Chronogenealogies

What? How about time-keeping genealogies.

Genesis lays out the genealogies from Adam through Abraham and the actual amount of time between them is easily computed since the genealogies are linked by the father’s ages when each son was born. These genealogies are confirmed in the gospel account of Luke, who actually takes the ancestry from Jesus to Adam. The arguments I have heard from  theistic evolutionists, is that they are incomplete or incorrect, but their arguments are not supported by anything other than eisegesis. Ignoring or disparaging the parts of God’s Word that do not fit a theory is dangerous to the trustworthiness of God’s Word.

The chronologies of the genealogies are calculated to limit the age of the Earth to about 4000 BC. Without the deep time, there could not have been evolution on the grand scale that the theory requires.

UPDATE: Here’s a fantastic video confirming the accuracy of the chronogenealogies. You can skip to minute 22 of the video to see just the specific parts about the genealogies.

 

 Back to the Creation Manifesto Outline

Good, very good

Each day is proclaimed by God to be good or very good.

Genesis 1:10 And God saw that it was good.

  • Genesis 1:18 And God saw that it was good.
  • Genesis 1:21 And God saw that it was good.
  • Genesis 1:25 And God saw that it was good.
  • Genesis 1:31 God saw all that he had made, and it was very good.

Since the days are proclaimed as very good and the curse of sin (pain, death, thorns and bloodshed) have yet to be introduced, it is clear that God’s intention for his creation was not to have to experience these sufferings. Throughout scripture this word, good, is used to describe purity, bountiful, prosperous, and excellence. To believe that evolutionary processes (mutations, bloodshed, suffering, and death) have been at work all throughout history prior to Adam’s sin would be to say that God called each of these things very good. Did God proclaim that his creation filled with violence, bloodshed and death is very good? What does this say about the character of God?

 

 Back to the Creation Manifesto Outline

Literal days leave no room for metaphor

The six days of Genesis are specifically marked with recognizable the boundaries of evening and morning as well as sequential ordinals (i.e. The first day, the second day…)

  • Genesis 1:3 And God said, “Let there be light…” and there was evening and there was morning – the first day.
  • Genesis 1:6 Then God said, “Let there be a firmament between the waters…” and there was evening and there was morning – the second day
  • Genesis 1:9 Then God said, “Let the dry ground appear…” and there was evening and there was morning – the third day
  • Genesis 1:14 Then God said, “Let there be lights in the heavens…” and there was evening and there was morning – the fourth day
  • Genesis 1:20 Then God said, “Let the waters teem with living creatures…” and there was evening and there was morning – the fifth day
  • Genesis 1:24 Then God said, “Let the land produce living creatures according to their kind…” and there was evening and there was morning – the sixth day

It would be correct to say that a day can be used as referencing a period of time (i.e. “In my day…” or “In the days of the Romans…”), but this is not properly applied to the days of Genesis 1 because of the boundaries of evening and morning as well as the ordinals. John Walton, in his book The Lost World of Genesis One seems to think that the days can be interpreted more broadly to incorporate long time frames. But this is inconsistent with the majority of Hebrew scholars:

Walton admits that his view is not one which would be supported by many other scholars (p. 44) and, indeed, this is true. James Barr, who was Professor of the Interpretation of Holy Scripture at Oxford University, wrote:

“ … probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1–11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that

  1. creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience

  2. the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story.

Walton seems also to have changed his mind regarding the historicity if the Genesis account after getting a grant from BioLogos in 2013 to tour the country because in 2001, he wrote:

“We cannot be content to ask, ‘Can the word bear the meaning I would like it to have?’ We must instead try to determine what the author and audience would have understood from the usage in the context. With this latter issue before us, it is extremely difficult to conclude that anything other than a twenty-four hour day was intended. It is not the text that causes people to think otherwise, only the demands of trying to harmonize with modern science.” -John H. Walton, Genesis, The NIV Application Commentary (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2001), 81–82

It seems clear that in order to combine the elements that are required for the evolutionary origins story with the Bible, people are having to invent new ways to interpret scriptures. This process is called eisegesis, which is defined as “an interpretation, esp. of Scripture, that expresses the interpreter’s own ideas, bias, or the like, rather than the meaning of the text.” What is truly needed when looking at the scriptures for interpretation is exegesis, which is “critical explanation or interpretation of a text or portion of a text, esp. of the Bible.”

More than anything else, Paul encourages the young believers in the 1st century churches to beware of false teachers who try to bring their false doctrines into the church. In I Corinthians 11:3, Paul warns the Corinthian church to beware of the temptations that the serpent used to deceive Eve. Looking back in Genesis, we see that the serpent began to put doubt into what God had said. What did the serpent say to Eve in the garden to tempt her? “Did God REALLY say…?” We see this same question come up in regards to the Bible today by those who would try to inject the evolutionary origins story into the Bible. To get it to fit, God’s Word has to be questioned or reinterpreted. “Did God REALLY say that he created in six days?” “Did God REALLY say birds and fish were created on the 5th day?” When people questioned the validity of God’s Word in the garden, it brought terrible pain for all of mankind. When people question God’s Word today, they are ignoring Paul’s warning to the Corinthians. Paul’s warning to the Corinthians is poignant even today.

Some have said that the days of Genesis refer to eras of creation, or that perhaps the days that are talked about in Genesis 1 are the same types of days that are talked about in the poetic Psalms 90, “For 1000 years in thy sight are like yesterday when it is past.” If it is the case that each day refers to eras of time rather than 24 hour days, then how did the plants (created on day 3) survive for millions of years without the sun (created on day 4) and billions of years without pollinating insects (created on day 5)? How did the carefully balanced ecosystems survive without their symbiotic partners which would have been created millions or billions of years later?

I have heard it said that since the sun was not created until day 4, how could the first three days have been 24 hour days? That is like saying that time could not exist without watches. The sun was not created to MAKE time, it was created for us to measure time as it says in Genesis 1:14-18 “Then God said, “Let lights appear in the sky to separate the day from the night. Let them be signs to mark the seasons, days, and years. Let these lights in the sky shine down on the earth.” And that is what happened. God made two great lights—the larger one to govern the day, and the smaller one to govern the night. He also made the stars. God set these bodies in the sky to light the earth, to govern the day and night, and to measure time. And God saw that it was good.” It is clear that God created time including days (morning and evening) prior to the creation of the sun. The sun was created in part to be as a time-keeper for us here on Earth.

 Back to the Creation Manifesto Outline

Genesis – What was the writer’s intent?

It is fair to ask the question, “How did the writer intend his audience to read the content?” Genesis is written as history, and is not poetic like Psalms. The writer intended his audience to see the contents of his writings as having actually happened. The form of writing is distinctly different from Psalms, in which there are many allegorical and metaphorical components. It has become a recent fad for some scholars to reinterpret the writings of Genesis based on Egyptian cosmology or the perceived framework parallels. But what did the writer of Genesis intend his audience to understand? Hebrew scholars are nearly unanimous in their view that the writer intended his audience to see his writing as a historical account in which God created the universe in six literal days.

Should one erroneously claim “The first 11 chapters of Genesis are mythological“, I would ask them:

  • What contextual clues make you think that the first 11 chapters are mythological and the rest of Genesis is historical?
  • Why do you arbitrarily choose to assign mythological genre to the first 11 chapters when it is written with in same style as the rest of Genesis?
  • Which of the Christian doctrines in the first 11 chapters now have no basis because you choose mythology for Genesis?
    • God is the Creator
    • God created a good creation that was frustrated in corruption by man’s sin
    • Marriage between one man and one woman
    • The curse of sin is death, suffering, and corruption
    • The promise of redemption from the curse
    • Blood lineage of Jesus to Adam/Eve so that Jesus could be a kinsman redeemer of all mankind
    • God’s covenant never to flood the earth again
    • Making of the nations at Babel

Further Research:

http://creation.com/hebrew-scholar-affirms-that-genesis-means-what-it-says-ting-wang

http://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/ted_hildebrandt/otesources/01-genesis/text/articles-books/young_days1a-wtj.pdf

http://creation.com/is-genesis-poetry-figurative-a-theological-argument-polemic-and-thus-not-history

https://www.christiancourier.com/articles/1538-is-the-genesis-creation-account-poetry

Back to the Creation Manifesto Outline

Creation Manifesto

Tell me if you’ve heard this before, “Could God have used evolution as his creative mechanism?”

I have had several friends tell me that the evolutionary origins story is compatible with the whole biblical narrative and that there is no need to reject the evolutionary story. I would like to take on that claim and analyze it against God’s Word and later against some scientific observations.

The purpose for writing this manifesto is this:

  1. Define evolution and look at its history / intent
  2. Look at scripture to see if (as a whole) it can accommodate evolution. If not, what are the implications of trying to dissolve evolution into the biblical narrative?
  3. Look at the scientific reasons why evolution might not be on as solid ground as we’ve been led to believe.

Introduction

  1. Disclaimer
  2. Wrong Information
  3. Definitions
  4. History of Deep Time
  5. Did Darwin embrace Christianity?
  6. Evolutionary Mechanism
  7. Quotes

Not only is the acceptance of evolutionary thought unnecessary for Christians, but it is dangerous. The acceptance of the evolutionary origins story within the Christian church will erase the conviction of the historicity/truth of God’s Word. If the foundations of scripture (established in Genesis) can be marginalized as mythical or poetic, why should we not also be able to reinterpret doctrinal and historical scriptures to match the latest cultural/societal/scientific paradigms? For example, as homosexuality becomes more and more acceptable in today’s culture, it is feasible (seeing how pliable Genesis has been redefined) to expect Christian churches to ordain homosexual ministers. This is already happening in Episcopal, Presbyterian (PCUSA), and Anglican churches. So the battle for the integrity of God’s Word is not just about Genesis, but about the historicity/veracity of the Bible.

The battle of creation/evolution has been waged on many fronts and in many forums. Can my entry into the fray make a difference? My tiny blog may not turn the tide of the many battles, but for those who get a chance to read the following Manifesto, I hope that:

  1. Non-Christians come to faith in Jesus because they see that they can trust God’s Word.
  2. Christians are encouraged to trust God’s Word as cohesive and foundational.
  3. Christians are persuaded not to compromise the clear teachings of scripture simply to accommodate the currently popular paradigm and avoid falling into apostasy.
  4. Everyone is encouraged to study God’s Word for themselves and grow closer to the Creator.

4115-1231

The intended audience of this manifesto is brothers and sisters in Christ who are unsure of the Biblical teachings regarding origins, Christians who purposefully incorporate the evolutionary story into their worldview, and non-Christians who have categorically dismissed the teachings of the Bible because of the belief that the Bible conflicts with the modern academic paradigm. I have sincerely tried to remove wording that would be inflammatory, and my hope is that this presentation will instead be persuasive in order to help bring unity to Christians.

  1. Biblical reasons to exclude evolution in preference of a biblical creation model
    1. Genesis – Writer’s intent
    2. Literal days leave no room for metaphor
    3. God called his creation good
    4. Chrono-genealogies
    5. Adam and Eve were truly the 1st humans
    6. Death came by sin not before
    7. Jesus is not mythical, so neither is Adam
    8. Is there a gap?
    9. Like the Creator did, work six days and rest on the 7th
    10. At the beginning of creation God made them male and female
    11. Worldwide Flood
    12. Deep Time in scripture? Where?
    13. Can we help?
    14. Why not question scientific principles of other miracles?
    15. Is there a better way?
  2. Scientific reasons to exclude evolution
    1. Cosmological
      1. Short term comets
      2. Decaying Magnetic fields in planets, heat on planets/moons
      3. Faint Young Sun Paradox
      4. Super nova Remnants
      5. Laws of Thermodynamics
    2.  Geological
      1. Worldwide flood
      2. Polonium halos
      3. Erosion rates
      4. Hydrogen in Zircons
    3.  Biological/Genetic
      1. Human population growth
      2. DNA in fossil dinosaur bones
      3. Human mutational decay rate
      4. Mitochondrial Eve/Y-chromosome Adam
      5. Information Theory
      6. Living Fossils/stasis
    4. Misconceptions, Misinformation
      1. Junk DNA
      2. Chimp/human similarity
      3. Radiometric dating
      4. Geologic Column
      5. Evidence for evolution
        1. Antibiotic resistant bacteria
        2. Homology
        3. Horse evolution
        4. Whale evolution
      6. Convergence
      7. Missing Links
      8. ALL scientists believe in evolution