Category Archives: Bible Thoughts
Ten Commandments for Atheists, pt. 2
The ironically named Christian, proprietor of Free Thinking Joy, asserts that the Ten Commandments are perfectly compatible with atheism. It is absurd on its face to think that any of the first four commandments, which center on man’s relationship to God, could be followed or even understood by atheists. Christian’s analysis is flawed, as I have shown in my first post.
The second six commandments give rules for relating to fellow humans. It is perfectly reasonable to assume that any atheist is capable of both understanding these rules and living them out on a day-to-day basis. I haven’t heard of any notable atheists that live otherwise.
The only problem is that the atheist views breaking these commandments as torts rather than crimes. This becomes especially noticeable for the commandments dealing with adultery and murder. A violation of these commandments is absolute, not situational.
5. Honor your father and mother.
Agreed–“Because, once you are a parent, you like to be respected by your own children.”
6. You shall not commit murder.
Christian says, “There have been many violations against the Sixth Commandment in the name of God.” However, there have also been violations by atheists. As I’ve stated in my previous post, the actions of one group have nothing to do with the other group. Since the claim of the post is that the Ten Commandments are perfectly compatible with atheism, merely pointing to another group that violates the commandment doesn’t belong here.
Philosophically, this isn’t 100% compatible with atheism. Natural selection, a component of philosophic naturalism, wants the weak and the sick culled out. This means that murder in some forms, such as euthanasia and abortion, is perfectly acceptable given the right set of circumstances. The general theistic view respects the dignity and right to life of all human beings, regardless of status, sickness, or number of cells. The atheist version makes us little better than animals.
7. You shall not commit adultery.
Christian returns to flawed reasoning with this commandment:
The wording is not quite how a secular humanist with a modern sexual ethic would put it. There are modern forms of ménage à trois, and they may work in some cases. But if you do not like your sex partner to have partners besides you, you should keep the same rule for yourself.
This is fine, if one subscribes to situation ethics. The commandments, however, were not designed with that in mind. They were designed to be absolute rules, hence their pronouncement as “commandments.” Very few would argue that they should be called the Ten Suggestions.
That said, Christian’s view grows out of the mistaken assumption that adultery is a tort committed against a spouse or significant other rather than a crime against God. The entire Holiness Code given to Israel is essentially God’s equivalent to a revised criminal code. Adultery isn’t just an offense against one’s spouse; it is a crime committed against God.
These “ménage à trois” that “work in some cases” might be perfectly fine with a spouse. But that doesn’t mean that God will be fine with them; in fact, the Bible teaches the opposite. Adultery, according to Jesus, is committed the moment you look upon someone with lust. With that in mind, we can hardly assume that God would condone the act even if the spouse does.
8. You shall not steal.
Agreed–“you do not want to be a victim of theft.”
9. You shall not lie.
Agreed–“Because you do not want him to do it to you.”
10. You shall not covet your neighbor’s property.
Agreed–“Because it is easier to prevent a conflict than solve it later.”
Christian concludes:
I have shown that it may be easier for an atheist than for observant Jews and Christians to keep the first three commandments. The big part of the rest has nothing to do with God, therefore atheists and believers are equally fit to keep it or violate it. The only instance where atheist will lag behind is the Fourth Commandment, but this may not be the most important one.
I disagree that Christian has shown that it is easier for atheists to follow any of the commandments, let alone the first three. The atheist is equipped to keep Christian’s version of the commandments, but that is a false understanding of them. He is dead wrong to think that the rest of the commandments have nothing to do with God, for the commandments are crimes against Him, not torts against humanity. Finally, I agree that the atheist will lag behind on the Sabbath day, for he will not esteem any day above any other. But Christian’s response is to minimize the commandment, which is fallacious. All of the commandments are important or they wouldn’t be on the list.
Ten Commandments for Atheists
“I guess that most atheists may not be aware of the fact that they observe the Ten Commandments better than many observant Jews and Christians,” says Christian, keeper of Free Thinking Joy. Let’s examine his post and see if that is true or if Christian is blowing smoke.
1. You shall have no other gods before Me.
Christian says:
The observant Jew will certainly fulfill this commandment. The observant Muslim, too. The observant Christian, too. But most certainly of all, any atheist will fulfill it perfectly. He is the only one who can be certain. All others must ask themselves whether they really might worship the wrong god, and who the big Me really is.
This is silly. Christian thinks that by worshiping no gods at all, that he is fulfilling this commandment. He wishes. The Ten Commandments set the stage for the Jewish holiness code, the Greatest Commandment of which is “Love the Lord your God with all of your heart, soul, and might” (Deut 6:5). Not loving God at all isn’t fulfilling this commandment–it is grossly violating this commandment.
2. You shall not make yourself an idol.
Christian’s take:
Observant Jews (and Muslims) will fulfill this commandment in the real world, but not in their mental imagination. Observant Roman Catholics violate it grossly, making crucifixes and Mother of God statues, even praying to them. Observant Orthodox Christians violate it grossly, making icons and kissing them in prayer. Only atheists will fulfill the Second Commandment perfectly, in the real world as well as in their imagination.
Christian assumes that an idol is only a statue or an image. John Calvin, however, rightly recognizes that idolatry can be much more subtle than that. Calvin writes:
Bright, however, as is the manifestation which God gives both of himself and his immortal kingdom in the mirror of his works, so great is our stupidity, so dull are we in regard to these bright manifestations, that we derive no benefit from them. For in regard to the fabric and admirable arrangement of the universe, how few of us are there who, in lifting our eyes to the heavens, or looking abroad on the various regions of the earth, ever think of the Creator? Do we not rather overlook Him, and sluggishly content ourselves with a view of his works? And then in regard to supernatural events, though these are occurring every day, how few are there who ascribe them to the ruling providence of God – how many who imagine that they are casual results produced by the blind evolutions of the wheel of chance?
. . . Hence that immense flood of error with which the whole world is overflowed. Every individual mind being a kind of labyrinth, it is not wonderful, not only that each nation has adopted a variety of fictions, but that almost every man has had his own god. To the darkness of ignorance have been added presumption and wantonness, and hence there is scarcely an individual to be found without some idol or phantom as a substitute for Deity. Like water gushing forth from a large and copious spring, immense crowds of gods have issued from the human mind, every man giving himself full license, and devising some peculiar form of divinity, to meet his own views. (Institutes of the Christian Religion, 1:11-12)
Calvin asserts that fashioning your own god is idolatry. Put another way, an idol need not be a statue, a picture, or other physical entity–it can be anything that takes the place of the One True God. In the case of many atheists, that is science or other mental reasoning. They worship it and make it inviolate the way that a Christian worships God and makes Him inviolate.
Because Christian misunderstands what an idol truly is, he fails to realize that atheists are actually the worst violators of this commandment.
3. You shall not use the name of the Lord in vain.
Christian says:
Observant Jews have taken the Third Commandment very seriously. They considered every use of the name of God as wrongful and therefore avoided even to pronounce it. This position comes very close to atheism. Any atheist may be ready to share this view, stating that there are really great things behind our visible world, things that we never will be able to fully understand, and that we should not use the name of a god to denominate them. Devout, fundamentalistic Christians and fanatic Muslims use God’s name frequently, and this use is considered wrongful by more liberal and open-minded Christians and Muslims. Only atheists can be a hundred percent sure that they never will violate the Third Commandment.
First, I don’t see how the Jewish prohibition on pronouncing the name of God comes close to atheism. The Jews still believe in God, and they hold a special reverence for His name. Second, Christian asserts without backing himself up that “Devout, fundamentalistic (sic) Christians and fanatic Muslims use God’s name frequently, and this use is considered wrongful by more liberal and open-minded Christians and Muslims.” I can’t respond since I have no idea what he’s talking about. From these premises, however, it doesn’t follow that atheists can be 100% sure that they will never violate this commandment.
The excellent Parchment and Pen theology blog has defined the third commandment here as making a pronouncement in the name of God that did not come from God. Perhaps Christian is following that premise, in which case I can agree that the atheist is less likely than a theist to make a false pronouncement in the name of God.
Traditionally, Christians have understood this commandment as forbidding the use of God’s name for all but reverent and prayerful uses. In other words, God’s name shouldn’t be used as a swear word. While I agree with C. Michael Patton’s definition linked above, I also firmly believe that God’s name shouldn’t be used as or with vulgarity. In that respect, the atheist isn’t safe from violating this commandment.
4. Remember the Sabbath and keep it holy.
Christian admits that this would be hard for an atheist to follow, but then asserts (again without evidence) that Christians don’t pay this commandment any mind either. Amazingly, the actions of one group of people bears little relevance on another group of people. The commandment is still grossly violated by atheists; whether or not theists are following or ignoring it is completely irrelevant.
The remaining commandments are covered in the next post.
Reader Comment
In a comment posted here, a reader named Daniel F. writes:
I grew up in a devout very loving Christian family. I love my family, but the Christanity stuff fortunately did not stick. As I grew up, I noticed a lot of Christians were definite in their conviction, but confused on the details. I appreciate your courage in being open to sharing your thoughts. In today’s world, that definitely takes a lot of courage. And so… help me understand this.
How would we think of someone who decided to slaughter a larger portion of a class of preschoolers? That is, take a gun out and shoot execution style a portion of them? We would consider this person good? Should we praise this person and seek his approval?
Well, I don’t know about you, but I certainly wouldn’t. I would consider that outright evil. How would you feel if that story broke on the news? I hope really upset because it went against your moral fabric.
The problem with Christianity and other religions like Islam is that they very much promote moral corruption. You said, “God has chosen the elect and will draw them to Himself.” For what reason does God not choose everyone to draw to himself? Why would God create people only to torture them? By the way, who invented evil? If God is all powerful and created the universe, then He did. My dad says hell is the absence of God. Why define an absence? Why define evil?
In this context, is he no different than the murderous, evil human who slaughters the preschoolers?
I’ve e-mailed my response to Daniel, but I thought that I would make my response public since I think that it will help many of my readers who might not have had the courage to write in with the same problems or concerns. Read the rest of this entry
VJack on Judges, Ruth, and 1 Samuel
Vjack, the proprietor of Atheist Revolution, continues his series on reading the Bible from cover to cover. And so I continue my series which critiques his critique of the Bible. This post finds us on the book of Judges, Ruth, and 1 Samuel.
VJack sympathizes with Gideon when he exclaims,
Please, sir, if the LORD is with us, why then has all this happened to us? And where are all his wonderful deeds that our fathers recounted to us, saying, “Did not the LORD bring us up from Egypt?” But now the LORD has forsaken us and given us into the hand of Midian. (Jgs 6:13)
VJack wants to know where all of God’s miracles are today. In a related post, he laments:
The Christian bible is filled with miracles, direct communication between god and man, and tales of god regularly intervening in human affairs. So what happened, Christians? Did this god die, lose interest, go away on a long vacation, what?
A biblical definition of faith in God is loyalty based on past performance, rather than the modern definition of “blind faith.” That implies that this performance is in the past. This means that the Christian shouldn’t require God to perform all kinds of miracles in the modern world because He has already done so many. These are the miracles described in the Bible, especially the Resurrection of Jesus Christ.
Skeptics like VJack, however, seem to want God to perform miracles on a regular basis just to prove that He’s still there. I’ve seen this argument many times from many skeptics. I propose that God doesn’t perform large-scale miracles anymore because it won’t increase the number of His followers, nor will it convince the skeptics–they will simply look for a naturalistic explanation.
It isn’t inexplicable that God would return to Gideon after Gideon’s “groveling and animal sacrifice.” Before Christ, animal sacrifice was the shedding of blood necessary for forgiveness of sins (Heb 9:22). Gideon is, as Judge of the nation of Israel, repenting of former sins on behalf of the nation. Many Bible stories prove that God is pleased by repentance (see the book of Jonah for a great example with the city of Nineveh).
The intensity of the superstition at this time is so great that human sacrifice is also needed to satisfy the bloodthirsty god created by this ancient people. In exchange for god’s help in his military campaign Jephthah sacrifices his own daughter (Judges 11:29-40).
Now this is just taken out of context. God never asked Jephthah to sacrifice his own daughter; Jephthah spoke a hasty oath, and his daughter’s death was the result of that oath. He made a vow and kept it–but it should be noted that what he did is in direct violation of Mosaic Law according to Leviticus 18:21 and 20:2-5.
Last of all, is it any surprise that God, who demands obedience, is going to punish people for disobeying his commands? The commands that VJack objects to are the commands to kill everyone and everything in the land except for the women who haven’t known a man. There are two reasons for this, and both have to do with preventing corruption. God wanted to prevent physical corruption, and He wanted to prevent spiritual corruption.
At this point, the Chosen People are chosen on the basis of physical descent, not on the basis of spiritual descent as we are today. God wanted nothing to make that line unclean.
The second reason was to avoid spiritual corruption, which if we pay attention to the Bible, we see does happen as a direct result of leaving much of those other cultures in tact. The people turn away from God and worship the other gods, the gods of the people who were spared by them. God, because He is omniscient, would have foreseen that and that is why He issued such a brutal command.
How God Identifies Himself
It’s interesting how God defines himself. He told Moses that he is the God of your fathers; the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob. He did not define himself by his omnipotence or his omniscience but by his personal relationships with these common men. (source)
So reflects Albert Cardinal Vanhoye, leader of the Roman Curia’s Lenten retreat. I think that is absolutely fascinating because for many skeptics, God’s omnipotence and omniscience are not only God’s defining characteristics, but the logical basis by which many of them reject Him. The presence of an omnipotent and omniscient being can only lead to fatalism in their minds, regardless of the number of times that I’ve seen Christians refute this notion.
This is the ontological argument in reverse. Because the skeptic cannot conceive of how an omnipotent and omniscient being could exist within the framework of this universe, no such being can exist. Since God would be such a being, God does not exist.
But God doesn’t identify Himself on the basis of these characteristics. He identifies Himself on the basis of His relationship to His creation. How much more should we, then, identify ourselves on the basis of our relationship to Him. I think that the real problem is that the skeptic is ruled by his sin–and his sin is how he defines “fun.” Drinking, gambling, drugs, premarital sex–all of these things are “fun,” but all of these things have consequences.
Defining oneself on the basis of one’s relationship to God will have consequences, too. One must focus his thoughts on what is true, honorable, just, pure, lovely, and commendable (Phil 4:8)–and it is easy to conclude even without a Bible (cf. Gal 5:16-24) that those things I just defined as “fun” from a secular point of view do not fit with that mode of thinking.
Defining oneself on the basis of a relationship with God brings with it freedom from sin (cf. Rom 6:14). Paul exhorts us not to use that freedom for sin, “but through love serve one another. For the whole law is fulfilled in one word: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ But if you bite and devour one another, watch out that you are not consumed by one another” (Gal 5:13-14).
So, brothers and sisters in Christ, if God identifies Himself on the basis of a relationship to His creatures, why do the creatures not identify themselves on basis of a relationship to Him?
VJack Continues Reading the Bible… And Gets It Wrong
I missed Atheist Revolution proprietor VJack’s last two posts on his reading of the Bible. So I’m going to have to make up for lost time and quickly answer him.
Starting with the post dated December 14, I can see that my refutation of VJack’s assertion that the Bible commands Christians to kill unbelievers has made no impact whatsoever, as he is still printing this nonsense. In the verse that VJack cites, Deuteronomy 13:6-11, God is specifically talking Jewish people–descendants of Jacob. It is abundantly clear to anyone who reads it that this is not general permission for believers to simply kill unbelievers.
Deuteronomy is a suzerainty treaty between God and the ancient nation of Israel. This means that it terms are no longer binding because the nation they were binding on no longer exists. The Bible is our written source book for morality, but we are not under the law it contains (Rom 6:14-15; cf. 2 Cor 3:6).
With that in mind, none of VJack’s meanderings hold much water. However, I should take the time to address one concern:
A particularly fascinating insight had been brewing in previous books but finally solidified in Deuteronomy: this god can be argued with, bargained with, and even persuaded by humans. Moses repeatedly talks god out of inflicting certain types of punishment, utilizing all sorts of tactics. As one prominent example, it is Moses who talks this god out of slaughtering everyone over a golden calf. What are we to conclude about this supposedly divine being whose will is so frequently swayed by human persuasion? If we were given freewill as some sort of test, how does it make since that we are influencing this god’s behavior through our actions? Who really has the power here?
All this means is the same thing that James asserts in his letter: “The prayer of a righteous person has great power as it is working” (Jms 5:16). These verses set the precedent that prayer produces a dynamic relationship with God. However, it should be noted that only a few people in history have had this sort of relationship with God–this does not mean that all of our prayers are going to be answered the same way that Moses’ were answered. God promises only to hear our prayers (Prov 15:29; cf. 1 Pet 3:2).
An atheist, intending to be sarcastic, has prayer figured out with the following rhetorical question, appearing as #50 on the “100 Impossible Questions for Believers” over at Richard Dawkins’s website: “Why pray asking God to do something for you; shouldn’t prayer be a way of offering yourself to God in order for her to make use of you?” The apostle Paul said, “I appeal to you therefore, brothers, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship” (Rom 12:1). That is the essence of prayer: to accept God’s will and to request He make use of you as He sees fit. It is not to ask for cool stuff and great blessings.
Finally, VJack starts to realize what I have been saying all along:
And yet, the god of Deuteronomy does show some understanding of humanity. When instructing the people how to explain their religion to future generations, this god refers to the miracles and signs provided (Deuteronomy 6:20-25). Nobody is expected to believe on the basis of faith but because of what they have witnessed through their senses. I wonder what happened?
It falls apart at the end. Nothing happened differently now versus then: we still have Christ’s Resurrection as the ultimate victory over death. That sign is the ultimate proof that God is who He says He is. VJack, like most atheists, probably doesn’t believe that Jesus Christ existed, let alone Resurrected. Atheists, agnostics, and 
skeptics believe that God should still be doing large and visible miracles every day so that we can see and believe that He exists. Most deny any miracles occurred in the past. So I’m left to wonder if it would make any difference if God were to perform a miracle before their eyes. I don’t think that it would; they’d probably run to the comforts of science to try to explain the miracle rather than believing in God.
Sad, really.
VJack offers this as an evaluation of Joshua:
I found Joshua far less remarkable than Deuteronomy, but I do have a comment regarding this part of the story which begins right after the death of Moses. Together with Deuteronomy, Joshua provides a justification for ideas such as manifest destiny, scorched earth, shock and awe, and the like. A nation with this god on its side can conquer all before them, especially when those before them worship other gods. In fact, it almost reads as if there would be an obligation to do so. Indeed, Joshua tells the story of the Israelite army moving through the land and slaughtering all in the way. Few are spared, and virtually none receive mercy. There seems to be no motive for this aggression other than the desire to expand their territory. It is no wonder that the Pat Robertsons of America read their bibles as justifying war!
So, is God a god of war or of peace according to the Old Testament? It appears that VJack would argue that God is a tribal war deity. God is definitely wrathful, there is no doubt of that. One can conclude that from reading any of numerous passages throughout the Old and New Testaments. But God’s love is only properly understood side-by-side with His wrath, not in opposition to it. Otherwise, the Atonement of Christ would never have been necessary.
As usual, VJack reads the Bible and comes to the wrong conclusions.
EXPOSED: Bryan Adams is a Cannibal!
**WARNING: Irony ahead!**
Using the same standards that skeptics apply to the Bible, I have concluded that Canadian singer Bryan Adams is a cannibal. There is no other plausible answer to the dilemma skeptics’ standards.
This shocking truth dawned on me today when I was at work, and I heard the song “Have You Ever Loved a Woman.” Here is a snippet from the foul, disgusting lyrics:
To really love a woman,
Let her hold you,
Till you know how she needs to be touched.
You’ve got to breathe her, really taste her,
Till you can feel her in your blood.
And when you see your unborn children in her eyes …
You know you really love a woman.
Notice the boldfaced portions–ignore the rest of the context. The only way to truly understand something is to isolate it from its context and read it hyper-literally with no regard to accepted literary devices. Doing that, there is only one way to understand “tast[ing] her” and “feeling her in blood”–Mr. Adams must be referring to eating her.
Since this line appears in a romantic love song, one can only conclude that Mr. Adams finds this practice loving and romantic. Therefore, the only way that a man can show love to a woman–in Mr. Adams’s sick and twisted world–is to eat her.
Some people will argue that Mr. Adams is speaking metaphorically. But I see no reason to conclude that. And even if he is, he is still hinting at cannibalism, which is disgusting any way you slice it.
Some may further object that I’ve used circular reasoning. First, I ignore context, then I place the snippet into its broad context. But that doesn’t matter much, either. This is the same way that skeptics read the Bible, so it must be correct. Just look at the disgusting John 6–this verse also talks about the same wretched practice of cannibalism.
It is only fair. If you apply one standard to the Bible, you should be able to apply it to everything. So the conclusion is absolutely inescapable: Bryan Adams is a cannibal. We must organize a boycott of his music immediately until he renounces this horrid practice.
There’s Literal, and There’s HYPER-Literal
VJack reacts to Christian reaction to his Bible thoughts:
When faced with an atheist who is actually reading their bible and still rejects it, the argument becomes one of interpreting things too literally. “You’re missing the point. Christians don’t read their bibles literally like you are doing.” In other words, I am attacking a straw man by unfairly criticizing Christians for believing things they don’t actually believe. (source)
I’ve never said that VJack was reading the Bible too literally, only that he’s not taking everything into consideration. To read anything–including the Bible–literally is to allow the writer to employ accepted literary devices, such as metaphors and hyperbole.
But, in the portions that VJack has posted so far, he is reading the Bible correctly. God demanded animal sacrifice. God declared certain things clean and other things unclean. Nothing symbolic about those statements.
But, as I’ve pointed out, God has, through Christ, made all things clean. Now, we are no longer bound to the Jewish ceremonial laws, which are the ones that include animal sacrifices. There is a better sacrifice, pure and innocent blood poured out for our sins. That blood was the blood of Christ, which we may use to enter the Holy of Holies pure and blameless before God.
The Old Testament is symbolic of the New Testament.
I should note that there is such a thing as HYPER-literal, but that is a different subject altogether. People reading the Bible hyper-literally do not allow for any sort of literary device. They will take obvious metaphors and read them literally.
For example, they take the Bible’s phrase “foundation of the world” (Ps 104:5) to mean that the Bible teaches a flat earth. Of course that’s ridiculous. Equally ridiculous is using the poetic phrase “circle of the earth” (Is 40:22) to prove that the Bible was forward thinking enough to teach a round earth. The Bible isn’t a science text book and is neutral on cosmology. The phrasing represents the author’s understanding of God’s revelation to him.
VJack is making an attempt–a half-hearted one, it seems–to understand the Bible. I commend him for that.
Romans 11 and Geocreationism with Conclusion
I have consolidated, edited, and updated the preceding three parts of this series here. Since it has been a while in posting (mostly due to serious computer issues that have crippled my Internet access) it may help to familiarize yourself with what has come before this so that you will be up to date. As sometimes happens, in writing and researching this piece I have changed my mind about the necessity of no physical death prior to the Fall, I now believe that it is possible the Fall only brought on spiritual death. However, I am not at all convinced that God merely breathed a soul into Adam, who prior to that had evolved from the ground up (so to speak). I have made some changes in the articles to reflect this new conviction.
The seat of Mike’s argument is Romans 11, which he says is the model for God allowing changes to occur on their own without removing his meticulous sovereignty. Unfortunately, this is difficult to reconcile given its proximity to Romans 9, which is the premiere Bible passage teaching election/predestination and the Calvinist view of soteriology. The ultimate passage in meticulous sovereignty would never be placed right next to the ultimate passage for letting things go and coming back later to see how they worked out. Paul wrote the to the Romans his masterwork letter, and he plotted its structure far too carefully to let two such contradictory notions slide in side-by-side.
There is a way to reconcile these points with each other, and for that we need not go any further than our own logic. Read the rest of this entry
Founding Principles of Geocreationism, pt. 3
Whew. When I started this I just figured that it would span one post, and instead I’m already up to three, and I believe that in order to truly do this justice, one more post will be required. After I finish out the remainder of his points with this post, I will finish out with a commentary of Romans 11:11-24, which is the “model” that Mike’s geocreationism platform is built on.
Old Earth Creationism is Correct that the Earth is Old
I find little to disagree with here. As noted in the previous entry, passage of time was not created until Day Four (Gen 1:14). This means that it is impossible to truly estimate the age of the earth. As a result, I find no inconsistency between Scripture and an old earth. The primary reason that organizations like Answers in Genesis or Creation Ministries International fight so hard for a 6,000 year old earth is that death and destruction, by definition, cannot exist prior to sin. To have millions, or even billions, of years of death, disease, and carnivorous activity prior to the first sin removes the Genesis foundation of the gospel message.
At least that is the position of “mainstream” creation scientists. Recently, I’ve begun diving deeper into that very issue, and I’ve begun to wonder if that is really necessary. It seems that human death is more important than animal death–why animal death is a factor at all is beyond me for they have no will and no soul.
Gap Theorists are Correct that There is a Gap in the Creation Story
Most Gap Theorists place a gap in the creation story, between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2. They believe that in that time, prior to Adam, is when all of the fossils that we are discovering for which we have no corresponding living creature lived. Shortly after God created the heaven and the earth (verse 1), this would be the time of the trilobites, dinosaurs, and other creatures that, according to paleontologists, lived before man walked this earth. In this gap, they reason, were also the primitive hominids, such as Neanderthals and Homo habilis.
God then destroyed all of this in a global flood followed by a massive ice age. Hence, we now have the Spirit of God hovering above the waters (verse 2). The rest of the story follows.
It’s obvious that we have no Biblical support for such a theory. But Mike places the gap later in the creation account, at Day Four. So, what is it about Day Four that seems to have some sort of mysticism about it? Let’s examine it closely:
And God said, “Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years, and let them be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth.” And it was so. God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth, to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day. [Gen 1:14-19]
This passage starts with the creation of lights in the sky, separating day from night and marking the passage of time. Then, the text has God make two great great lights, the sun and the moon. Then, He makes the stars.
The key to the mystical allure of Day Four is that it is the first place in all of this creation account where we can begin to measure time. Prior to this day, there is no way to actually do that. Now, it is here that Mike wants the gap to occur–but we encounter a serious problem.
At this point in the account, God has separated light from dark (Day One), separated heaven from earth (Day Two), created land and ocean and made vegetation grow on it (Day Three). Day Four sees the heavenly bodies–sun, moon, and stars–but we have yet to see any sort of animal life. Placing the gap here doesn’t account for millions of years of fossils–at least not of any animals. Animals see the light of day for the first time in Day Five.
Day-Age Theorists are Correct that Each Day Maps to an Age
Since I see no inherent Scriptural problems with an old earth, so long as no death occurs prior to the Fall, I see nothing wrong with this notion, either. In the creation account, Moses uses the Hebrew word yom, which typically means either a 24-hour day, sunrise to sunset (as in a Jewish holiday), or an indeterminate period of time (that is, an age). Though the young earth creationists argue that the phraseology “evening came and then morning, and so was the xth day” removes any room for interpreting yom as anything but a 24-hour day, I disagree for two reasons.
First, God does not experience duration in the same way that we do. It is said of Him that a day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years is but a day (2 Pet 3:8). These are days from God’s point of view, not ours. Second, I believe that the use of the phrase “evening came and then morning” is to show that overlap of these days is not possible. Otherwise, we will truly lose the significance of the Sabbath day.
While I generally find that a young earth is more consistent with what Scripture teaches, I find no problems with an old earth model. Definitive proof an old earth model would not shake my belief in the inerrancy of Scripture, and more importantly, would not affect my belief in God.
Theistic Evolutionists are Correct that God Caused Mutations and Allowed Natural Selection to Occur
And now we have the largest problem with Mike’s theory of geocreationism: theistic evolution, marrying God–a sovereign deity with an unsearchable purpose in creating mankind–with the purposeless entity of evolution and its counterpart, natural selection. That is a major contradiction in terms. Doing this does not explain anything; it only attempts to add an ultimate purpose to a process that doesn’t have one.
Back Rome Again 