Adam and Eve and Me
After my last post about being careful when engaging in controversial subjects, I have received a number of private messages and emails. I have become caught in between the proverbial rock and a hard place, by both those in the “Old Earth Creation” and those in the “Young Earth Creation” camps. After much prayer I have decided to post this. In all things I seek to glorify God, however I routinely fail miserably. It is my hope that this post will both glorify my God and build up the believers.
I had stated that I would let those who are more knowledgeable fight this battle. Turns out, a lot of people want to know where I stand. Three separate individuals emailed me telling me that for me to remain silent here is wrong. So as I humbly ascend my little soapbox, let me say first that I am not an academic, no matter how many big words I use in this blog. As well, I am not a theologian, no matter how much I read. I am not a pastor, no matter how much I love the Word and the people of God.
As well, I have friends on both sides of this debate, so trust me when I say that I am hesitant to engage… but as a man of convictions, to not stand by them is to dishonour my God. For my regular readers, I will do my best to make this easy to read and simple to understand like my other posts.
Ready?
When taking modern science into account , the unbelieving world views those who adhere to a literal six day creation as stubborn, obsolete, and ignorant. It also appears that many people in the church feel this way. And even in my denomination there is very real pressure from some to adapt our interpretation of the Genesis Creation account from a literal one to an allegorical one.
As Christians, particularly those of the reformed persuasion, we cling to the Bible as God’s revealed truth, and we defend it, like dogs defending their master. We believe that God is honoured when we honour the truth. Likewise God is dishonoured when a lie is told. So if God did not complete His creation in six literal days, we dishonor God by adopting that view. Likewise, the opposite is also true. If God did create the world in six days, we dishonor Him by promulgating evolutionary theory. Only one can be right – it was either 6 literal days or it wasn’t. So where do I stand?
Allow me to wiggle out from between this rock and hard place…and clarify where I stand and what I believe the Bible clearly teaches. I am a six day Creationist. Yes, I guess that makes me stubborn, obsolete and ignorant. Why do I hold this view? Because I believe that we have to give the final authority to the Bible in all matters. I readily admit that the Bible is not a scientific textbook, but if I affirm the inerrancy of the Bible I must also proclaim that where it touches on scientific things, it does so truthfully. If it doesn’t speak the truth on one subject, the whole Bible becomes moot. Why? Because if this is not true, then either God is a liar and we can’t trust him, or he does not exist. So, I will continue to read the creation account literally and I will accept it as fact.
Creation is not merely a scientific issue. It is a theological one as well. The study of Creation is not something we can only view in the realm of the sciences. Our answer to how we view Creation has to line up with both science and Scripture. Where science and Scripture clearly disagree, we must stand firm clinging to God’s Word as the final authority.
Following are several areas where I feel those who advocate for “theistic evolution” or “Evolutionary theory” allow science to undermine Scripture. For the sake of brevity on the blog I will address only a few.
If we take figurative view of the creation account in Genesis, how do we decide when that figurative story ends and the real historical account begins? If we believe in “common ancestry” we have to claim, against scripture, that God did not create Adam in his image. Rather he created him as an ape and over a millennia man was formed. In this view, therefore, there is no “image of God” to ruin by plunging ourselves into sin.
What about Eve? The Bible tells us that there was no helper suitable for Adam among the animals, yet according to evolutionary theory there were other people living at the same time and prior. Was Eve really taken from Adam’s rib or did she suckle at the bosom of her mother? Genesis tells us that Eve was the mother of all the living, yet science tries to tell us otherwise.
Was there a literal or an allegorical tree of life and tree of the knowledge of good and evil? Did Satan really take the form of a serpent to tempt Adam and Eve to eat of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil? Was there a real Garden of Eden? Do you see how in this view, the line blurs on when Genesis becomes history and ceases to be allegory? The other Biblical authors appear to recognize the creation account in a very literal way, not as allegory. Read , for instance, the following texts:
- Genesis 5 shows us that Moses believed that they were real.
- 1Chronicles 1:1 shows us the author of Chronicles believed that Adam was real.
- Luke 3:38 reveals that Luke believed that Adam was real.
- Matthew 18:4-5 shows us that Jesus believed that they were real.
- Romans 5:12ff, 1 Cor. 15:22,45, 1 Timothy 2:12-14 all show us that Paul believed that Adam was real.
- Jude14 reveals that Jude believed that Adam was real.
- 2 Peter 1:21 and 2 Timothy 3:16 reveal to us that these authors were inspired by the Holy spirit in what they wrote about Adam and Eve.
For me, interpreting the first few chapters of Genesis as allegory is extremely dangerous. I believe that it undermines the gospel message. I believe that these views trample upon parts of the Bible that are foundational to my faith.
For instance…
The Bible tells us that Adam represented us before God. So that when he fell, we all took the plunge into sin. The Bible clearly shows that Adam was our first head, because he was the first man. If we believe that we evolved out of another species, how is it that Adam was the first man? How is it that he is our head? Evolutionary theory dictates that evolution does not happen to individuals but to groups of individuals. If just one individual evolves, that “evolution” will die with that individual. So why then, in that view, was Adam deemed our head? And what of Jesus Christ? He is called the second Adam. Why do we need a second Adam if the first Adam was a sham? If we do not hold to the historicity of the first Adam, as the first man as revealed in the Bible, in my estimation we have no need of Jesus Christ. Taking all this into account, if we believe in evolution, how do we determine when sin entered into the world?
Romans 5:12 says that death entered the world through the sin of Adam. But evolution is impossible without death. Did death enter the world through Adam or was there death already? Throughout the Bible we read of death as a curse which we must endure because of sin. Yet evolution views death as a “blessing” bringing about the positive changes of natural selection… so is death good then? Is this Biblical?
Here is another question. If we descended from apes, were we ever declared good? Or did God actually get it wrong? Did he lie to us in his word? The Bible says that God created and it was good. He did not say that it was a mistake and that he would use evolutionary process to make it good in a million years or so. He said it was good at creation! I do not see much wiggle room in that.
When looking at these and other questions, where science and the Bible differ, I have to give authority to the Bible in answering them. So I believe that God created the world from nothing in six literal days. I believe that Adam was the first human created of the dust of the ground, and that Eve, his wife, was formed from a rib from his side. They did not evolve from pre-human creatures, and together they were the parents of humanity, no humans or pre-human’s lived prior or concurrent to them.
No, I do not assume that I am going to end the debate here, every one of my arguments has been stated before in one form or another. This was purely to make known where I stand. Feel free to comment, all I ask is that you keep your comments civil.
We believe that God created man of dust from the ground1 and He made and formed him after His own image and likeness, good, righteous, and holy.2 His will could conform to the will of God in every respect. But, when man was in this high position, he did not appreciate it nor did he value his excellency. He gave ear to the words of the devil and willfully subjected himself to sin and consequently to death and the curse.3 For he transgressed the commandment of life which he had received; by his sin he broke away from God, who was his true life; he corrupted his whole nature. By all this he made himself liable to physical and spiritual death.4
~Belgic Confession Article 14, paragraph 1
Thanks for your thoughts, Ryan. It takes a lot of courage to stand up on one side or the other of this debate, and it is a charged one at times. You put forward some great points where Old Earth doesn’t line up with Scripture, and are the main ones I have trouble with the theory.
The counter-arguments are ones where seemingly good evidence for an old earth is brought forward. How do we account for that? For the last several years, I’ve been thinking about that, and I keep coming back to wondering whether God, in His providence, created an earth that appears old for the glory of His name and because the universe is functional. God’s name would be glorified in having light from already-dead stars reach Earth because we’d be able to study them and appreciate them further (who hasn’t looked up at the night sky and praised God for its beauty?) For an example of a functional universe, the sun appears millions of years old, but if it were a new star, it may not allow for life on earth.
Just my thoughts. At a more academic level, my five years spent studying sciences at a secular university have only strengthened my young-earth views. SDG.
James:
I agree with you and Ryan and I’ll add my two bits.
Adam was made a man not a child. A tree that bears fruit is older and has rings to tell it’s age. If God created these in the first days then, of course, he made the earth with age. We should not over analyze the bible. Evolution is still a theory that is too far fetched to believe let alone prove!
Thanks for your reply James. I agree with you and Keith, that Adam was created as a fully grown man, in need of fully grown fruit bearing trees. God did create his creation in a state of functionality. When we attempt to figure out God, I like to think that we are like my 3 year old daughter. When she asks why I have to go to work, I tell her I go to work so that we can eat. And she says..”oh ok.” And my word is good enough for her. Imagine what kind of crazy ideas would go through her mind if she tried to piece together exactly how my leaving the house for 8-10 hours every day helps her to eat. She understands that daddy must work, so she can eat. That is all she needs to know. We are also told to have a childlike faith. 🙂
Really great post Ryan! Mankind can get it wrong, our God can’t.
Thanks Cindy.
I have two comments to make, from a young earth creationist perspective. First, take a look at the immense creativity and beauty that artists, architects, engineers and others have created over time. There is something inside of us that admires creativity and art, be in a massive skyscraper or beautiful painting or majestic sunset, a pristine beach, children’s voices singing, or fossils buried in limestone. We are creative beings with the intrinsic ability to admire beauty. Being made in the image of God, it stands to reason that God is also infinitely creative and artistic. Why would he not decorate the otherwise boring rocks of the earth with fossils? Why would he not create the majesty of the universe? The old earth perspective views God as starting a process of evolution, a distant God, an uninvolved God. From my perspective, God cares very much about the earth that he created especially the people he made. Making the creation account allegorical raises some very fundamental questions about the nature of God.
The second comment I’d like to make regards the actual process of creation that many scoff at. As Christians we acknowledge that God is all-powerful, all-knowing, supreme. The miracles that Jesus did are often ridiculed as impossible, or attempted to be reasoned away by some obscure physical principle. But why would a God that is not constrained by the laws of physics — he being not made of matter — limit himself to a physical creative process, i.e. evolution? And in the case of the miracles, rely on matter and physics to seemingly raise the dead? If he is God, he may do whatever he wants. And indeed he has done that in creating the world, creating the light from dead stars, and creating the tapestry of fossils, rock, and earth.
Thanks for your reply Will. What you say reminds me of an article I read, I cannot remember who wrote it. Here is a (probably wrong) version of it….Imagine the absurdity of the story of Jesus to someone who has never heard it. “Let me get this straight…So this God, the creator of the universe gets a young virgin girl pregnant? Then she gives birth to His infant divine Son in a stable in the middle of nowhere? And a choir of angels rejoice in the skies above and hardly anyone else in the world notices? And then 30 years later this same God-Man starts walking on water, multiplying food, raising the dead and healing all diseases while claiming authority over everything in the world. and even in spite of all this most people reject Him and He goes to a cross to die a brutal death that shakes the foundations of the earth. Oh and that is not all…then he raises Himself up from the dead. Walks through a tomb, walks and talks with people for a few days, and finally floats back up to heaven to be with the God that sent Him down here while sending fire raining down on the people watching? Oh yeah, and this dude’s gonna come back with fire a second time to destroy the earth?”
Not sure if I can believe all that and not believe that he can create the universe in 6 days…
Nice to hear your view Ryan,
I Highly recommend reading this book:
http://www.godutch.com/store/index.php?id=1147&search=bedard
It deals with the framework hypothesis and the scriptural texts of Genesis 1&2. It does not go into the issues of scientific findings – which is why I like it. It helped me to understand the Framework hypothesis (oec) and the yec positions.
Hi Kevin,
I have been intending to read this book, You are at least the 3rd person to recommend it to me! I have a couple books on the go, next will be this one!
Thanks, Ryan.
Many questions are indeed answered by carefully listen to what God reveals to us in Scripture and rely on it.
Far from changing the subject, here is something (from National Post) showing how our findings in geology can change very quickly:
Long thought to be a slow process, a new study published in Nature Geoscience says that gold veins are produced in an instant by earthquakes.
Scientists have long known that veins of gold and other precious minerals form around fault lines, but it was generally thought that this process took an extremely long time.
However, the new study shows that quick changes in pressure could cause the gold to form, essentially, instantaneously.
“We find that cavity expansion generates extreme reductions in pressure that cause the fluid that is trapped in the jog to expand to a very low-density vapour,” study authors Dion K. Weatherley and Richard W. Henley write in their journal abstract.
From Scientific American:
For example, a magnitude-4 earthquake at a depth of 11 kilometers would cause the pressure in a suddenly opening fault jog to drop from 290 megapascals (MPa) to 0.2 MPa. (By comparison, air pressure at sea level is 0.1 MPa.) “So you’re looking at a 1,000-fold reduction in pressure,” Weatherley says.
/news.nationalpost.com/2013/03/18/gold-explodes-out-of-water-during-earthquakes-study/
Hi Albert,
That is very interesting. If Gold veins can be created almost instantaneously by a decrease in pressure caused simply by the power of an earthquake. If an almighty God with far more power than an earthquake, can breathe stars into existence in one day, I am sure the puny humans would be no problem 🙂 Thanks for your comment and the interesting link. I am going to follow up on that.
As usual, another interesting read. My son and I were working together yesterday and talking about this. He had, what I thought, some interesting insights to share with me. He commented on God creating a “mature” earth, alluded to above. He also commented on Christ calming the sea, did the sea become calm instantly, or did Christ set up the pattern of weather such that the sea would calm over time. I’m hoping that he will be sharing more of his thoughts here after I send him this address.