Should a Church Take a Stand on Genesis?

 

Most churches have a statement of faith with a limited set of points that cover the essentials of the historic Christian faith, and which are not subject to debate.  To become a member of the local church, an individual is required to assent to these points.

 

Now there are many Christian doctrines which are not covered by these points. Frequently, members of a local church hold to differing positions on these other doctrines.  Often these members are in teaching positions in the church.  This means that from time to time conflicting doctrines could be taught by members of this church.

 

When these conflicting doctrines are benign, it is acceptable for differing views to be taught within the local church.  However, at times, it is in the church’s best interest to standardize on a single teaching position.  When this is necessary, a church may issue a position paper. For example, a church might have a position paper on eternal security, speaking in tongues,or miraculous healing.

 

I believe that the local church should take a stand on Genesis, in the form of a position paper. I suggest a position paper which answers the following fundamental questions:

 

One, was physical death of man or animal a reality before Adam's fall?

Two, was the great flood of Genesis global in its extent and effect?

And three, what is meant by the word “day” in Genesis chapter 1?

 

The reason the local church should take this stand is because these three questions are critical to any understanding of the first eleven chapters of the Bible.  But these first eleven chapters of the Bible are rejected by the world.  To quote:

 

“According to recent surveys conducted by Reasons to Believe, the perceived improbability of Genesis 1-11 is what keeps 90 percent of people from believing in the accuracy of the Bible.”^[1]

 

In other words, 90% of American unbelievers say they reject Christianity because they believe that science disproves the Bible.

 

90%!  What is the obligation of the local chruch?  Is it not to bring the gospel to unbelievers?  But why do unbelievers reject our message?  They say it is because science disproves the Bible.

 

Now that is an amazing thing.  Do unbelievers have a problem with the doctrine of eternal security?  Do unbelievers reject our message because of concerns about speaking in tongues?  Is healing the reason that 90% of American unbelievers reject the Bible?

 

No!  It is the content of Genesis 1-11.  So what are we doing about this?  Shouldn’t Genesis 1-11 be on the forefront of our minds?

 

If we were going to Indonesia to evangelize an unreached tribal group, what would we do?  We would research the tribe’s culture and religion and focus our message accordingly.  We would have ready answers for the objections the tribe might raise to the gospel.

 

If we were going to a non-Christian nation to evangelize the people, what would we do?  We would understand the other religion and focus our message accordingly.  We would have ready answers for the objections the these people might raise to the gospel.  For example, we would be well-prepared to explain the doctrine of the Trinity.

 

We are going to evangelize the lost.  What do we do?  The research has been done and we know what the objections are.  So we should focus our message and have ready answers for -- what?  For what Genesis 1-11 is all about.

 

Now suppose we allow for two different teaching positions regarding the meaning of Genesis 1-11.  So an unbeliever goes to one Sunday school class and hears one answer to the question of science and the Bible.  Then the unbeliever goes to another Sunday school class and hears a different answer.  Won’t this only confirm his feeling that the Bible is not trustworthy?  If even believers can’t decide what to do with Genesis 1-11, why would this unbeliever think it worth his time?

 

Suppose we allow for two different teaching positions regarding the meaning of Genesis 1-11.  So say Sunday school classes at different age levels teach a different view of Genesis.  So a child comes to a conclusion about science and Genesis.  Then he graduates to the youth group.  Then he hears a completely different story.  Meanwhile his high school biology teacher ridicules the Genesis account.  So this youth begins to question God’s Word.  If the local can change its tune from class to class, Genesis must not be very important or reliable.  And if Genesis isn’t reliable, why would this student think Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are reliable?

 

Suppose the local church allows for two different teaching positions regarding the meaning of Genesis 1-11.  Sensitive adult believers in the church who want to reach their community.  So they want to learn about Genesis so they can answer the objections of their unbelieving friends.  If the answers are not taught clearly and consistently, the believers will not be effective.

 

Our believers want to be equipped.  Are we prepared to equip them?  Believers are looking for a church that is prepared to teach the answers to the questions of Genesis, othat it is willing to equip believers to reach our unbelieving culture.

 

Suppose we allow for two different teaching positions regarding the meaning of Genesis 1-11.  Then it follows that we allow our church to financially support organizations with different views of Genesis.  So we would give money to Answers in Genesis, which publishes materials that aggressively battle against materials published by Reasons to Believe.  At the same time, we would give money to Reasons to Believe, which publishes materials that aggressively battle against materials published by Answers in Genesis.  We fund both sides of the battle.  This would be like the US Government funding both Iran and Iraq in the Iran-Iraq war.  Funding both sides serves only to prolong the battle.  Let us use our money wisely and determine which position we wish to support.

 

Suppose we allow for two different teaching positions regarding the meaning of Genesis 1-11.  Then an 8-year old comes to his Sunday School teacher and asks why animals get sick and die.  What does the Sunday School teacher say?  Does he say: “Well, this is a very complicated question.  In fact, our leadership cannot determine what should be the church’s official answer to this question.  So I guess you’ll have to look at the evidence and decide for yourself.”  Do we tell the 8-year old that he must decide for himself?  Or should the local church leadership set the example and establish a position paper?

 

Now, is science the only reason that unbelievers reject the Bible?  Although I don’t have the statistics to back this up, I would say that if 90% reject the Bible because of science and Genesis, the other 10% of Americans reject the Bible because they don’t understand how a good, all-powerful God could allow suffering and disaster in the world.

 

How well are we prepared to answer this second critical question of the unbelievers of our community?  Where did suffering and natural disaster come from?  Why does a good, all-powerful God allow this?  Is a world of sickness, death, and suffering his original, perfect, “very good” design?  Or did something happen to introduce sickness, death, and suffering into a perfect, “very good” world?

 

If we give two different answers, then we have all the same problems.  Unbelievers and believers are looking for answers.  If we cannot speak with a united voice, no one will listen.

 

My third goal tonight is to show how the answers to the three questions of Genesis 1-11 can be derived from our own Statement of Faith.

 

The first question is this: Was physical death of man or animal a reality before Adam's fall?

 

The statement of faith of most churches includes a statement of belief that man was created in the image of God, but sinned and thereby incurred both physical and spiritual death.  This sentence usually states in the clearest possible terms that physical death came to men only after man sinned.  No other view can be taught in our Sunday school classes without first changing our Statement of Faith.  Any book, movie, or other resource that teaches that human beings incurred physical death before man’s sin should be immediately and summarily rejected by any member of the local church.

 

Why does the Statement of Faith make this statement?  Because Scripture itself makes the same statement:

 

“For since by man came death, by Man also came the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive.” (1 Corinthians 5:21, 22)^[2]

 

“Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned.” (Romans 5:12)^[3]

 

Heretics in the history of the church have rejected this simple truth of Scripture.  For example, Pelagius of 400 AD.  About him it has been written:

 

“The Pelagian view ... Is that man was created mortal... The principle of death and decay is a part of the whole creation... Physical death, in the Pelagian view, is a natural accompaniment of being human.”^[4]

 

Pelagius was denounced by the early church and his views have been considered heretical ever since.

 

Dr. Hugh Ross also rejects this heresy.  Dr. Ross proclaims the truth that Adam was created with physical immortality.  To use Dr. Ross’s own words:

 

“Genesis 3 records that after Adam and Eve died (spiritually) through sin, God sent an angel to block their access to the tree of life.  Apparently Adam and Eve had the potential for eternal physical life before and after sinning against God.  Knowing that eternal physical life in their newly acquired sinful condition ultimately would be disastrous for them and their descendants, God barred their access to it.  God would not allow His plan to be thwarted.  Physical death for humans became a blessing designed to restrain the spread of evil and make way for the redemption of willing men and women.”^[5]

 

In other words, Adam’s physical body on our very planet earth was originally physically immortal.  He was unable to die physically.  But as a direct consequence of sin, Adam became subject to mortality.  Something changed within Adam and his relationship to the world so that he lost his physical immortality.

 

So we all agree that physical death of human beings was not a reality before Adam’s fall.  My question, however, is whether physical death of animals was a reality before Adam's fall.  I would like to offer several reasons why we can confidently answer “no”, that just as there was no physical death of human beings, neither was there physical death of animals before Adam’s fall.

 

First, consider an argument from common sense.  We are flesh and blood, as are animals.  God used the same basic elements to build humans as he did to build animals.  Consider the physical similarities between humans and chimpanzees.  Now imagine a world in which men cannot die physically, but animals can.  Isn’t it absurd?

 

Suppose Adam is sitting next to a chimpanzee.  Then a great tornado sweeps through the garden of Eden.  The chimp is mercilessly thrown by the winds into rocks and trees.  Gradually, his body is dismembered and Adam is drenched in his blood.  But though Adam is similarly tossed by the winds, he is somehow unscathed.  Since he has not sinned, he knows no physical death.

 

Isn’t such a vision of Eden ridiculous?  Wouldn’t it require thousands of ad hoc miracles?  While a parasite borrows its way through the body of Adam’s dog, and fever and disease rack Adam’s cat, Adam is daily miraculously spared of both?

 

Second, Scripture speaks of a day on earth when animals do not kill each other:

 

“The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb,

The leopard shall lie down with the young goat,

The calf and the young lion and the fatling together;

And a little child shall lead them.

The cow and the bear shall graze;

Their young ones shall lie down together;

And the lion shall eat straw like the ox.

The nursing child shall play by the cobra’s hole,

And the weaned child shall put his hand in the viper’s den.

They shall not hurt nor destroy in all My holy mountain,

For the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the LORD

As the waters cover the sea.” (Isaiah 11:6-9)^[6]

 

“The wolf and the lamb shall feed together,

The lion shall eat straw like the ox,

And dust shall be the serpent’s food.

They shall not hurt nor destroy in all My holy mountain,”

Says the LORD.” (Isaiah 65:25)^[7]

 

Of this verse Dr. Hugh Ross says:

 

“Sometime in the future, when Jesus Christ reigns for a time on Earth and His followers serve alongside Him in managing the planet, carnivores will no longer eat herbivores... This change most likely results from Christ’s bringing peace and harmony among all humans and between human beings and the animals so that under God’s authority we can provide the carnivores with all the processed, nutritionally adequate food they need.”^[8]

 

If, as Dr. Ross correctly acknowledges, God’s authority can bring a state to Earth where animals do not eat each other, then surely He would have done the same in Eden before the curse.

 

Third, Scripture states that animals did not eat each other before Adam’s fall:

 

“And God said, ‘See, I have given you every herb that yields seed which is on the face of all the earth, and every tree whose fruit yields seed; to you it shall be for food. Also, to every beast of the earth, to every bird of the air, and to everything that creeps on the earth, in which there is life, I have given every green herb for food’; and it was so” (Genesis 1:29, 30)^[9]

 

After Adam’s fall, then God permitted animals to be eaten:

 

“Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. I have given you all things, even as the green herbs.” (Genesis 9:3)^[10]

 

Fourth, God loves and cares for animals.  God does not take lightly the physical death of an animal.  In fact, an animal cannot die physically without the express permission of God Himself:

 

“Are not two sparrows sold for a copper coin? And not one of them falls to the ground apart from your Father’s will.” (Matthew 10:29)^[11]

 

Because God desires to preserve the lives of His animals, He feeds them:

 

“Look at the birds of the air, for they neither sow nor reap nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feeds them.” (Matthew 6:26)^[12]

 

Psalm 104 expresses the same theme.  Speaking of animals, the psalmist writes:

 

“These all look to you

to give them their food at the proper time.

When you give it to them,

they gather it up;

when you open your hand,

they are satisfied with good things.

When you hide your face,

they are terrified;

when you take away their breath,

they die and return to the dust.” (Psalm 104:27-30)^[13]

 

When God opens His loving hand, the animals are filled with good.  By contrast, when He hides His face, the animals are terrified.  The Bible says, “they are terrified”.  When did terror enter this world?  Did anyone, animal or human, experience terror before the fall and the curse?  Of course not.  God’s original creation was filled only with “good things”.

 

Fifth, Adam’s fall did more than just incur physical and spiritual death for men.  It affected the entire creation:

 

“For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it in hope; because the creation itself also will be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.  For we know that the whole creation groans and labors with birth pangs together until now.” (Romans 9:20-22)^[14]

 

The entire creation was delivered to the bondage of corruption because of Adam’s sin.  Before Adam’s sin, there was no corruption in creation, so surely there was no death of animals either.

 

God Himself clearly states in Genesis 3 that Adam’s sin brought a curse on the natural world itself:

 

Then to Adam He said, ‘Because you have heeded the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree of which I commanded you, saying, ‘You shall not eat of it’:

Cursed is the ground for your sake;

In toil you shall eat of it

All the days of your life.

Both thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you,

And you shall eat the herb of the field.

In the sweat of your face you shall eat bread

Till you return to the ground,

For out of it you were taken;

For dust you are,

And to dust you shall return.’” (Genesis 3:17-19)^[15]

 

The ground itself was cursed so that the natural world was transformed from a a place where physical beings enjoyed physical immortality to a place where physical beings suffered physical death.

 

Sixth, death is the enemy of God.

 

“The last enemy that will be destroyed is death.” (1 Corinthians 15:26)^[16]

 

If death was present in the world in the form of animal death, then God introduced the last enemy before Adam sinned.  Why would God have done so?

 

Seventh, God pronounced His creation “good”.  After creating man and animal, but before Adam’s sin, we read:

 

“Then God saw everything that He had made, and indeed it was very good.  (Genesis 1:31)”^[17]

 

God created everything in the spiritual and physical realm.  So prior to Genesis 1:31, everything was good.  If God’s beloved animals died before Adam’s sin, then death is included in Genesis 1:31 and God considers death to be good.  Does God’s perfect, original creation include the following:

 

·         Natural disasters such as floods, hurricanes, and tornadoes that randomly decimate entire animal populations.

·         Painful diseases that cause conscious torment in mammals for years before finally ending in death.

·         Injuries that become a perennial source of pain for animals before they finally die.

·         Parasites that worm their way from the stomach and out of the skin and cause intense pain for months.

·         Thirst or starvation, two intensely slow and painful forms of death, experienced by animals.

·         Animals killing each other.  An animal bathing in the blood of another as it eats its victim alive while its victim is still conscious.

 

Does God look at this suffering and death of animals and say, “Indeed it is very good”?  What kind of God is that?  Isn’t it blasphemy to say that God created a world of suffering and death even before there was sin?

 

When that view has been promoted, it has indeed resulted in blasphemy.  Here are some quotes from the pagans:

 

Carl Sagan says the following:

 

“If God is omnipotent and omniscient, why didn't he start the universe out in the first place so it would come out the way he wants?  Why is he constantly repairing and complaining?  No, there's one thing the Bible makes clear: The biblical God is a sloppy manufacturer.  He's not good at design, he's not good at execution.  He'd be out of business if there was any competition.”^[18]

 

Irven DeVore, Harvard anthropologist, says the following:

 

“I personally cannot discern a shred of evidence for a benign cosmic presence... I see indifference and capriciousness.  What kind of God works with a 99.9 percent extinction rate?”^[19]

 

Ian Barbour, recipient of the Templeton Prize for Progress in Religion, says the following:

 

“You simply can't any longer say as traditional Christians that death was God's punishment for sin.  Death was around long before human beings.”^[20]

 

Tom Ambrose, Anglican priest, says the following:

 

“The fossil record demonstrates that some form of evil has existed throughout time.  On the large scale it is evident in natural disasters.  The destruction of creatures by flood, ice age, desert and earthquakes has happened countless times.  On the individual scale there is ample evidence of painful, crippling disease and the activity of parasites... There was never a time when death appeared, or a moment when the evil changed the nature of the universe.  God made the world as it is...  People try to tell us that Adam had a perfect relationship with God until he sinned, and all we need to do is repent and accept Jesus in order to restore that original relationship.  But perfection like this never existed.  There never was such a world.  Trying to return to it, either in reality or spiritually, is a delusion.”^[21]

 

These men mock our God.  How can we uphold God’s honor?  If we allow for the death of animals before sin then we have no answer.  We must agree with the pagans that God is a sloppy manufacturer.  That God is indifferent and capricious with a 99.9 percent extinction rate.  That evil has existed from the very beginning.  That God made the world as it is.

 

But if we say that God created a world with no phsycial death of animals or men then we have a very simple answer for the mockers.  Death, suffering, and natural disasters are here because man sinned.  We see around us evidence for the curse that God applied because of sin.  We can go on tell the mocker that he is a sinner too.  And God will redeem the creation; and through Jesus Christ, he can redeem the mocker too.

 

So if Scripture and common sense lead to the conclusion that there was no death of animals before Adam’s sin, why is there any debate?^[22]  Why not accept the first point of the position paper and move on to the next?  There is only one objection.  That objection is that the fossil record as interpreted by secular science speaks of disease, suffering, and death of animals for millions of years before Adam.

 

So we are forced to make a decision.  Accept the fossil record as interpreted by secular science, or accept the plain teaching of Scripture.

 

This is not the only time that science contradicts the Bible.  Science tells us that a human being comes about only from and egg and a sperm.  But our Bible says that Jesus Christ had no human father.  So science contradicts the Bible.  What do we do?  The typical statement of faith sets the precedent, requiring church members to accept the Bible and believe in the Virgin Birth.

 

It may be objected that science does not really contradict the Virgin Birth.  Science deals with what can be directly observed and measured.  No scientist can observe or measure the Virgin Birth, since it happened 2000 years ago.  No scientist can go back in time.  Really, the Virgin Birth is a matter of history, and we accept it because of the eyewitness account of Scripture.

 

You could go on to say that science can only contradict the Bible in matters that can be observed in the present.  So if the Bible said the earth was flat, we would know that the Bible is wrong, because we can hop on a plane and fly around the earth.  But if the Bible says Christ was born of a virgin, science has nothing to say, because no plane can fly back to the first century.

 

Facts and fossils and science exist in the present.  We know about the past through human testimony and history.  So then science can’t really say how the fossils got into the fossil record and when the animals died.  Because it cannot be verified experimentally.  So there is no conflict at all, right?

 

But it is objected that science can say how long the fossils have been there.  Using radioactive dating methods, it is claimed that the fossils and the rocks they are buried in are millions of years old.  But how can these dating methods be verified?  Were there any eyewitnesses when the dinosaurs died?  No.  Recorded human history does not go back beyond a few thousand years.

 

So how do we verify these dating methods?  Surely we must, especially if these dating methods are the main reason to abandon the biblical belief that animals did not die before the Fall.  So we should be very confident about these dating methods.  Are the methods based on assumptions?  Well, actually, they are.  I quote:

 

“Radioactive dating in general depends on three major assumptions:

 

1.      When the rock forms ... there should only be parent radioactive atoms in the rock and no daughter radiogenic ... atoms;

2.      After hardening, the rock must remain a closed system, that is, no parent or daughter atoms should be added to or removed from the rock by external influences such as percolating groundwaters; and

3.      The radioactive decay rate must remain constant.

 

If any of these assumptions are violated, then the technique fails and any ‘dates’ are false.”^[23]

 

How do we know these assumptions are not violated?

 

As a computer software engineer, I am humbled on a nearly daily basis when my assumptions are violated.  Constantly I write software and expect and assume that a certain algorithm will work.  I assume I know the cause of a certain software bug.  But over the years experience has taught me not to trust my assumptions.  Time and again the unforgiving computer has interpreted my software in ways I never would have predicted.  What I assumed as fact about how certain code would execute has been shattered.  I realize now that every assumption I make can only be proven when I test it.  Hence in software development we have a testing department.  I spend as much time writing code as I do testing it.

 

So let us test the assumptions of the radioactive dating methods.  We cannot go back 100 million years to measure the actual date of a rock and compare it to the radioactive date.  But what about rocks that were formed 50 years ago?  We can compare the actual date to the radioactive date.

 

One example is lava flow in New Zealand.

 

·         Rocks formed by lava flow on February 11, 1949 are 1 million years old according to radioactive dating measurements.

·         Rocks formed by lava flow on June 4, 1954 are 1.5 million years old according to radioactive dating measurements.

·         Rocks formed by lava flow on June 30, 1954 or 3.5 million years old according to radioactive dating measurements.

·         Rocks formed by lava flow on February 19, 1975 are also 1 million years old according to radioactive dating measurements.^[24]

 

So we have an interesting dating method.  When it can be verified, it is found to be wrong. Where it makes claims about the fossil record, it cannot be verified.  It is based on assumptions that cannot be tested.  In short, I see little reason to abandon the clear teaching of Scripture because of such a faulty mechanism.

 

But what if science improves the dating method?  What if more hard evidence is discovered?  Actually, science will never be able to prove the age of the earth.  When speaking of the past, where there is no human testimony, there is no fact, outside of the Word of God.  No time machine will ever be produced to go back and verify the age of those fossils.  The teaching of Scripture on this topic cannot be falsified.

 

God Himself says as much in Job:

 

“Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth?

Tell Me, if you have understanding.

Who determined its measurements?

Surely you know!

Or who stretched the line upon it?

To what were its foundations fastened?

Or who laid its cornerstone,

When the morning stars sang together,

And all the sons of God shouted for joy?” (Job 38:4-7)^[25]

 

In other words, where you there?  If you were not, then be silent.  But someone was there, and He’s written all about it in a book.  It’s called Genesis.

 

The second question I am proposing for a position paper is this: Was the great flood of Genesis global in its extent and effect?

 

The statement of faith of most churches begins with the statement that the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are the verbally-inspired Word of God, without error in the original writings.

 

What do these inerrant writings say about Noah’s flood?

 

“So the LORD said, ‘I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth, both man and beast, creeping thing and birds of the air, for I am sorry that I have made them.’” (Genesis 6:7)^[26]

 

And God said to Noah, “The end of all flesh has come before Me, for the earth is filled with violence through them; and behold, I will destroy them with the earth.” (Genesis 6:13)^[27]

 

“For after seven more days I will cause it to rain on the earth forty days and forty nights, and I will destroy from the face of the earth all living things that I have made.” (Genesis 7:4)^[28]

 

“And the waters prevailed exceedingly on the earth, and all the high hills under the whole heaven were covered.  The waters prevailed fifteen cubits upward, and the mountains were covered.  And all flesh died that moved on the earth: birds and cattle and beasts and every creeping thing that creeps on the earth, and every man.  All in whose nostrils was the breath of the spirit of life, all that was on the dry land, died.  So He destroyed all living things which were on the face of the ground: both man and cattle, creeping thing and bird of the air. They were destroyed from the earth. Only Noah and those who were with him in the ark remained alive.”  (Genesis 7:19-23)^[29]

 

Now when the Bible says “all” and “earth” what does it mean?  Let’s look at some similar uses in Scripture:

 

“Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” (Matthew 28:19, 20)^[30]

 

“But you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be witnesses to Me in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth.” (Acts 1:8)^[31]

 

“Truly, these times of ignorance God overlooked, but now commands all men everywhere to repent.” (Acts 17:30)^[32]

 

Now suppose that in Genesis the phrase “all flesh died that moved on the earth” refers only to a local geographic region.  Then in Acts should we not assume that “the end of the earth” refers to a similar local geographic region?  When “all men everywhere” are commanded to repent doesn’t that refer only to the immediate vicinity, if that is what Genesis is saying about Noah?

 

If Noah’s flood is only local, then we are seriously misguided in our missionary efforts.  Why are we sending missionaries to parts of the earth not covered by “all the earth” in the Bible?  If “all the earth” in Genesis is just the Middle East, the let’s follow Scripture and send our missionaries only to those areas to which the Great Commission applies.

 

In fact, if Noah’s flood is only local, then God breaks His promises.  We read:

 

“Thus I establish My covenant with you: Never again shall all flesh be cut off by the waters of the flood; never again shall there be a flood to destroy the earth.” (Genesis 9:11)^[33]

 

There have been many large floods that have destroyed large populations of animals.  If Noah’s flood was like this, then God has broken His promise.

 

But if Noah’s flood covered the globe, then so should our missionaries.  And if Noah’s flood covered the globe, then let us rejoice because God, who cannot lie, has promised to never do it again.

 

It might be objected, however, that logistics make it inconceivable for Noah to preserve all kinds of animals on the ark.  I would say similarly that logistics make it inconceivable for a small band of disciples to spread the Christian faith to the ends of the earth.  Impossible with men, but possible with God.  God empowers us to reach the ends of the earth with the gospel, and God empowered Noah to preserve the animal life of the earth with the ark.

 

But how did God empower Noah to handle these logistics?  Was it a steady stream of miracles?  Not at all.

 

“The Hebrew terminology in the Genesis account rules out invertebrates having been taken on the Ark... The same holds true for marine and amphibious vertebrates.”^[34]  The known extinct and extant genera of these types of animals yields a count of less than 16,000 animals for the ark.  “The vast majority of the animals on the Ark were small...  Only 11% of the animals on the Ark were substantially larger than sheep”^[35], and juveniles of these larger animals were probably taken.

 

I quote:

 

“The Ark measured 300x50x30 cubits (Genesis 6:15) which is about ... 459x75x44 feet, so its volume was ... 1.54 million cubic feet. To put this in perspective, this is the equivalent volume of 522 standard American railroad stock cars, each of which can hold 240 sheep... [Using] “standard recommended floor space requirements for animals ... all of them together would have needed less than half the available floor space of the Ark's three decks. This arrangement allows for the maximum amount of food and water storage on top of the cages close to the animals.... The volume of foodstuffs would have been only about 15 % of the Ark's total volume. Drinking water would only have taken up 9.4 % of the volume. This volume would be reduced further if rainwater was collected and piped into troughs.”^[36]

 

John Woodmorappe’s Noah’s Ark: A Feasibility Study shows how these 16,000 animals could have been gathered on the ark, cared for, and then released to repopulate the world.  His feasibility study demonstrates this without resorting to ad hoc miracles.  Regarding his book it has been said:

 

“His documentation is so thorough and so incisively applied that critics of the Biblical account henceforth will have to rely solely on sophistry and ad hominem arguments if they are to continue to reject and ridicule it.  Noah did build a great seaworthy vessel, and it did house representatives of all kinds of land animals for an entire year to preserve life on the land during the awful global cataclysm of the great flood.”^[37]

 

In his book he answers these problems:

 

·         Which part of the Animal Kingdom was on the ark

·         Floor space allotments for the animals

·         Quantities of water and provender required

·         Waste management

·         Heating, ventilation, and illumination of the Ark

·         The engineering and infrastructure of the Ark

·         The Ancients’ abilities in husbandry

·         The use of menageries by Noah to prepare for the Ark

·         The implications of large animals as juveniles

·         The manpower implications of eight people caring for 16,000 animals, including feeding, watering, manure handling and disposal, and actual allocation of the eighty man-hours of daily labor

·         Basic living conditions on the Ark

·         The preservation of foodstuffs on the ark

·         Animals that eat fresh or live food

·         Animals with specialized diets such as the vampire bat and king cobra

·         The fallacy of climactic barriers

·         Dormancy of animals on the ark

·         How organisms outside the ark survived the flood

·         Food sources in the post-flood world

·         Demographic ramifications of single-pair founders

·         Avoiding the hazards of inbreeding

·         And, how the Ark animals were carriers of adequate genetic diversity

 

Obviously I cannot cover every one of these points without actually reading this book to you.  But by the same token, you cannot refute his analysis without first reading it.

 

Is it too difficult to believe that God could cover the earth in a flood and then restore life on the planet?  Woodmorappe shows that all of this could have happened without resorting to ad hoc miracles.  And what of other phenomenal accounts in the Bible?  Consider Joshua 10:12-14:

 

“Then Joshua spoke to the LORD in the day when the LORD delivered up the Amorites before the children of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel:

          ‘Sun, stand still over Gibeon;

          And Moon, in the Valley of Aijalon.”

          So the sun stood still,

          And the moon stopped,

          Till the people had revenge

          Upon their enemies.

Is this not written in the Book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and did not hasten to go down for about a whole day. And there has been no day like that, before it or after it, that the LORD heeded the voice of a man; for the LORD fought for Israel.” (Joshua 10:12-14)^[38]

 

If God can stop the rotation of the earth, surely he can cover the earth with water and repopulate the planet.

 

We do well to consider what Jesus told Nicodemus:

 

“If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you heavenly things?”^[39]

 

The third question I am proposing for a position paper is this: what is meant by the word “day” in Genesis chapter 1?

 

The Hebrew word for day in Genesis 1 is yom.  Yom can refer to an earth rotation, or it can refer to an indefinite period of time.  Our word “day” has a similar double-meaning.  We speak of day as 24 hours, or of “days” as an indefinite period of time.  For example, we speak of the “days of castles and knights”.

 

Which meaning of yom is in view in Genesis 1?

 

First, the passage itself defines its meaning:

 

“God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night.” (Genesis 1:5)^[40]

 

God called the light Day.  The period of time when light is visible on a rotating earth is yom.  The other meaning would make no sense here:  “God called the light an indefinite period of time, and the darkness He called Night.”

 

Second, for all six days of creation the word yom is used with the phrase morning and evening.  For example:

 

“So the evening and the morning were the first day.” (Genesis 1:5)^[41]

 

An earth rotation brings about morning and evening.  This earth rotation was the first day, and every subsequent day in Genesis 1.  In all 38 occasions in the Hebrew Bible outside of Genesis 1 where “morning and evening” is used with yom, the meaning of yom is an earth-rotation-day.^[42]  If yom here means an indefinite period of time, then morning and evening must be taken metaphorically.  But the Hebrew word for morning is not used metaphorically elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible.^[43]

 

Third, in Genesis 1 the word yom is used in a numeric sequence.  I quote:

 

“Similarly, the occurrence of ‘day’ modified by a numeral (e.g., ‘third day’) is a construction occurring more than a hundred times in the Pentateuch alone, always with the literal meaning.”^[44]

 

In other words, always with the earth-rotation-day meaning.  The other meaning for yom refers to an indefinite period of time, that is, a period without a definite beginning or end.  But a numeric sequence like that of Genesis 1 implies periods of time that are contiguous.  This rules out the abstract meaning of yom.

 

Fourth, if day is more than an earth-rotation day, then flowering plants would have died out.  For God created all plants on the third day, but did not create insects until the sixth.  If these days are millions of years, then flowers would have died without the bees to pollinate them.

 

Fifth, we have the testimony of Exodus 20:8-11:

 

“Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the LORD your God. In it you shall do no work: you, nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your male servant, nor your female servant, nor your cattle, nor your stranger who is within your gates. For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it.”^[45]

 

This passage uses the plural form of yom which is yamin.  In six yamin, God created the heavens and the earth.  In all 845 occurrences of yamin in the Old Testament, it refers to an earth-rotation-day.^[46]

 

If it means an indefinite period of time in Exodus 20:8-11, it would be the only such usage in the entire Bible.  And it would have that unique meaning just a sentence after having the normal meaning.  For the passage says that in six yamin man shall labor, but rest on the seventh day.

 

The obvious meaning of this passage is that God’s creation week is a template of our work week.  If God’s creation week is actually composed of six indefinite periods of time, these verses have no meaning.  There would be no correlation at all between our work week and God’s creative activities.

 

Taken together, these hermeneutical arguments are irrefutable.  Professor James Barr is the Regius Professor of Hebrew at the University of Oxford.  He is a renowned worldwide expert in the Hebrew language who does not accept the Genesis creation account.  Nevertheless, based on his understanding of the Hebrew language, he says the following:

 

“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:         

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

(b) 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    (c) Noah's flood was understood to be worldwide and extinguish all human and animal life except for those in the ark.         

Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the 'days' of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know.”^[47]

 

In other words, when Hebrew scholars study the passage to understand what it says, the uniform conclusion is that yom in Genesis 1 means an earth-rotation-day.  It is only when the reader is forced to believe the account, that he begins to question his hermeneutics.

 

But are we at liberty to change the laws of hermeneutics when they conflict with our preconceived notions?  If laws of interpretation allow no other conclusion than that yom is an earth-rotation-day, can we abandon the laws of interpretation?

 

If we abandon those laws at Genesis 1, then we have abandoned them for the rest of the Bible.  We cannot use one set of hermeneutics with Genesis 1 and another set with the rest of the Bible.  If we can infuse a new meaning into yom of Genesis 1, then we can infuse new meanings into the words of cherished New Testament passages.

 

For example, why do we believe that homosexuality is a sin?

 

“Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God.” (1 Corinthians 6:9)^[48]

 

What if we infuse the words homosexuals and sodomites with limited meanings?  What if we define them to only refer to relationships between an adult male and a boy?  If we apply this hermeneutical principle carefully, we discover the following, and I quote:

 

“The Bible clearly condemns certain kinds of homosexual practice (... Gang rape, idolatry, and lustful promiscuity).  However, it appears to be silent in certain other aspects of homosexuality -- both the ‘homosexual orientation’ and ‘a committed love-relationship analogous to heterosexual monogamy.'”^[49]

 

But we know that all homosexual acts are sinful: for the same reason that we know that God created the heavens and the earth in six earth-rotation-days.

 

Finally, to summarize, I urge that the local church adopt a position paper which affirms the following:

 

One, that there was no physical death of man or animal before Adam's fall.

Two, that the great flood of Genesis was global in its extent and effect.

And three, that the word “day” in Genesis chapter 1 means an earth-rotation day.

 

I have shown that these three statements are in complete harmony with the Statement of Faith of the church.  Also, I have shown that we must have an official position on these points in the face of our unbelieving community.  Here is yet another example of the consequences of failing to do so:

 

“I have a very close unsaved friend for whom I’ve been praying for a long time.  Recently, we’ve had some really good, thoughtful discussions about my faith, and it was obvious that he was seeking truth...

 

“I had a copy of a ‘seeker-sensitive’ Bible... I had read the forward to this Bible, which explained that it was designed for those who didn’t yet believe it was the Word of God, but were at least willing to be convinced.  When I talked to him on the phone tonight, he mentioned that he was enjoying the Bible.  I was eager to hear what he thought so far.  I don’t think I'll ever forget his next words: ‘So far it’s just reinforcing my belief that you can’t take the Bible literally.'

 

“I was stunned..  It turns out that he’d read the introduction to the Bible... He followed the directions dutifully, starting with Genesis.  The footnotes for that chapter -- the first thing he’d ever studied in the Bible for himself -- stressed that perhaps this story was not meant to be taken as literal...

 

My friend’s next comment was devastating: ‘If I’m not even supposed to believe that this first page is to be taken literally, what am I supposed to think when I get to the parts about Jesus?’”^[50]

 

What is really at stake here?  Do we have the option of simply taking no action at all?  I will let Dr. John Morris, President of the Institute for Creation Research, answer this question.  I would like to read this brief article, in its entirety, by Dr. John Morris, entitled “Should a Church Take a Stand On Creation?”

 

“Recently my family and I joined a small church plant pastored by a former student of mine at Christian Heritage College—a man of real wisdom and integrity.

 

“A church constitution was being written, which, of course, included a Statement of Faith. A solid creation and young-earth plank appeared in the first draft.

 

“Although there was no disagreement among the members (many of whom were young Christians) as to the doctrine of special, recent creation, there was concern in making this a requirement for membership. I was asked to comment.

 

“Given the fact that most of America's Bible colleges and seminaries would not even agree with the content of the plank, I acknowledged my own hesitancy about being so exclusive, but I proceeded to demonstrate how beliefs in creation and a young earth are integral parts of Christianity.

 

“The doctrine of God is at stake. for example, is the God of the Bible a gracious, purposeful God of wisdom, or does He resort to trial and error in His deeds, testing His creation by survival of the fittest and delighting in the extinction of the weaker? Is God long ago and far away—only occasionally involved, or is He near and intimately concerned with the affairs of life?

 

“The doctrine of Scripture comes into play. There are few Biblical teachings as clear as that of creation in six days and the companion doctrine of the global flood. Yet these two teachings are denied and ridiculed in many Christian churches today. Can the Scriptures be trusted? Can God say what He means? If a Christian can distort Scripture to teach such beliefs as evolution, progressive creation, an old earth, or a local flood, can that Christian be trusted with other doctrines?

 

“The doctrine of man becomes skewed. Can man, with a brain and reasoning powers distorted by the curse, evaluating only a portion of the evidence, accurately reconstruct the history of the universe? Should his historical reconstructions be put on a higher plane than Scripture? Or is man and his mind locked in the effects of the curse—a poor reflection of the once glorious ‘image of God’—now blinded by sin and the god of this world, seeing things through a glass darkly?

 

“The doctrine of sin becomes questionable. If death and bloodshed preceded Adam's rebellion against God, then what are ‘the ways of sin?’ How did the entrance of sin change things?

 

“The doctrine of salvation likewise falls, for if death preceded sin, then death is not the penalty for sin, and Christ's death on the cross—accomplished nothing. Any form of evolution and old-earth thinking is incompatible with the work of Christ.

 

“I still am uncertain about young-earth creationism being a requirement for church membership; perhaps it would be proper to give new members time to grow and mature under good teaching.

 

“But I do know one thing: Creationism should be a requirement for Christian leadership! No church should sanction a pastor, Sunday school teacher, deacon, elder, or Bible-study leader who knowledgeably and purposefully errs on this crucial doctrine.”^[51]

 

Art in Kenosha

February 2000

 

Edited, June 2006