Biblical Creation vs. Evolution

[Soldier4Christ]

E. Exodus 20:9-11 Simply Emphasizes the Number Seven.

Some argue that other Old Testament "sabbaths" involved years not days (Lev. 25:4,5,8-55). So the point of importance regarding the Sabbath day was not the length of the days of creation but the number seven. The days of the week just represent the seven periods of creation, like the 8 days of the Feast of the Tabernacles represent the years of wilderness wandering.
"Sabbath" emphasizes "rest," not "seven."

The emphasis of all sabbath commands was on rest. The word means "rest," not "seven."

Some sabbath rests occurred at intervals unrelated to the number seven (Lev. 16:31; 23:32; 26:34; on 23:24,25 see KJV; Heb. 4:9).
By Divine decree Exodus 20:8-11 relates the days of creation to the Sabbath day, not to other sabbaths.

The passage clearly states that God created all things in six days, so the people were to work for six days. Then God rested on the seventh day, so the people were to rest on the seventh day.

The only way to know what a holy day represented is by Scripture. Regardless of what other days represented, the Sabbath day represented the fact that God worked six days then rested on the seventh. God says so!

So a "sabbath" was a time of rest. It may or may not relate to the number seven. But the Sabbath day relates to the number seven because that is the day on which God rested. This was a Divine decree!

When people deny such clearly stated facts, they simply confirm our concerns. They follow human wisdom instead of God's clear statements. What will they set aside next?

[Soldier4Christ]

F. Genesis 1:28 Required Long Periods to Fulfill.

On the sixth day God commanded Adam and Eve to multiply and fill the earth. But obviously this took many years to accomplish. Some say this shows that long ages intervened between the days of creation: on the days of creation God simply gave the commands for things to exist, but many years were required for the commands to be fulfilled. (A similar argument is made on the growth of trees from Gen. 2:9, but everything said below applies there as well.)
We have already demonstrated that God's creative commands were fulfilled on the same day He made them.

The command to reproduce was fulfilled after the sixth day of creation ended, but this is not true of God's creative commands. The Bible says God's commands were fulfilled on the days of creation.

As already discussed the creation account clearly states, at the end of various creation days, that God saw what He made on that day and it was very good. So His creation commands were obeyed immediately, not gradually over millions of years. His commands were not just issued on the days of creation; they were fulfilled on those days.

Exodus 20:8-11 clearly says God made all things "in six days."
God's acts of creation were miracles, but man reproduced by natural law.

The reproduction of Genesis 1:28 cannot properly by compared to God's creative commands. God's creative acts were miracles accomplished by His supernatural power. The command to reproduce was not miraculous but occurred according to natural law.

Creation of the first man and woman took very little time because it was a miracle. But reproduction takes much longer, because it occurs by natural law. Are Progressive Creationists saying that creation occurred by natural law? If so, then that is simply theistic evolution! If not, then the comparison is not valid.

So Genesis 1:26-28 actually illustrates our real concern. To argue that fulfillment of God's commands took million of years is to contradict the Bible account and make it appear that God's creation commands could have been fulfilled by natural law, rather than by miracle. That is exactly what troubles us about this whole issue!

[Soldier4Christ]

G. Literal Days Could Not Exist before Day 4.

Some argue that the heavenly bodies measured the "days" beginning on day 4. Prior to that time there would be no way to determine the length of the days. Therefore, the "days" in Genesis 1 must be of undetermined length.
Days clearly existed from day four on.

The argument itself grants this to be so. So surely the "days" could be literal days from day four onward. But the word "day" is used for all the days, they all consisted of "evening and morning," and they were all counted individually, etc., as already explained. Therefore "day" means the same when referring to the days before day four as it does when referring to the days after day four.

So literal days existed after day four; but all the days of creation were the same. Therefore all the days are literal days.
"Day and night" and "evening and morning" existed since day 1 (vv 3-5).

The heavenly bodies were assigned the task of measuring the days on day 4, but the days themselves existed since day 1. The days simply existed temporarily without the heavenly bodies to measure them.

Saying the length of days cannot be known if there were no heavenly bodies to measure them is like saying time cannot exist if you don't have a clock to measure it. Time passed at a consistent rate since the beginning of creation. It was measured as "evening and morning." The movement of the heavenly bodies just gave living things on earth a way to measure time.

Even without a "clock," God knows how much time passed. He says the events took place "in six days"!

Nothing here disproves our evidence for literal days and it surely does not prove the days of creation lasted millions of years each.

[Soldier4Christ]

H. "Creation" (bara) Differs from "Making" (assah).

Some argue that God "created" (Heb. BARA) some things and this means forming from nothing (1:1,21,27 - the heaven and the earth, sea animals and birds, and man). But other things were "made" (ASSAH) and this means arranging and assigning a function to what already exists.
How does this argue for long ages in the days of creation?

Some use this argument to defend a "gap" between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 - God "created" heaven and earth, but then millions of years later He "made" everything else from what He had already "created" (Ex. 20:11). But even if true this would not prove that the days of creation in general were long days. Nor does it explain the use of "create" for the sea animals and man in 1:21,27.

Is the point that "creating" was miraculous, but "making" occurred by natural law so it would take long periods to accomplish? If this is not the point, then the argument proves nothing for long ages. But if this is the point, then it unquestionably argues for a form of theistic evolution!
The distinction between BARA and ASSAH is invalid.

Exodus 20:11 - God "made" (ASSAH) all things in six days. That includes the heaven and the earth and everything on them, which would include the sea animals and birds and the people that Genesis 1:21,27 says God "created." So what Genesis 1 says God "created" (BARA), Exodus 20 says He "made" (ASSAH).

Genesis 1:26,27 - V27 says God "created" (BARA) man in His own image, but v26 says God "made" (ASSAH) man in His own image.

Genesis 6:7 - God would destroy the man and animals and birds He had "created" (BARA) for He was sorry He "made" (ASSAH) them. Specifically, Gen. 6:7 says God "made" (ASSAH) the birds, but Gen. 1:21 says He "created" (BARA) them.

Genesis 2:4 - The heavens and the earth were "created" (BARA) in the day that God "made" (ASSAH) them. Surely this is the same event, not two separate events separated by millions of years. (Cf. v3.)

Genesis 5:1 - In the day God "created" (BARA) man He "made" (ASSAH) him in God's likeness.

Genesis 1:21 - God "created" (BARA) the sea animals, but He "made" (ASSAH) everything in the sea - Neh. 9:6.

Genesis 1:16 - God "made" (ASSAH) the sun, moon, and stars, but He "created" (BARA) them - Psalms 148:3-5.

Isaiah 43:7 - God "created" (BARA) everyone whom He "made" (ASSAH).

Clearly this argument proves nothing for long days in creation.

[Soldier4Christ]

I. God Reveals Himself to Man in "Two Books" - The Bible and Nature.

Some argue that God reveals Himself in nature and in the Bible (Psalms 19:1; Romans 1:20). We are then told that the Bible does not clearly tell how long creation took. The Bible account is "subjective" whereas science is "objective," so we must turn to nature (i.e., science) for the answer.
The information learned from nature is limited.

The Bible says only that nature can show us God's existence (Godhood), power, and glory (Rom. 1:20; Psalms 19:1). We cannot learn His will for our lives, nor can we learn history.

Nowhere does Scripture say science is a book of revelation, nor does it say it is equal to Scripture in authority.
Science is not nature.

The Bible says we can learn some lessons from the things God made: things of Divine origin (the heavens, etc.). But science is of human origin. It is conclusions man has reached from his observations about nature. It is fundamentally human wisdom, not Divine wisdom.

No Scripture says human wisdom and learning should be relied on as equal to Divine revelation. Rather, we will see that God often warns against the dangers of it.
True science deals only with current natural processes, not with history and surely not with miracles.

As discussed earlier, the scientific method involves repeatable experiments about current processes. But the facts of creation are history. They cannot be repeated. So the only direct evidence about creation must be, not science, but history. See again John 8:17; Matthew 18:16; 2 Corinthians 13:1; 1 Timothy 5:19; Hebrews 10:28; Deuteronomy 17:6; 19:15.

Science may demonstrate that current processes could not form earth and life as we know it. This can be used to disprove evolution. That strengthens the case for creation by default, but science cannot directly prove the facts of creation.

Specifically, science can never prove or disprove any miracle, because by definition a miracle does not follow natural law! History can testify that miracles occurred, but to use science to establish the facts of a miracle is to miss the whole point!

Job 38:4,12 - Who was present to witness the historical facts of creation? "Were you there?" Only God was present, so only Deity can testify to the facts about what happened.

The only source of credible historical evidence about creation repeatedly testifies that it occurred in six days. Science cannot disprove this, because it is a supernatural event and a matter of history.

Note further that physical evidence about the distant past would be greatly altered by the flood. Forty days of rains accompanied by underground flooding (and probably volcanic action) followed by standing water worldwide for a year would cause incredible changes. This would also make it impossible for modern science to know for sure what happened before the flood.
Science is fallible and changing; Scripture is infallible and unchanging.

The Bible claims to be the very word of God Himself -- 2 Timothy 3:16,17; 1 Corinthians 14:37; 2:10-13; Ephesians 3:3-5; John 16:13; Matthew 10:19,20; Galatians 1:8-12; 2 Peter 1:20,21; 1 Thessalonians 2:13; Luke 10:16.

As such, the Bible cannot be wrong, because God is never wrong. It never changes, because it never needs correction - Psalm 119:128; Titus 1:2; John 17:17; Psalm 33:4; 19:8; 147:4,5; Rom. 3:4; Job 37:16; Num. 23:19; Heb. 6:18; Deut. 18:20-22.

Where does the Bible ever make such claims for science?

Scientists openly and freely admit that science has often been wrong. Scientific views are continually being revised.

So where is the basis for claiming that science is as authoritative as Scripture in any area in which Scripture speaks?
The Bible warns about the dangers of human wisdom and false science.

Remember, science is human learning, human wisdom.

Consider these warnings:

1 Timothy 6:20 - Paul warned to avoid "science falsely so called" (KJV). Contrast this to what is said about Scripture in the verses above.

Romans 3:4 - Let God be true but every man a liar.

1 Corinthians 1:18-29 - Human wisdom often leads people to reject the gospel and the salvation it offers.

We should reject human wisdom whenever it disagrees with Scripture -- Matthew 15:9,13; Galatians 1:8,9; 2 John 9-11; Colossians 3:17; Jeremiah 10:23; Proverbs 14:12; 3:5,6; Revelation 22:18,19; 1 Timothy 1:3; 2 Timothy 1:13.

It follows that whenever science touches on matters revealed in God's word, Scripture must be accepted as authority. We must never accept "science" when it contradicts Scripture. In the end, true science will not contradict Scripture; but if human scientists disagree with Scripture then we must accept Scripture and realize that the human scientists are simply mistaken.

What about those who said the earth was the center of the universe till disproved by Galileo?

Those who opposed Galileo were leaders of the Catholic Church. Their views were actually based on ancient Greek scholars, not Scripture. The issue was not Scripture vs. science, but old "science" vs. new "science"!

So instead of teaching that Scripture should accommodate "science," Galileo's case proves the danger of compromising religious truth in order to accommodate "science." The case argues, not against those of us who defend the Scriptural teaching of literal days in creation, but against those who defend long ages in order to accommodate modern scientific hypotheses!

Of course, we must take care to properly understand Scripture. Nevertheless, the primary issue must always be what Scripture says. If Scripture clearly teaches a viewpoint, then we must defend it regardless of "science."
In reality those who make this claim accept science as authority above Scripture.

They argue that the Bible is not clear about how long creation lasted, but in reality Scripture is perfectly clear. The root problem generally is that people do not want to accept the Scripture because it disagrees with scientific theory!

Actually, a simple study of Scripture alone would never lead anyone to conclude that creation lasted long ages, let alone millions of years. Consciously or subconsciously, the idea of long ages in creation is placed in men's minds by so-called science.

Those who argue for long ages based on "two books of revelation" have actually rejected the teaching of Scripture in order to accommodate science. They have made human wisdom a higher authority than Scripture. This again demonstrates why we find this issue so troubling. Where else will human wisdom lead men to disagree with Scripture?

[Soldier4Christ]

J. The Length of Creation Days Is Not Important.
Loose-thinking people have used this ploy for years on many issues to try to hush those who disagree!

Some have written reams defending long ages, they have argued long that literal days cannot be proved, they have encouraged teachers to indoctrinate children to believe the long-age view, they have themselves traveled around the country teaching this to children (without the knowledge or consent of parents), and they have implied that those who teach literal days are driving people from faith in God.

But when others learn what's happening and object, then we are told that the issue is not important so we should keep quiet, while those who advocate long ages continue teaching error! (Some may drop the issue, but many vocal defenders do not.)

I am continually amazed at loose-thinking, liberal-minded people who continually say some issue is not important, so the rest of us should hush and let them have their way! If the advocates of long ages think this issue isn't important, why do they keep arguing about it? Why don't they drop the subject, instead of expecting those of us who disagree with them to hush?
We have given many reasons why the issue is important.

Having defended our view at length, let us summarize the reasons we have given why the issue does matter:

1) Long ages undermine the integrity of Bible authority. If we reject clear statements in historic and doctrinal portions of Scripture relating to major Bible doctrine, what will we reject next?

2) Long ages deny a clear supernatural element (the time element) of a major Bible miracle. The effect is to make natural explanations seem more believable, thereby undermining the power of the miracle as evidence for God and His word.

3) Defenders of long ages use human wisdom (scientific hypothesis) as authority equal to - and in practice greater than - the authority of Scripture.

4) Rejecting a basic element of a major Bible miracle naturally leads to loose thinking and ultimate rejection of basic elements of other miracles, and ultimately to a complete rejection of the miracles themselves. Some long-agers already claim the flood may have been local instead of worldwide. What's next and how far do we go? Further compromises with theistic evolution? Compromises of the virgin birth or the resurrection? Where does it stop?
Conclusion

Biblical creation is at war with naturalistic evolution. As in every such war, compromise of principle weakens the side of truth. Instead of bringing the two extremes together, it simply adds another alternative view that alienates people into even more warring camps.

And such compromises satisfy neither side. Long ages will never satisfy those who insist on the historic and doctrinal accuracy of Bible accounts. But long ages likewise will never placate advocates of evolution. Much evidence can be cited to prove that they too are not fooled. People of both persuasions recognize long ages for what they are: a compromise of the evident intent of the Genesis account.

[Shammu]

Well brother, I'm waiting...........

[Soldier4Christ]

Well brother, I'm waiting...........

For what??   

[Shammu]

For more, on this

[Soldier4Christ]

For more, on this

Break time. More to come soon.   

[Shammu]

Break time. More to come soon.   

[Shammu]

I'll be back, I need to restart my computer brother. So I expect to see at least one post here.

[Soldier4Christ]

Ok .....  here's one post for you.

 

[Shammu]

Ok .....  here's one post for you.

 

GRRRRRRRrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

[Shammu]

I know are waiting for everyone else who is reading this to come on.