Creation vs Evolution, A New Take on the Genesis Creation Account
by Clive Campbell
Free to Share
Author requests article critique
Free to Share
Author requests article critique
In my opinion, the Genesis creation account is not another Near East creation myth. I believe it is true and scientifically sound, despite being dismissed as the opposite by some British Catholic bishops recently. Most evolutionists will mock me for saying so, but from my perspective it takes far more faith to believe in the theory of lengthy evolution of life than in the theory of sudden creation of life.
To believe the former, one must believe in spite of the astronomical improbability of elements coming together to form even a complex molecule, let alone a single cell; in spite of the complete lack of fossil evidence of transitional forms between species, the "missing links," and a fossil column which does not always go from lower to higher life forms (thus better supporting a global Flood); in spite of the deleterious value of mutations; in spite of Malthusian population theory which would have resulted in a population explosion of hypothetical hominids over 50-100,000 years (obliteration by the last ice age--an age without a good scientific explanation--is postulated, but with few hypothetical hominid remains); and in spite of such evidence as soft tissue found inside a T. rex thigh bone, encased in sandstone (evolutionists are still closed-mindedly claiming it is 68 million years old).
To believe the latter--the theory of sudden creation of life (around 3970 B.C., according to biblical chronology)--one must believe with the supporting evidence of the oldest village settlements in the world being about 6,000 years old and just west of Jerusalem (Eden's site, I believe); the oldest city in the world from about the same time being Jericho, just east of Jerusalem; the ancient civilizations of Egypt and Mesopotamia dating to 3500 B.C.; the destruction of those civilizations about 2300 B.C., exactly the time the Bible puts the global Flood; the extinction of dinosaurs by flooding; and carbon dating of dinosaur bones in the thousands of years.
Which theory requires more faith to believe? Which puts forward the best evidence? Which do you believe? Of course if you do not believe in God, then the theory of evolution is your only choice, in spite of the fact that it is full of holes, which bad science has tried to fill. One simple example makes my point. Which is better science: to accept the carbon dates of dinosaur bones as an indication of their young age or to throw them out just because they do not fit the theory of evolution and instead, date the bones by dating the rock around them? What if the rock is in fact millions of years old, as I do not dispute, but the dinosaur is only thousands? So the problem with evolutionists is that in spite of the bad science they put forward, they can not believe that God suddenly created the species "after their kinds," as Genesis says He did.
But many sudden creationists have their problems too. Firstly, many do not see that the best interpretation of the Genesis creation account is an ancient universe, but young life. They do not see that the first two verses of Genesis cover stage one of creation, lasting fourteen (two times seven, interestingly) billion years, and that the seven "days" of creation are stage two, beginning in verse three. Stages one and two are also reflected, respectively, in the verbs "create" (Hebrew: bara) and "make" (Hebrew: asa) in the last verse of the prologue, 2:3, and in the first verse of the first book of Genesis, 2:4. Further, from Genesis 2:4 ("These are the generations of the heavens and the earth ...."), I believe "day" figuratively means the first millennium, so a "generation" of 1,000 years (as Adam's and Noah's were) figuratively means 365 million years.
Secondly, nearly all sudden creationists interpret stage two as seven literal days, rather than seven figurative "days," which were really years, as the ancient Jewish Book of Jubilees asserts. Strong arguments can be made for this: 1) It puts Enoch's translation to heaven exactly seven years before the end of the first millennium, which is a figure for the translation to heaven of the true Church, seven years before the end of the sixth millennium. 2) Seven years is one of the "seven" precedents in the Bible: e.g., six years to work the land and one to leave it fallow, seventy seven-year periods in Daniel 9, the last one being seven years of judgment and destruction centered around Jerusalem at the end of 6,000 years, paralleled by seven years of creation centered around the site of Jerusalem (Eden). 3) Seven years is more in line with what was accomplished in the "days," especially "day" six, which includes the events of Genesis 2 and, I suspect, 3. It is also more in line with the "no rain" comment of 2:5.
Thirdly, most sudden creationists believe the sun, moon and stars were not created until "day" four, after light and the day/night cycle appeared on the earth in "day" one. This is an unfortunate result of the Hebrew word translated "made" (Hebrew verb: asa). The verb can also mean "to manifest." Also, these lights were manifested in the "firmament of the heavens," up to the clouds (see 1:6-8). The intended meaning is a thinning of the cloud cover over the earth, so that the sun, moon and stars were manifested.
So, what is my take on the Genesis prologue, that merges the creation account with good science? Well, here it is.
Bang! "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth (Genesis 1:1)." I have no doubt that stage one of God's creation began, as astronomy indicates, about fourteen billion years ago and that, as radiogeology indicates, the earth is about four billion years old. A description of the earth at the end of stage one appears in verse two of Genesis 1: "And the earth was waste and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep: and the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters." I believe that this is a picture of the earth in a more distant orbit from the sun than at present, explaining the ice ages and precluding evolution. The earth was dark from complete cloud and fog cover (see Job 38:9) and it was completely covered by water and ice.
Verse three begins stage two of God's creation: seven figurative "days," which were in fact years. In year one (3970 B.C., inferred from biblical chronology), God began to move the earth and perhaps all the planets closer to the sun. The sun's increasing gravitational pull began to pull away some of the cloud and fog cover on the earth to make light and the day/night cycle visible. In year two, the exponentially increasing gravitational pull of the sun extended the earth's atmosphere even further, pulling the clouds up into the sky. In year three, the increasing heat from the sun had evaporated enough of the water, covering the earth, to make dry land appear. At that point, God created plant life. In year four, enough of the cloud and fog cover had been diffused to make the sun, moon and stars visible. At the end of that year, the earth was in its present orbit (biblically inferred). In year five, God created air and water creatures and in year six, land creatures, including man. Finally, He ceased His creative work in the seventh year.
I should also add that I believe the earth was initially vertical on its axis, but that God tilted it 23.5 degrees to cause the Flood in about 2300 B.C., by which many species, including dinosaurs, were made extinct. This explains the absence of rain in the tropics until the Flood; tropical fossils in the arctic; almost edible woolly mammoths, frozen in the arctic with tropical plants in their stomachs; and perhaps the long lifespans of the ancient peoples, which were mythologized in Near East king lists in the thousands of years.
Let me conclude with one other piece of evidence for the truth of the Genesis prologue. Not only are the seven "days" figurative for seven years, but they are also figurative for seven millennia. Every thousand years there has been a spiritual "sunrise." In 3970 B.C., it was God and Adam. In 2970 B.C., it was Lamech and Noah. In 1970 B.C., it was Terah and Abraham. In 970 B.C., it was David and Solomon. In 30 A.D., it was Jesus and the early Church. In 1030 A.D., it was the Cluniac reform. In 2030 A.D., it will be Jesus again, the Second Coming.
PLEASE ENCOURAGE AUTHOR, LEAVE COMMENT ON ARTICLE
Read more articles by Clive Campbell or search for other articles by topic below.
Search for articles on: (e.g. creation; holiness etc.)Read more by clicking on a link:
Main Site Articles
Most Read Articles
Highly Acclaimed Challenge Articles.
New Release Christian Books for Free for a Simple Review.
NEW - Surprise Me With an Article - Click here for a random URL
God is Not Against You - He Came on an All Out Rescue Mission to Save You
...in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them... 2 Cor 5:19
Therefore, my friends, I want you to know that through Jesus the forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you. Acts 13:38
LEARN & TRUST JESUS HERE
The opinions expressed by authors do not necessarily reflect the opinion of FaithWriters.com.