Josiah Concept Ministries

Most recently, I’ve been discussing the founding principles of Geocreationism. I have yet to tackle the main Scripture passage from where Mike models his idea, Romans 11. Rest assured that is coming very quickly. I just wanted to take some time to respond to comments from Brian on his blog about fighting creationism.

But first, I think it is important to establish the importance of talking about origins at all. If one side wins this monstrous debate, will it make a difference? It will make a difference, and more is at stake than many people realize. How we see our origins fundamentally affects our worldview.

If we have, indeed, evolved from early hominids, and were not the special creations of a loving God, then a few things follow from that. Most evolutionists don’t see that, but here I am talking to the Christians and to the seekers. First, if we are nothing more than higly evolved animals, then there is truly no reason to be better than them. If I am not called for a purpose by a higher power, then why bother with morality or living right? I’m only responsible to myself, so I may as well horde all the wealth I can and have threesomes every night with beautiful models. Death means annihilation, so I may as well have all the fun I can while I’m alive since it won’t matter once I die. Nice guys finish last, right?

Of course, if I am the special creation of God and called according to His purpose, it now follows that I have a responsibility to Him. It is improper to say that I am moral and live right because I fear punishment from God. If a Creator exists, then it stands to reason that He would know what “living right” means, and that I would do well to follow His precepts.

In fact, following His precepts have made my life complete. Defending His truth, which I feel called to do through this blog and other forms of Internet evangelism, have given my life a much needed purpose and direction. Reading the Bible and seeing the truths it contains does, as Jesus contends, make me free.

So, why talk about origins at all? Well, simply put, the evolutionary viewpoint makes you responsible to no one. You might as well live for you. The Christian viewpoint makes you a steward of God’s creation, so you should do all you can to seek His will for what He has blessed you with. You should be a responsible steward of these blessings.

When talking about Christianity, Brian is a master of “getting it” without actually “getting it.” I refer specifically to the following statement:

I am not focusing on the Bible as a whole, saying that there is nothing accurate in the collection of works at all, but rather on Genesis, a book that has been shown to be false for many, many years. It surprises me a bit that Christians feel that they must defend Genesis by twisting theology this way and that, trying to pick bits of truth out so that an allegorical reading might become the standard view.

I doubt that Brian realizes that the reason that Christians must defend the literal Genesis view is simply because if one part of the Bible is shown to be in error, then the entire thing is in error. Why? Well, Psalm 119:160 puts it very succinctly:

The sum of your word is truth, and every one of your righteous rules endures forever.

The Bible, as the Word of God, is truth. If one point is shown false, then that raises serious questions about the rest of it. This means that the Biblical creation story must be true, since it is contained in the Word of God. That is why Christians must defend it.

Now, there are right ways and there are wrong ways to defend it. Brian is answering a critic who is going about it the wrong way. His critic asks:

What I find interesting in these “scientific” viewpoints is the tacit assumption that our modern creation “myth” was culled together from various ancient sources and “tuned” to fit modern theology by some nameless group (perhaps the Council of Nicea?). And yet, there seems little credence paid to the idea that the Babylonians or Chaldean or whomever could have instead been influenced by a creation tradition found among many of the tribal people they conquered and/or enslaved. The Babylonians were well-known as a pollyglot of various cultural traditions incorporated from assimilated people. Why is it so far-fetched to assume that their creation mythology could have been influenced by the long-standing oral traditions of captured ancient Hebrews whose culture predated their’s by thousands of years? I’m just asking.

Brian isn’t as well versed on the subject to offer an answer, and admits so. I, however, am well versed on that subject. Brian’s critic is trying to ask a rhetorical question and then move on without having to provide any evidence. Uncritical people may think that he knows what he’s talking about and thus believe that the Babylonians were influenced by the Hebrews. This simply isn’t true. Brian’s critic, however well meaning, is wrong. The Hebrew mythology could not have influenced the Babylonian.

The Babylonian exile occurred in 586 b.c. It is during this time frame when the two cultures lived and intermixed with one another, and is therefore the time when the two stories would have influenced one another. The creation mythology of the Babylonians, which is found in the 11 tablets comprising the Epic of Gilgamesh, underwent many revisions but the final version was crafted between 1300 and 1000 b.c. This means that they could not have influenced each other, since the Epic was written well before the Exile.

However, even the critic assumes that the story was oral, not written, prior to 586 b.c. That isn’t true, either. Josiah, the king for whom this ministry is named, instituted reforms based a physical Book of the Law (Moses’ Torah) mentioned in 2 Kings 22:8. It would be a huge digression to weigh the evidence that the Torah we have today is the same Torah that Josiah’s servants found in the temple, so let us assume that is so (I can answer why I believe that is so at a later date, if anyone wants to argue).

Moses died at the end of the Exodus (Deut 34). This is prior to occupying Canaan, and thus prior to the kingdoms that were in place there. In fact, Scriptural and archaeological evidence place the Exodus around 1450 b.c., which means that the Torah must have been written before 1410 b.c. (forty years after the Exodus began). That is 814 years before the Babylonian exile, and 100 years before the final version of the Epic.

My conclusion is that the two stories rose independently, and are based on a real history. The Hebrews, in covenant with the Creator, sought to preserve the real history and left Genesis alone. The Babylonians, not in covenant, had no such ambitions and therefore created a legend with the truth still embedded in it.

Brian digresses a moment to highlight the so-called absurdity of the Bible’s histories, and uses a familiar example, Joshua 10:13. He comments:

For the account in Joshua to be true at all, the earth would have to stop in its orbit, stop rotating, and the moon would have to stop rotating and stop orbiting as well. I can only imagine the cataclysm that would befall our planet if it just stopped on a dime, but then again the writers of this passage had no knowledge of this; to them the world was small, flat, and the sun moved in the sky (even possibly entering and exiting through the “doors of heaven”). This is but one example of how the Bible is long outdated and incorrect; why should we still cling to such passages as true, other than out of comfort or preference?

Well, I agree that the passage in question is relating real history, but I disagree that for the account to be true, “the earth would have to stop in its orbit, stop rotating, and the moon would have to stop rotating and stop orbiting as well.” Astronomically speaking, the orbital velocity would have to adjust so that the length of a day would be equal to the length of a year. That would be slightly less catastrophic than the whole system simply stopping, but would still present some problems.

Here is a brief excerpt from a related article:

This is admittedly one of the stranger sounding stories in the bible. But our problem here first is to understand exactly what happened. The exegesis of this passage is VERY complex, because even ‘traditional’ commentators have trouble with the ambiguity in the account. The main choices (among those “conservatives” who accept miraculous elements by God) are:

1. Extension of daylight hours (allowing the battle to continue) [Woudstra in NICOT]
2. Subjective ‘extension’ of daylight hours (more an miracle of ‘efficiency’ than ‘nature’) [possible conclusion of Keil and Delitzsch]
3. Semi-Darkness during the day due to miraculous hailstorms and cloud covering (maximizing confusion, reducing heat, and divine deliverance) [Madvig in EBC, Walt Kaiser]
4. Providential battle play-out (the sun always being in the opponents’ eyes due to the slope of the enemy’s descent) [Gordon]
5. An eclipse (as an omen, based on ANE usage of the verbs) [R.D. Wilson, Holliday]

The exegetical problems stem from four main factors:

1. The mixture of poetic and narrative elements
2. The mixture of summary statements and detailed event descriptions
3. The ambiguity in the word choices describing the astronomical/meteorological events
4. The historical setting and the general inability of anyone present to measure time or observe the sun. (source)

The article I quote is not addressing the likelihood of this event being real history. It actually assumes that. It is addressing the question of why other historical sources don’t mention this event, which would have undoubtedly made some waves in the world. It would be so much easier if NASA would just find the missing day, but that is unlikely.

The article that I quoted actually presents the idea that the sun was obscured in the sky suddenly and providentially at a crucial moment in the battle. It provides a lengthy exegetical defense of that premise, and I recommend it to anyone who has a real problem with this passage relaying literal history.

Brian’s article now diverts to a long discussion of tetrapod evolution. I’m more concerned with the theology and defense of a creation origin. I have no answers for this section since I don’t know enough about evolutionary biology to take the topic on.

But I have more theology to comment on in Brian’s article:

Regardless of where it came from, Genesis cannot be regarded as scientifically accurate. Certain verses can be picked here and there that may correlate to our current understanding, but the interpretation that was intended for its original readers certainly does not hold today, and it seems that in most passages the Bible reflects an antiquated notion of science and nature more than infinite wisdom.

Well, first and foremost, Genesis is not a science textbook and is never meant to be read that way. The Bible is a revelation of God, not of nature. Galileo said it best: “The Bible shows the way to go to heaven, not the way the heavens go.” It is completely irrelevant weather the science is correct. In debate with James White, noted heretic John Shelby Spong stated, accurately, that the Bible reflects the knowledge and culture in which it was written; indeed, that is inevitable. The human limitations that it was placed under, however, in no way undermine the purpose of the Bible as the written revelation of God.

The final point I wish to argue is this:

Natural theology, the detection of the divine in nature, is a personal experience, but likewise those who engage in it might very well play the game of making God smaller and smaller; if we are to claim that God resides in the ultimate laws of physics, but we eventually are about to naturally explain those laws, this will cause another crisis of faith for some, leaving God nowhere to run to.

This only holds true to a person who is trying to argue pantheism–God is in everything. Those of us who maintain that the Creator is separate from His creation would never even try this. True, we can know something of the Creator through His creation, and science that helps us discern nature can only add to our store of knowledge of God.

The scientist who focuses on naturalism with the a priori removal of all supernatural causes risks losing not just the creation story, but the whole concept of the Fall. Without the Fall, there is no sin (indeed, there never was), no Law; but most importantly: no Atonement is required. If that’s the case, then we may as well side with the Christ-mythers, because there really is no need for Christ to ever have been a historical person now.

This line of reasoning can only leave man dead in his sin.