In #Ge 3:22-23 we read: "And the Lord God said, ‘Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever:’ Therefore the Lord God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken." Adam was sent out of the garden so he could not live forever. In other words, he would have to die.
But what about the animals? Was death a part of the created animal world? There are a number of reasons why I believe animal death as well as human death did not occur before the Fall.
(a) Could animals have died from old age? Before the Fall animals could not have died of old age because #Ro 8:1-11 reminds us that corruption and decay entered the world only with sin. Death by old age would have meant that animal bodies would have been wearing out and corruption would have existed. This would not fit with the description that before sin everything in God’s creation was "good." #Isa 51:6 tells us that after sin "the earth shall wax old like a garment...." In #Ro 8:22 we read that because of sin "the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now." Thus, it is obvious that the whole of creation, which must include all living creatures, has been subject to "the bondage of corruption" (#Ro 8:21) only as a result of the curse because of Adam’s sin. Death from old age, therefore, only began with the curse.
As we live in a world where everything wears out, it is difficult to understand how aging could not happen in the pre-Fall world. However, we are shown a glimpse of the solution in #De 8:4. God reminded the Israelites that during their wanderings in the wilderness their "raiment waxed not old" upon them, "neither did thy foot swell these forty years." Clearly, this was an unusual, supernatural preservation provided by God for His people’s particular circumstances.
We do not see this happening today. Our clothes wear out quickly. However, when God sustains something totally, this wearing-out does not happen. It is obvious that before the Fall everything had been created "good," and nothing would have worn out.
(b) Could animals have died when Adam, or other animals ate them for food? Again, the answer would be "No!" Not only animals, but man and woman were told they were to eat only plants (#Ge 1:29). Animals could not have died from eating each other; #Ge 1:30 tells us their food was also to be only plants. Also, as God created everything "good," animals could not have killed each other for the sake of killing. This would be opposite in meaning to "good." God, being a good God, would not create animals so that the stronger tried to eliminate the weak in a fight for survival. Also, as everything was created good, there could not have been disease to kill off animals or man. Diseases today contribute to our bodies’ wearing out, but this would not be consistent with what has been pointed out earlier.
(c) Could animals have died accidentally? Again, this would go against the concept of "good." Such a question overlooks the sovereignty and greatness of God. As we have seen, God can sustain things so that even clothes do not wear out. Before sin came into the world, death was not even a question—God had total control of the creation and sustained it 100 percent! There was no corruption and no decay. Hence, death was not even a possibility. Adam was made in the image of the all-caring God, and the animals were in his charge. He cared for them. Death and bloodshed came into the world as a judgment from God for man’s rebellion. But at the same time death was the very means by which man was to be redeemed. So bloodshed could not have exited before man’s fall.
There was no bloodshed before Adam sinned: everything was perfect and death was not a part of animal existence. However, Adam did sin; and God, in giving His covenant to Adam, had laid down the condition that death was to be the reward of disobedience. We then read that God Himself was the first shedder of blood, because He gave Adam and Eve coats of skin to cover their nakedness (#Ge 3:21). There is no specific command recorded, but we do know that "And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof. And the Lord had respect unto Abel and to his offering" (#Ge 4:4). It is evident, then, that the requirement was understood. The writer of Hebrews (#Heb 9:22) observes that "without shedding of blood is no remission." God fulfilled two undertakings after the Fall: (a) that man should die as the penalty for his sin; and (b) that the Seed of the woman should bruise the serpent’s head, and the serpent should bruise His heel. So death and bloodshed are the consequences of sin; the penalty which Christ, the last Adam, bore by His death and shedding of blood on the cross but triumphed over in His glorious resurrection for the redemption of man. If death and bloodshed existed before man sinned, the redemption message is nonsense.
Evolution teaches that death and bloodshed existed virtually from the beginning. Millions of years of animals fighting for survival—shedding blood and eating each other—is part of the mechanisms of evolution which brought man into existence. It is completely contrary to the Biblical history of the world.
Evolution says death plus struggle brought man into existence; the Bible says man’s actions led to sin, which led to death. These two are totally contradictory. If evolution is true, then the reason Christ died on the cross has been destroyed.
Christians talk about the fact that Adam "fell." The "Fall of Adam" refers to the fact that when God made everything it was perfect. However, because of his action, Adam was responsible for something terrible happening to the whole of creation. #Ro 8:22 says, "For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now." Because of Adam’s sin, God cursed the whole of creation, including the stars, the ants, the elephants and people.
In Genesis we read, "Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field" (#Ge 3:14). "Cursed is the ground for thy sake" (#Ge 3:17). God placed a curse on the world because of Adam’s rebellion. Therefore, the creation went from a perfect state to a cursed state. As a result of the curse, the whole of creation has been running down ever since—groaning and travailing in pain.
In other words, things are getting worse, not better. The evolutionary belief tells us that things have been improving—life has been evolving into more and more complex forms. For those Christians who believe in evolution, man should be improving—not getting worse. In fact, if Adam was part of an evolutionary progression, how could he fall upwards? What is sin? Is sin an inherited animal characteristic, or is it due to the fall of man through disobedience?
As scientists come to understand more of what is going on in this world, they find that our whole genetic make-up is degenerating. Mistakes in our genes are causing our physiology to have more and more problems.
In #Ac 3:21 we read: "Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began." The Bible speaks of a time when this creation will be restored that is, put back to what it used to be. This itself indicates that something is dreadfully wrong with today’s world. For Christians who accept evolution, Paul’s words about the whole of creation groaning and travailing in pain are meaningless.
The same is true when one speaks of the new heaven and new earth in which, as Scripture tells us, "righteousness dwells." Why is there need of a new heaven and new earth unless there is something wrong with the old one? #Isa 11:6-9 tells us what it will be like in the new heaven and the new earth:
"The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together, and a little child shall lead them. And the cow and the bear shall feed; their young ones shall lie down together: and the lion shall eat straw like the ox. And the sucking child shall play on the hole of the asp, and the weaned child shall put his hand on the cockatrice den. They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain: for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the Lord, as the waters cover the sea." Here the description indicates that animals will not eat each other, but will eat plants (vegetarian) and that there will be no violence or suffering.
#Re 22:3 tells us, "And there shall be no more curse." #Re 21:4 states: "And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away."
The description of what will happen in the restoration of all things can be summarized as follows: no death, no suffering, no bloodshed, no curse, vegetarian animals, no tears, no crying, no pain. This certainly is not a description of today’s world yet it is a description of a restoration, of something that reflects its former state.
When we read #Ge 1:1-2:25, we find a description of the original creation no death, no violence, animals vegetarian. In other words, this present creation will be restored to what it used to be because there is something dreadfully wrong with it at the moment. If a person accepts evolution, then what is the restoration going to be? Death, struggle and violence as we see today? Of course, this makes nonsense of the teachings of the new heaven and new earth given in Scripture.
When we observe today’s world, we notice that many animals eat other animals. Humans also eat the flesh of animals. The fact that we see violence among animals has been described by one poet as "nature red in tooth and claw." Evolutionists label the struggle as the "survival of the fittest." They see it as part of the evolutionary process. For theistic evolutionists, carnivorous (meat-eating) animals are just a part of this "creation" that God has supposedly used in the struggle towards man’s evolution.
However, #Ge 1:29-30 says: "And God said, ‘Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat. And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to everything that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat:’ and it was so."
Man and animals were created to be vegetarians. This, of course, fits with the fact that there was no death before Adam’s Fall. But, because of the entrance of sin into the world, death resulted. Sin affected the world so much that God caused a flood to come upon the earth in judgment. #Ge 6:12-13 states: "And God looked upon the earth, and, behold it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth. And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth." Part of this violence could have been animals starting to kill each other and perhaps man, and vice versa. Actually, though, man was not given specific instructions from God that he could eat meat until after Noah’s Flood. #Ge 9:3 tells us: "Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things."
Many people think that because animals have certain kinds of teeth they must have been created to be meat-eaters. However, there are many animals living today that have sharp canine teeth that eat only plants. Originally the teeth of these animals were used to eat the plants which God had made for them. As a result of the Fall, some animals now eat meat. Also, the Bible does not exclude the possibility of direct action by God at the time of the Fall having a direct biological effect on the creatures in relation to feeding habits.
The Bible teaches clearly that God finished His work of creating and making things on the sixth day of creation. "Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made" (#Ge 2:1-3). God’s work of creation finished at the end of the sixth day, when God completed all He had set out to do. However, because of man’s fall God now works at reconciliation.
Those who believe that God used evolution must believe that the same processes God used in this supposed evolutionary "creation" are going on today. When the evolutionist looks at the world today, he observes mutations (mistakes or changes in genes) and natural selection (survival of the fittest) and sees these as part of the mechanisms of evolution. Given enough time, natural selection and mutations are said to enable organisms to change from one kind into another. What the evolutionist is doing, then, is using processes he observes today to extrapolate into the past. He believes these processes over millions of years are the basic mechanisms of evolution.
Christians who say God used evolution to bring everything including man into being have a real problem. If evolution is not occurring today (that is, if God is not "creating" through evolution), there is no basis to extrapolate into the past to say that evolution has ever occurred, as there is now no mechanism for it.
In other words, modern evolutionary theory accepts that evolution is still going on (therefore, man must still be evolving!), so if a Christian accepts evolution he has to accept that God is still using evolution today. Thus, He is still creating. But God tells us that He finished His work of creating. This is a real dilemma for the theistic evolutionist.
We read in #Ge 2:7 how God made the first man: "And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul."
According to the verse, taken at face value God made the first man Adam from the dust of the ground. His wife Eve was made in a different way. "And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man. And Adam said, ‘This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called "Woman," because she was taken out of Man’" (#Ge 2:21-23).
The first woman, Eve, was made from Adam’s side. There are many Christians who, having accepted evolution, say that the "dust" in Genesis 2:7 actually represents the chemicals that God used to start the evolutionary process. Thus Genesis 2:7 represents a summary of evolution that is, chemicals-to-man. Yet people who hold this belief have an insurmountable problem: if dust-to-Adam represents chemicals-to-man, then what does rib-to-Eve represent? To be consistent one needs an adequate explanation, and there is none if one accepts evolution. Eve did not come directly from dust, but from an already fully functional created man.
Some people say that "dust" in Genesis 2:7 represents the animal (e.g., ape-like creature) that God breathed into and made a man (Adam). They say that when the Bible tells us God took dust and made Adam, it is symbolic of the evolutionary understanding that ape-like creatures evolved into human beings. But again, one must be consistent. #Ge 3:19 states, "In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return."
If the dust God used to make Adam represents an ape-like creature that God used to make man, then according to the Bible the dust from which man was made is what he returns to when he dies. To what "animal" does man return when he dies? Anyone can observe that when we die we return to dust just as the Bible says. Dust of the ground, to which we return, is what we were created from in the first place!
In #Ge 1:31 God pronounced of His creation that "it was very good." What did He mean by "good?" The only way you would know is if you had an absolute with which to make a comparison. Jesus said in #Mt 19:17, " there is none good but one, that is, God." In #Ps 25:8 were are told, "Good and upright is the Lord." Therefore, when God pronounced His creation as "good," what existed reflected the attributes of a God who is good. When we look at the attributes of God we see, for instance, as exhibited in the New Testament through Jesus Christ, that He cared for the sick, He healed the suffering, He raised the dead, He had compassion, He helped the weak. He is a loving and good God.
Now think about the methods of evolution: elimination of the weak, survival of the fittest, death and struggle in an evolutionary progression, elimination of the unfit, and so on. Would God have used this method in bringing all life being and then describe it as good? Of course not—this would be totally inconsistent with God’s nature as revealed in the Scriptures, Christians who believe that God used evolution must consider Him an ogre!
Many claims that Genesis is only symbolic—a kind of analogy. They claim it is not important what Genesis says, only what it means. Actually, it cannot mean anything unless it says something anyway. Many Christians say that Genesis is meant only to teach us that God is Creator, but it is done in symbolic terms, because in reality the words really mean God used evolution.
However, if applying this idea—that Genesis is only symbolic—then one has to ask the question, "Where do we learn that God is Creator?" We can, of course, go to #Ge 1:1 which says, "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." But if Genesis is only symbolic, to be consistent we would have to question whether the words "God created" are also symbolic. We would have to ask what this really means.
When people say Genesis is only symbolic, they are inconsistent, for they accept some parts as literal (such as "God created") and other parts as symbolic! If it is symbolic, then it must be written for a purpose, therefore, every phrase that is supposed to be symbolic must be a symbol of something. So one has to ask: What does every verse mean? What does it symbolize? For instance, what does "rib-to-Eve" symbolize? This makes no sense at all. (It is, of course, powerfully symbolic (more correctly a type) of the future relationship between Christ and His church. But what does it tell us, symbolically or poetically or whatever, in its own context, about beginnings? Old Testament types (e.g., Moses as a type of Christ) are always real people and events in real history. It is also important to note that the Jews divided their writings into three groups: history, poetry and prophecy. Genesis was included in their list of historical writings. Thus, they accepted it as real history.) Either you take it at face value, or you do not know what it means, for it has no purpose being there.
Any basic study of Biblical doctrines of theology will show that ultimately all doctrines, directly or indirectly, have their basis in the book of Genesis.
In #Joh 5:46-47 Jesus Christ said: "For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me. But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?" Jesus was emphatic that the writings of Moses had to be accepted to understand what He was saying because all the doctrines He taught were founded in Genesis. For instance, in #Mt 19:4-6 we read of His answer to the question about divorce that concerned marriage: "And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘for this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh.’ What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder."
Marriage has its foundation in Genesis—the first marriage God ordained is of Adam and Eve. To understand the meaning of marriage one must understand and accept it literal basis and origin as contained in the book of Genesis.
Christ died on a cross because of sin and death and the necessary shedding of blood for the remission of sins. The origin and basis of this is in the book of Genesis. We wear clothing because God gave clothes because of sin. We read this in the book of Genesis. To understand Christian doctrine we must understand the foundations of doctrine given in the book of Genesis. If Genesis cannot be taken literally, there is no foundation for Christian doctrine—therefore, Christian doctrine no longer has meaning.
Many people try to say that in the New Testament Jesus was only quoting the writings of His day—that He did not believe Genesis to be literal. They say that because the Jews happened to believe in the writings of Moses and in Genesis, Jesus just quoted this to go along with them. However, the Bible also teaches us that Jesus Christ is "the way, the truth and the life" (#Joh 14:6). Jesus is the "truth." To say that Jesus would knowingly teach "myth" as fact is to call Jesus Christ a liar. Jesus Christ was not just a man; He was not a sinner; He was the perfect "God-Man." Christians who say that Jesus was only quoting the myths of the day should be careful not to be calling Jesus a liar.
There are other instances where Jesus quoted from, or referred to, and thus accepted Genesis. For example, #Mt 24:37-39: "But as the days of Noah were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark. And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be."
There are many references throughout the New Testament to Genesis, accepting it as literal history—as truth. There are at least 165 passages in Genesis that are either directly quoted or clearly referred to throughout the New Testament. Included in these are more than 100 quotations or direct reference to Genesis chapters 1 through 11.
Every one of the New Testament authors refers in his writings to Genesis 1 through 11. Every one of the first 11 chapters is alluded to in certain sections throughout the New Testament. A complete listing of all New Testament references to Genesis can be found in Dr. Henry Morris’ excellent commentary on Genesis, The Genesis Record, co-published by Baker Book House and Creation Life Publishers.
Throughout the Old and New Testament Genesis is quoted from or referred to more than any other book in the entire Bible. This certainly indicates something of its importance. It also shows that both Old Testament and New Testament writers accepted Genesis as truth. On at least six occasions, Jesus Christ either quoted from or referred to some aspects of Genesis 1 through 11.
Many Christians claim that the days of creation actually represent millions of years of earth’s history. They say that God did not create the universe in six literal days but in six periods of time, representing the millions of years held by the evolutionists.
First of all, one has to recognize that science cannot prove the age of the earth. There are many assumptions behind all of the dating methods of which most people are not aware. There is also much scientific evidence consistent with a belief in a young earth. But the Bible itself teaches quite clearly that the days in Genesis are ordinary, literal days (approximately 24 hours).
The Hebrew world for day, yom, can mean an ordinary day or an indefinite period of time. It should be made clear that the word for day in Genesis can never mean a long period in the definite sense. It can mean something longer than a day, but only in the indefinite sense (e.g., in the time of the Judges, in the day of the Lord). #Ex 20:11 tells us that God created the universe in six days and rested on one as a pattern for man. This is the reason God took as long as six days to make everything. He set the seven-day week pattern for us, which we still use today. God did not say He worked for six million years and rested for one million years, telling us to do the same. It makes even less sense to suggest he worked for six indefinite periods of time.
There are many other aspects at which we could look to show that the days must be ordinary days. For example, Adam was created on day six. He lived through day six, and day seven, and died when he was 930 years old. If each day were a million years, there are big problems here, too. It also needs to be made clear that the passage in #2Pe 3:8, that compares a day to a thousand years is not defining the word day as a thousand years. In fact, taken in context II Peter 3:8 has nothing to do with the days of creation, but with the fact that God is outside time.
The word "day" when first used in Genesis cannot be symbolic. A word cannot be used symbolically the first time it is used. It can only be used symbolically when it first has a defined literal meaning. It is given this defined literal meaning in #Ge 1:5,8,13,19,23,31 the first time it is used. Also, the words used for the "evening" and "morning" can only mean exactly that.
In #Ge 1:14-19, concerning the fourth day of creation, the word "day" is used five times in relation todays, nights, seasons and years. If the word "day" here does not mean an ordinary day, it makes absolute nonsense of the way it is used in these passages.
In #Ge 1:1-31, the phrase "after his kind" or "after their kind" occurs a total of ten times. This phrase is used in reference to the animals and plants as they are to reproduce on the earth. The Bible clearly teaches that God created fixed kinds of animals and plants, each to reproduce after its own kind. One kind could not change into another kind. Today we know there can be great variation within a kind, but fixed boundaries do exist. In fact, the classification system we use in naming animals and plants in groups was first formulated on the Biblical teaching of fixity of kinds, basically as the result of the work of Carl Linnaeus (1707-1778).
There is no indisputable in-between, transitional forms anywhere in the world, living or fossil. What we observe are distinct groups of animals and plants, as we would expect on the basis of what the Bible teaches. Those who believe in evolution have to make up additional theories as to why these in-between organisms are missing (e.g., "we have not found them yet," or "evolution happened so fast that it left no in-between forms").
For those who try to harmonize evolution with Genesis, the order of evolution must compare with the order of events in Genesis. There are a number of problems here. The basic tenets of evolution totally conflict with the order in Genesis. For instance, Genesis teaches that God created fruit trees before fish—plants on day three, fish on day five. Evolution teaches that fish came before fruit trees. Evolution teaches that first life began in the sea, and after millions of years life was established on the land. The Bible teaches that the earth was first created covered with water: evolutionary teaching is that the earth first began as a hot molten blob. There is no way that the order of events according to evolution and Genesis can be reconciled.
One evolutionary view of the earth’s beginning is that, 20 billion years ago a Big Bang occurred, which resulted eventually in the sun forming and, subsequently, the earth as a hot molten blob. The Bible teaches that when God first created the heavens and the earth there was no sun. Light was created on the first day, but the sun was to act as the light-holder and was not made until day four. Also, the earth was covered with water when it was first made. In #2Pe 3:5-6 we have a prophecy concerning the last days in which Peter tells us that men will deliberately choose to forget that the earth was created covered with water. The Big Bang theory and the Biblical account of creation are in total conflict.
Since Moses was not an eyewitness to creation, Noah’s Flood or the events of the Tower of Babel, etc., presumably Genesis was a series of earlier records which Moses brought together in one publication under the direction of the Holy Spirit.
Because of the reference in the New Testament by Jesus to Moses and his authorship of the Pentateuch, there is very strong evidence to suggest that Moses was responsible for the book of Genesis. Throughout Genesis the phrase, "These are the generations of..." (e.g., #Ge 2:4), occurs a number of times. From external evidence, such as the use of what is called the colophon system in Mesopotamia, linguists say that these link passages ("these are the generations of") actually end each section. In other words, they are a kind of "signature" to most of the sections. Thus, in Genesis chapters 1 and 2 the first section goes from #Ge 1:1-2:4 a, and the second section goes from #Ge 2:4 b to #Ge 5:1 a.
Many people say that Genesis chapter 1 and Genesis chapter 2 are two contradictory accounts of creation. In reality, it is easy to see that these two accounts of creation are not contradictory but complementary. #Ge 1:1-2:4 a is an account in chronological order (first, second, third, etc.) of the days of creation. #Ge 2:4 b begins the second account, which is a more detailed coverage of certain aspects of Genesis chapter 1. This second account is not meant to be chronological of each day of creation. In fact, it is meant to give a lot more of the details—particularly in relation to man and the garden—setting the scene for the fall of man in Genesis chapter 3.
The second account is extremely necessary for us to understand what happened in Genesis chapter 3. Not only that, the second account includes the actual details as to how God made man and woman, enabling us to understand more about the nature of the marriage relationship. The pattern of placing a more general account before the recording of certain specific events is not confined to the first two chapters of Genesis. We find it again in #Ge 10:2-32 where we have a population distribution table. This is followed by #Ge 11:1-10, which tells us what happened at Babel in about the third generation of the distribution genealogy in Genesis 10.
It should be noted that in #Mt 19:4-5, when Jesus replied concerning the question relating to marriage, He actually quoted from Genesis chapter 1 and Genesis chapter 2 in His reply, showing that He took them as complementary and authoritative. #Mt 19:4 states: "Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female" (#Ge 1:27). #Mt 19:5: "And said, ‘for this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh’" (#Ge 2:24).
Those who believe in evolution speculate that as man evolved he first had to learn to grunt, then he had to learn to write. He had to use stone tools and learn about farming before he could develop what is called "advanced technology." However, the Bible tells us Adam was not "primitive" but a highly developed individual. For instance, we note in #Ge 2:20 that "Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field." Adam could obviously speak; he had a complex language.
Further, in #Ge 3:20 we are told that, "Adam called his wife’s name, Eve; because she was the mother of all living." In #Ge 5:1 we read that: "This is the book of the generations of Adam." Presumably, Adam wrote down all the details that God had given him concerning the original creation. He would have recorded the other events under God’s direction, and Moses later obtained this material and compiled it into the book of Genesis. If this is so, then Noah must have taken on board the precious documents that Adam had written, in whatever form they existed.
It should also be noted that Adam’s descendants made musical instruments and worked with brass and iron. #Ge 4:21-22 states: "And his brother’s name was Jubal: he was the father of all such as handle the harp and organ. And Zillah, she also bare Tubal-cain, an instructor of every artificer in brass and iron: and the sister of Tubal-cain was Na-amah." They were not primitive savages in the evolutionary progression.
Those Christians who accept the evolutionary view of earth’s history believe that the billions of fossils found on earth are the result of the processes occurring over millions of years. These processes are said to have involved the slow formation of sedimentary layers associated with the trapping of organisms and their subsequent fossilization. Therefore, when it comes to the section in Genesis chapters 6 through 9 concerning Noah’s Flood, they have a problem. If there really was a world-wide flood, it would have ripped up this record from supposedly millions of years ago and destroyed it. On the other hand, the Bible teaches that there was no death before Adam sinned. Therefore, fossils could not have formed millions of years preceding Adam’s sin.
However, there has to be an explanation for the millions of preserved animals and plants laid down by water in layers all over the earth. A world-wide flood such as that of Noah’s time certainly is an excellent explanation. Christians who accept the fossil record as a result of millions of years of slow processes usually say Noah’s Flood was only local in extent, not world-wide. The Bible teaches clearly that the water covered "all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven. (#Ge 7:19).
In addition, we are told in #Ge 9:11-13 of the covenant of the rainbow. God put a rainbow in the sky as a sign He would never again destroy the earth by a flood. We have obviously seen lots of floods since that time, but God has not broken His covenant, as He cannot do that. Therefore, these passages cannot be referred to a local event, but something which will never be repeated—a world-wide flood!
In reality, theistic evolution is no different from atheistic evolution. God is simply added to the story. Christians who believe God used evolution accept what the atheistic view tells them, and then add God to the situation and reinterpret the Bible. Understanding the nature of man, that he is sinful and biased against God and that "there is none righteous, no not one," any view concerning the origin of life which has a consensus of opinion among non-Christians should at least be suspect. As the Bible is the Word of God—the God who knows everything, who has always been there, who does not tell a lie—everything we believe and think must be judged against God’s Word. To understand any area of life we must have a Christian philosophy, which means we must start with the words of God, who was there, and not the words of men who were not.
Because of their belief in evolution, there are Christians who consider that some of the cultures around the world are "primitive" in an evolutionary sense. They have not "evolved" as far as other cultures. However, the Bible teaches in #1Co 15:45 that Adam was the first man. There are not different races of men in an evolutionary sense. #Ro 5:12 tell us that because of one man’s sin (Adam) death passed upon all men, for all have sinned. All the different cultures of the world today have arisen since the time of the Tower of Babel. It was there that people began speaking different languages, causing them to go to different places on the earth’s surface.
Every human being has the same ancestor, Adam, which is why we all have the same problem of sin and the same need for a Saviour.
The same question the Lord asked the people of Israel through Joshua should be a stern reminder to us concerning whom we are choosing to believe. This passage states, "Now therefore fear the Lord, and serve him in sincerity and in truth: and put away the gods which your fathers served on the other side of the flood, and in Egypt; and serve ye the Lord" (#Jos 24:14).
Perhaps today we should ask ourselves a similar question. "Choose you this day whom you will believe: the words of men who are sinful creatures, who were not there, or the words of God who knows everything, who was there, and who has revealed to us all we need to know."

No comments:

Post a Comment