Jonathan Sarfati – Genesis: Bible Authors Believed it to be History

Ever had someone tell you, ‘You’re missing the whole point! The purpose of Genesis is to teach that God is our Creator. We should not be divisive over the small details. Genesis teaches the theological truth of “Who?” and “Why?” not about the “How?” and “When?”’ Or else they say that the Bible is a book for faith and morality, not history.

An obvious answer is, why should we trust Genesis when it says God created if we can’t trust it on the details? After all, Jesus told Nicodemus, ‘I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe; how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things?’ (John 3:12). So if Genesis can’t be trusted on an earthly thing, such as Earth’s age, the sequence of creative acts upon it, or the Flood that covered it, then why trust it on a heavenly thing such as who the Creator was? Also, if Genesis 1 were merely meant to tell us that God is creator, then why simply not stop at verse 1, all that’s necessary to state this?

However, the critic has overlooked something even more important—Genesis is written as real history. This is why the rest of the Bible treats the events, people and time sequences as real history, not parables, poetry or allegory.

What does the rest of Scripture say?

The age and unique creation of Adam and Eve mattered to Jesus

When teaching about marriage, Jesus said:

‘But at the beginning of creation God “made them male and female. … For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.” So they are no longer two, but one’ (Mark 10:6–8).

Here, Jesus quoted Genesis 1:27 and Genesis 2:24 about a real first man and first woman who became the first couple, and this was the basis for marriage between one man and one woman today. Not a man and a man, or a woman and a woman, or more than two people. Evolution teaches instead that a whole population of humans evolved from a population of ape-like creatures.

Continue Reading

Please follow and like us:
0

John Hartnett – Big Bang Beliefs: Busted

The commonly accepted big bang model supposedly determines the history of the universe precisely (see Figure 1). Yet to do so, it is filled with unprovable fudge factors. That may sound like an exaggerated claim, but it seems to be the state of cosmology today.

This situation has come about because the unverifiable starting assumptions are inherently wrong! Some brave physicists have had the temerity to challenge the ruling paradigm — the standard big bang ΛCDM inflation cosmology. One of those is Prof. Richard Lieu, Department Chair, Astrophysics, University of Alabama, who wrote:

“Cosmology is not even astrophysics: all the principal assumptions in this field are unverified (or unverifiable) in the laboratory … .” [emphasis added]

He goes on to say that this is “because the Universe offers no control experiment, …” He means that the same observations can be interpreted in several different ways. Because there are no other universes to compare ours with, you can’t determine absolutely which is the correct answer. That means, we do not know what a typical universe should look like. As a result cosmologists today are inventing all sorts of stuff that has just the right properties to make their theories work, but it is stuff that has never been observed in the lab. They have become “comfortable with inventing unknowns to explain the unknown”, says Lieu.

Continue Reading

Please follow and like us:
0

Ginger Allen – How Did Plants Survive and Disperse after the Flood?

Introduction

Plants do a divinely miraculous thing with energy from the sun. They turn sunlight into food. This is essential for animals and mankind because they can’t eat sunshine. While early in life animals (and humans who share many similarities) possess all the main structural body parts they will ever have, plants constantly produce new structures throughout their life. Living plants maintain embryonic tissues that both regenerate themselves and continuously generate the basic structures (leaves, roots, stems, flowers and fruits, or cones). However, the way these new growth and reproduction structures are produced may be affected by the environmental conditions the plant is trying to occupy.

Plants can control or regulate their internal functions. Like animals, plants produce chemicals called hormones, which are produced in one part of the plant to signal cells in another part to respond. Examples of this are when flowering plants bloom at the most favorable times, when fruit ripens, and when trees lose their leaves in the winter. This ability of plants to add, shrink, or dislodge parts (leaves, stems, flowers, fruits) as necessary to survive gives them a unique design. Unlike animals, plants cannot pick up their entire bodies to find food; however, plants are equipped with other mechanisms enabling them to respond to the environment.

The study of an organism’s response to ecological growing conditions is known as environmental physiology. Stress from water loss, air chemistry, crowding by other plants, and flooding can change the way a plant functions. These variations may be affected by genetic, chemical, and/or physical factors.1 Given the intense topic of climate change we are seeing in today’s modern world, this is an especially popular area of study.

Continue Reading

Please follow and like us:
0

Ken Ham – Was There Death Before Adam Sinned?

Which history of death do you accept?

Annie’s cruel death destroyed Charles’s tatters of beliefs in a moral, just universe. Later he would say that this period chimed the final death-knell for his Christianity…Charles [Darwin] now took his stand as an unbeliever.”

When Charles Darwin wrote his famous book On the Origin of Species, he was in essence writing a history concerning death. In the conclusion of the chapter entitled “On the Imperfections of the Geological Record,” Darwin wrote, “Thus, from the war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of the higher animals, directly follows.”

From his evolutionary perspective on the origin of life, Darwin recognized that death had to be a permanent part of the world. Undoubtedly, he struggled with this issue as he sought to reconcile some sort of belief in God with the death and suffering he observed all around him, and which he believed had gone on for millions of years.

This struggle came to a climax with the death of his daughter Annie — said to be “the final death-knell for his Christianity.”

Belief in evolution and/or millions of years necessitates that death has been a part of history since life first appeared on this planet. The fossil layers (containing billions of dead things) supposedly represent the history of life over millions of years. As Carl Sagan is reported to have said, “The secrets of evolution are time and death.”

Continue Reading

Please follow and like us:
0

John MacArthur – The First Adam, the Last Adam, and the Gospel

Was Adam a Real Person?

The church has historically affirmed that Adam was a historical man, yet with the acceptance of evolutionary science, some now claim that this is not the case. Those who believe that the earth is millions or billions of years old will not accept that God fully formed the human Adam a few days after creating the universe. However, Genesis presents Adam as a real historical man, not the result of eons of evolution.

The simplest and most natural interpretation of Genesis 1 declares that God created the specific person Adam on the sixth day of creation. Genesis 2 then offers more detail on the creation of Adam and Eve. Adam’s connection with other historical persons supports the claim that he was indeed a specific person. Adam is the father of Cain, Abel, and Seth (Gen. 4:1–2, 25; 5:1–3). Adam is also said to have had conjugal relations with his wife Eve to bear Cain and Seth, and Genesis 5:3 further states that Adam fathered Seth at age 130. These details cannot be legitimately identified as poetic or figurative language describing something other than reality.

Continue Reading

Please follow and like us:
0

Terry Mortenson – When Was Adam Created?

Introduction

When did Adam come into existence? Evolutionists say Homo sapiens came into existence 200,000 to 400,000 years ago (depending on which evolutionist you consult, because they do not all agree on what a Homo sapiens is). Can we harmonize that with the teaching of God’s Word? Today, many Christians, including many leaders and scholars, think they can.

From my reading and interaction with old-earth creationists of all varieties in 25 countries over the last 35 years, I think one reason many of them think they can harmonize the two is that they have not paid very careful attention to the relevant biblical texts. They have just assumed that the scientists have proven the age of the creation to be billions of years and the age of mankind to be many tens or hundreds of thousands of years. They often recite the mantra that “the Bible is not a science textbook” (thereby confusing the vital difference between origin science and operation science, as discussed in this book’s introduction). Therefore, it is claimed, the Bible does not deal with the issue of the age of mankind or even how man came into existence.

Another reason that a great many Christians think that the age of man and the universe does not matter and that the scientific establishment’s view does not conflict with Scripture is because they or their teachers have been influenced by William Henry Green.1 The famous Old Testament professor at Princeton Theological Seminary wrote an article in 1890 in which he argued that “the genealogies in Genesis 5 and 11 were not intended to be used, and cannot properly be used, for the construction of a chronology.”2 He concluded that “the Scriptures furnish no data for a chronological computation prior to the life of Abraham; and that the Mosaic records do not fix and were not intended to fix the precise date either of the Flood or of the creation of the world.”3 In other words, Green contended, the Bible is silent about the age of man and also the age of the earth and universe, so scientists are free to determine these ages according to the scientific evidence, and Christians need not reject or fear any date so determined.

Continue Reading

Please follow and like us:
0

Thomas Fretwell – ‘Prehistoric’ Preachers: Dinosaurs as “The Gateway Drug to Atheism”: What is Their Real Message?

Dinosaurs have the power to captivate audiences, both young and old. They have fuelled people’s imaginations for generations. The veil of mystery surrounding them only adds to the intrigue. Where did the great beasts come from? Why did they go extinct? Such questions fuel the passion of a million would-be paleontologists still under the age of ten! It is no overstatement to say that almost every child, and adult for that matter, has heard of the fearsome Tyrannosaurus rex. Hollywood has cashed in on the public’s fascination with dinosaurs over the years, producing the Jurassic Park franchise. The most recent instalment, Jurassic World, was released in 2015. In addition to this, multiple documentaries and cartoons exist making use of the best CGI to bring the message of these ‘Prehistoric Preachers’ to a new generation.

Given their popularity, it is important to understand the message being communicated through these fascinating creatures. In an interview for the Huffington Post, David Krentz, the character designer for the 2014 big-budget 3D movie Walking with Dinosaurs, commented that,

“I have always said that dinosaurs are the gateway drug to science for kids.”

The thing about gateway drugs is that they lead to something else, in this case ‘science’. In this context, the term is clearly referring to a naturalistic interpretation of science—concerning events that happened in the past—not the observational science done in laboratories today. One blogger, writing for The Meaning Without God Project, phrases it even more candidly:

“Dinosaurs were my gateway drug to Atheism. And while I was still six or seven years away from reaching the conclusion that God either didn’t care about us or didn’t exist, the Dinosaurs had shared an important secret—that the Bible can be wrong.”

Continue Reading

Please follow and like us:
0

Andrew Snelling – When Continents Collide

When geologists assume the earth changes slowly, they overlook astonishing evidence of Noah’s global Flood.

Writing in the early 1800s, lawyer-turned-geologist Charles Lyell radically changed how people look at the world. Using his legal training to build cases, he argued convincingly that the earth’s piles of rock layers were formed over millions of years by slow and gradual processes. His skill was so persuasive that geologists stopped even considering the possibility that some large sediment layers formed rapidly. Terms to describe fast deposits weren’t even coined until recent decades. Older geologic dictionaries don’t have a word for deposits made in storms (called tempestites) or for sediment layers reshaped by earthquakes (called seismites).

Even now, because of their old-earth bias, secular geologists assume a rock layer formed slowly unless conclusively demonstrated otherwise. Further, they don’t look for deposits affected by global-scale events. But creationists do.

In 1996 a rancher in Wyoming showed creation geologist Kurt Wise and me a massive sandstone bed with convoluted layering on his ranch. At the time we recognized it as important evidence of the Flood catastrophe, but we did not understand how it formed or its significance.

Then in 2011 creation geologist Arthur Chadwick reported a surprising discovery.1 While excavating thousands of duck-bill and other dinosaur fossils at the ranch for 15 years, he had traced the same six-foot-thick (2 m) sandstone bed across the entire 11-square-mile (28 km2) ranch. He also recognized it as a seismite. That was astonishing, since geologists are used to thinking of seismites in terms of inches, not feet.

Continue Reading

Please follow and like us:
0

Jerry Bergman – Why the Miller–Urey Research Argues Against Abiogenesis

Contemporary research has failed to provide a viable explanation as to how abiogenesis could have occurred on Earth. The abiogenesis problem is now so serious that most evolutionists today tend to shun the entire field because they are ‘uneasy about stating in public that the origin of life is a mystery, even though behind closed doors they freely admit that they are baffled’ because ‘it opens the door to religious fundamentalists and their god-of-the-gaps pseudo-explanations’ and they worry that a ‘frank admission of ignorance will undermine funding’.

Abiogenesis was once commonly called ‘chemical evolution’, but evolutionists today try to distance evolutionary theory from the origin of life. This is one reason that most evolutionary propagandists now call it ‘abiogenesis’. Chemical evolution is actually part of the ‘General Theory of Evolution’, defined by the evolutionist Kerkut as ‘the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form’.

Another reason exists to exaggerate abiogenesis claims — it is an area that is critical to proving evolutionary naturalism. If abiogenesis is impossible, or extremely unlikely, then so is naturalism.

Darwin recognized how critical the abiogenesis problem was for his theory. He even conceded that all existing terrestrial life must have descended from some primitive life-form that was originally called into life ‘by the Creator’.9 But to admit, as Darwin did, the possibility of one or a few creations is to open the door to the possibility of many others! If God made one type of life, He also could have made many thousands of different types. Darwin evidently regretted this concession later and also speculated that life could have originated in some ‘warm little pond’ on the ancient earth.

Continue Reading

Please follow and like us:
0

Russell Grigg – Does God have Body Parts?

Recently I was talking to a Bible Society translator and happened to mention the concept of a literal Genesis. He immediately challenged me with, ‘What about the anthropomorphisms?’

So what are anthropomorphisms? And what do they have to do with a literal Genesis?

God and human characteristics

Anthropomorphisms (from Greek ἄνθρωπος (anthrōpos) = man/human + μορφή (morphē) = form) are figures of speech which represent God as having human characteristics, form or personality. They are symbolic descriptions, which help to make God’s attributes, powers and activities real to us.

For example, Genesis talks about:

God speaking (e.g. Genesis 1:3). But does this mean that God has vocal cords?
God seeing (Genesis 1:4). Does God have eyes with pupils and retinas?
God walking (Genesis 3:8). Does God have legs?
God making clothes for Adam and Eve (Genesis 3:21). Does God have hands?
God smelling a sweet savour from Noah’s sacrifice (Genesis 8:21). Does God have a nose and olfactory receptors?

If we say we take Genesis ‘literally’, doesn’t that mean insisting that these descriptions are literal, too? And if not, doesn’t this undermine our claim that Genesis is meant to be taken literally?

Continue Reading

Please follow and like us:
0