Intriguing Bible verses supporting YEC

[LostSheep]

Hello all,

I stumbled upon this web page which has some very intriguing Bible verses supporting YEC:
http://www.creationmoments.net/news/common.php

An excerpt:
And the evening and the morning were the sixth day. Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.
Genesis 1:31-2:1

Bible: The heavens and earth are finished.
Evolution: Things are constantly evolving into new forms.

For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day, and hallowed it.
Exodus 20:11

Bible: Hebrews should rest on a literal seventh day.
Evolution: Creation took billions of years. There is no "seventh day" to commemorate. Are Hebrews supposed to rest for millions of years?

He has made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth…
Acts 17:26

Bible: All mankind came from one original couple.
Evolution: Different tribes evolved in different areas.

And Adam called his wife’s name Eve; because she was the mother of all living.
Genesis 3:20

Bible: Eve was the mother of all humanity.
Evolution: Eve was just one link in a long chain of evolving humankind.

Creationists, please don't blow off looking at this web page. I found it particularly useful, especiallly as I have been having my own questions regarding the YEC/OEC controversy. I really needed to be reminded that the Bible itself does seem to have strong evidence for young-earth creationism.

[LostSheep]

I don't mean to start an argument with OEC-ists, because I believe I have made some friends here among the OEC-ists. But I must say, this web page I posted did seem to show that the Bible has a strong inclination toward YEC positions.

[Vigilante]

I think it's pretty well known that the Bible, and theories of evo, are pretty incompatible.

I also think that evo can be forced into the Bible when interpreted liberally.

And I also think that the simplest reading suggests YEC creationism.

Also, besides what that site listed, there are theology concerns as well. Such that Ken Ham often talks about. Such as original sin. Death came by sin, so how could A/E bring death into the world whilst standing on billions of years of death in evolution?
It is said that the "curse" of earth brought forth disease and suffering, but the fossil record shows signs of cancer and tumors and suffering, etc...
How could God say his creation was "very good" while Adam and Eve were standing on billions of years of death, suffering, disease, bloodshed, etc?
How does the gospel message make sense when it says things like "through ONE man sin entered...", or calling Jesus the "last Adam"? At which point did two monkeys become "man and woman", "Adam and Eve"?

There are lots and lots of reasons that the Bible, as written, as well as certain theology, do not go hand in hand with molecules to man evolution.

At the same time, OECs make odd comparisons to evo with ideas like: by forming Adam "from the dust", this is somehow alluding to evolution from mud to man over millions of years. Or that by Eve being formed from "part" of the man, that this supports an idea that our original ancestor was a hermaphrodite of some kind.
They make odd claims like; how can God say "evening and morning" when supposedly the sun and heavens weren't created yet? Which I don't see as being that big of a problem really.

So in any case, I think, generally speaking, the plainest reading of scripture (not fundy literal, but 'plain') is that it supports YEC. I think you have to tear it up a bit to support OEC.

And of course, this is my opinion.

But if anything is clear in either case, it is that God created, using one means or another, however long ago it was, and that Adam and Eve were special "first humans" that God choose to communicate with and set up certain rules and so forth.


Have a good day.

[LostSheep]

I think it's pretty well known that the Bible, and theories of evo, are pretty incompatible.

I stupidly didn't realize that it WAS well known. I was probably reacting to my relief that the Bible seems to be so explicit for YEC.

[easyboy201]

I stupidly didn't realize that it WAS well known. I was probably reacting to my relief that the Bible seems to be so explicit for YEC.

It's alright. The Bible is what we base everything on. As I've been saying in the Natural Science section - Scripture is our axiom and the ToE is the "evolutionists" axiom.
Neither can be proven - both can be supported. But the amount of "support" is really irrelevant. Especially since ours is supernatural revelation that cannot be measured by science. ;)

But anyways... the verses you quoted were great... but they still don't disclude the Gap Theory.
Only progression creationism, and theistic evolution.

Can you think or find any verses that can rule out the Gap Theory?

[KBertsche]

Also, besides what that site listed, there are theology concerns as well. Such that Ken Ham often talks about. Such as original sin. Death came by sin, so how could A/E bring death into the world whilst standing on billions of years of death in evolution?

I agree that human death came by sin. But where does Scripture say that animal death came by sin? Follow Paul's argument in Romans 5; if Adam's sin brought death to animals as well as man, does Christ's death then bring eternal life to animals as well as man??

It is said that the "curse" of earth brought forth disease and suffering, but the fossil record shows signs of cancer and tumors and suffering, etc...

Where does Scripture associate the curse of earth with anything more than thorns, thistles, and toil for man (Gen. 3:17)? This says nothing about disease and suffering in general, and nothing of the animal world.

How could God say his creation was "very good" while Adam and Eve were standing on billions of years of death, suffering, disease, bloodshed, etc?

Note that God says "very good", but He does not say "perfect" or "ideal". The text implies that the Garden was somehow more idyllic than the region outside, but even it was not ideal or perfect--it had a tree that was very bad for Adam to eat of.

Are you trying to tell God that He can't call animal death "good" in some sense? Note that He delights in feeding animals to the beasts of prey (Ps. 104:20-21).

How does the gospel message make sense when it says things like "through ONE man sin entered...", or calling Jesus the "last Adam"? At which point did two monkeys become "man and woman", "Adam and Eve"?

Agreed; Scripture seems to say that man was a special creation of God, based on the order of events in Gen. 2:7.

[Vigilante]

I agree that human death came by sin. But where does Scripture say that animal death came by sin? Follow Paul's argument in Romans 5; if Adam's sin brought death to animals as well as man, does Christ's death then bring eternal life to animals as well as man??

It is generally thought that the first animal death was when God killed one himself to clothe A/E. And later after Noah's flood God gave animals for us to eat, where at first it was only plants.
As far as animal salvation, I don't know. The bible wasn't written for animals. They weren't endowed with the "image" of God, and as far as I know, they weren't ever placed under God's law or given special instructions. It just doesn't talk about them much, so I think it's a moot point.
I DO think it's hard for this earth to be "very good" when covered with millions of years of disease, bloodshed, murder, pain, suffering, survival of the fittest, extinction, mutation, and so on. And if evo is true, that would be in mankind's own history as well. It wouldn't make sense to say that the animal kingdom evolved that way, but mankind was special creation. Why not ALL special? Why would God consider A/E to be the first humans, but not their parents? Was their to much "monkey" still left in their parents?
I just think the best way to make sense of it, is to believe it as written. Changing it around to fit the latest popular science just creates to many other questions.

Where does Scripture associate the curse of earth with anything more than thorns, thistles, and toil for man (Gen. 3:17)? This says nothing about disease and suffering in general, and nothing of the animal world.

Seems to me thorns and thistles is enough to say that the earth is going to grow a lot of crap that will screw people up, without having to mention every one of a million bad plants. I might go so far as to say this is pretty much where ALL poisonous and annoying plant life originated. I don't find it hard to believe that all plant life at the time would have been good for both man and beast to eat.
We know at least that the serpent was cursed. We know that the curse changed the environment, especially around the flood, such that longevity was vastly shortened. When it talks about a mist from the earth, or a canopy in the sky. We're talking about a world that pretty much took care of itself, a naked A/E didn't have to worry about skin disease from to much sun, it was a protective shell. I would be willing to bet that temperatures would moderate year-round, such that A/E wouldn't have needed warm clothes in the winter, or to make fires, nor need special cooling in the summer. Of course, the bible doesn't say how LONG A/E lived before eating the fruit, or how long they resisted the serpent.
I'm under the impression that the massive change in environment is what sparked the rise in disease and mutation, screwing up the genome from then on. Just think about what disease actually is? What is it? Disease from nutrient deficiency. From environment exposure of various sorts. From man-made poisons we invented around ourselves. From the bad plants that began to grow, and poisoned us. From the drugs and other things we invented and take. From mutations of an originally perfect genome, screwing up how the body works. Disease, is not a new creation that exists on its own. Disease is a corruption of what is good.
God didn't have to "create" disease to curse us with, but by letting the environment, and our own cleverness go as it would, well, there you go.

Note that God says "very good", but He does not say "perfect" or "ideal". The text implies that the Garden was somehow more idyllic than the region outside, but even it was not ideal or perfect--it had a tree that was very bad for Adam to eat of.

True, the garden was a special home, but we don't need to read into it what isn't there, namely, about the rest of the planet. We can't say what it was like, but it was where the rest of the animal kingdom spent their time I suppose.
As far as "very good", now we're just dealing with semantics. Hebrew did not have a massive vocabulary of terms, I imagine a word like "perfect" was reserved only for God himself, as the ONLY "perfect" thing. And I suspect "very good" implies "ideal". There may not be a word for "ideal", being that I haven't read a term like that, maybe, I don't know. Very good was probably as close to perfect as they could come up with. Unless you are aware of other Hebrew words that could have done better at describing it.

Are you trying to tell God that He can't call animal death "good" in some sense? Note that He delights in feeding animals to the beasts of prey (Ps. 104:20-21).

I know that in God's "ideal" world, animals do not kill each other. As versus such "the lion will lay down with the lamb", or in Isaiah 11:8 "The nursing child shall play over the hole of the cobra, and the weaned child shall put his hand on the adder's den."
These give the idea that mankind and the animal kingdom were never supposed to be at odds with each other. And even that animals weren't supposed to be at odds with each other. But sin created the dissension.

Anyway, my thoughts.

Cheers

[easyboy201]

TO BACK UP VIGILANTE: (not as though he - and his rockin' icon -needs it)

It is generally thought that the first animal death was when God killed one himself to clothe A/E. And later after Noah's flood God gave animals for us to eat, where at first it was only plants.

That's true. It's the necessary inference asserted from scripture. Plus there is no way death of animals could be regarded as "very good" - I don't know about you... but I get kinda teary when a puppy dies... but that's just me.

Note that God says "very good", but He does not say "perfect" or "ideal". The text implies that the Garden was somehow more idyllic than the region outside, but even it was not ideal or perfect--it had a tree that was very bad for Adam to eat of.

Your arguing on semantics. For God to call something "very good" - He certinatly can't call US that - it infers that He means perfect. As God who is perfect cannot call anything that is not perfect "very good."
Don't you remember the scripture verse - "Only God is good."?


Are you trying to tell God that He can't call animal death "good" in some sense? Note that He delights in feeding animals to the beasts of prey (Ps. 104:20-21).

See my note about. God can only call the perfect - very good. Is animal death perfect? Of course not. It is many times hideous and revolting like the smell of the rotting corpses it produces.
I'd like to recommend you for a padded room if you wish to defend that such a thing is "good" in God's sense of the word. ;)

[easyboy201]

As an added note, you are ripping Ps 104 out of context. God means it as a vengence against the wicked. God's justice IS very good. And getting this justice IS very good.

[KBertsche]

It is generally thought that the first animal death was when God killed one himself to clothe A/E.

"Generally thought" = speculation. Do you have any biblical exegesis to support this speculation?

I DO think it's hard for this earth to be "very good" when covered with millions of years of disease, bloodshed, murder, pain, suffering, survival of the fittest, extinction, mutation, and so on.

Do you have any biblical exegesis to support this opinion?

And if evo is true, that would be in mankind's own history as well. It wouldn't make sense to say that the animal kingdom evolved that way, but mankind was special creation. Why not ALL special?

Yes, this makes sense, and is what many OEC believe. God created each species (or major group) of animals special, but millions of years apart. There may have been some micro-evolution within each of these major groups of animals.

Seems to me thorns and thistles is enough to say that the earth is going to grow a lot of crap that will screw people up, without having to mention every one of a million bad plants. I might go so far as to say this is pretty much where ALL poisonous and annoying plant life originated.

Do you have any biblical exegesis to support this expansion of what the text clearly says?

We know at least that the serpent was cursed.

No, the only animal that we know was cursed was the serpent, and specifically the one serpent that tempted Adam and Eve. There is no suggestion of any effect on any other animals.

We know that the curse changed the environment, especially around the flood, such that longevity was vastly shortened.

Do you have any biblical exegesis to support this speculation? I don't see any suggestion of an environment change, and no biblical connection between longevity and environment.

When it talks about a mist from the earth, or a canopy in the sky. We're talking about a world that pretty much took care of itself, a naked A/E didn't have to worry about skin disease from to much sun, it was a protective shell. I would be willing to bet that temperatures would moderate year-round, such that A/E wouldn't have needed warm clothes in the winter, or to make fires, nor need special cooling in the summer.

Do you have any biblical exegesis to support this speculation? Especially the existence of a "canopy in the sky"?

I'm under the impression that the massive change in environment is what sparked the rise in disease and mutation, screwing up the genome from then on. Just think about what disease actually is? What is it? Disease from nutrient deficiency. From environment exposure of various sorts. From man-made poisons we invented around ourselves. From the bad plants that began to grow, and poisoned us. From the drugs and other things we invented and take. From mutations of an originally perfect genome, screwing up how the body works. Disease, is not a new creation that exists on its own. Disease is a corruption of what is good.
God didn't have to "create" disease to curse us with, but by letting the environment, and our own cleverness go as it would, well, there you go.

Most disease is natural, not man-made.

True, the garden was a special home, but we don't need to read into it what isn't there, namely, about the rest of the planet. We can't say what it was like, but it was where the rest of the animal kingdom spent their time I suppose.

The Garden was clearly localized and had boundaries. This imples that there was some obvious difference between inside the Garden and what was outside. True, other than the Tree of Life existing only inside the Garden, we can't say for sure what the difference was. But many theologians have inferred from the text that one of Adam's tasks was to expand the boundaries of the Garden, in an endeavor similar to the charge of worldwide missions today.

As far as "very good", now we're just dealing with semantics. Hebrew did not have a massive vocabulary of terms, I imagine a word like "perfect" was reserved only for God himself, as the ONLY "perfect" thing. And I suspect "very good" implies "ideal". There may not be a word for "ideal", being that I haven't read a term like that, maybe, I don't know. Very good was probably as close to perfect as they could come up with. Unless you are aware of other Hebrew words that could have done better at describing it.

I don't see any hint in BDB that "very good" implies "ideal". The basic idea of "good" is "pleasant" or "agreeable". So "exceedingly pleasant" is another translation. Note that "very good" is only on day 6, while day 2 does not even have "good". Some have explained that this "goodness" is related to an environment conducive to man's survival, and that day 2 did not directly contribute to this.

But here's where we get to a fundamental theological problem of the YEC position. They speculate that God's "very good" creation implies "perfect" or "ideal", that this "perfection" was lost for the entire created order due to man's Fall, and that God will restore this world to its original "perfect" state in the future. (I heard an ICR guy essentially say this on the radio last Sunday.)

This is not what the Bible teaches! It says God will destroy the entire created order, and create an entirely new creation which operates in a completely different way. The future state of both man and nature will be immeasurably better than it ever was in the Garden! The Garden was clearly not a "perfect" or "ideal" state, since it is not as good as the future state.

I know that in God's "ideal" world, animals do not kill each other. As versus such "the lion will lay down with the lamb", or in Isaiah 11:8 "The nursing child shall play over the hole of the cobra, and the weaned child shall put his hand on the adder's den."

I challenge you to find "the lion will lay down with the lamb" in Scripture! (Hint: it's not there!)

These give the idea that mankind and the animal kingdom were never supposed to be at odds with each other. And even that animals weren't supposed to be at odds with each other. But sin created the dissension.

No, these passages only say that man and animals will live together in harmony in a future world. It says nothing of what was "supposed" to happen in the present world.

Do you have any biblical exegesis to support your idea that "sin created the dissension" between man and animals?

[technomage]

Do you have any biblical exegesis to support this speculation? Especially the existence of a "canopy in the sky"?

Gen 1:6 states "Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it separate between water and water." In ANE beliefs (including Jewish beliefs at the time of this writing), it was believed that there was a body of water in the sky--like the ocean, this body of water turned blue during the day, and black at night. The firmament is the deparation between ocean and sky, and it is from this idea of the sky-bound "body of water" that the concept of the "canopy" was developed--indeed, the word "canopy" is another possible translation for "firmament."

[KBertsche]

Gen 1:6 states "Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it separate between water and water." In ANE beliefs (including Jewish beliefs at the time of this writing), it was believed that there was a body of water in the sky--like the ocean, this body of water turned blue during the day, and black at night. The firmament is the deparation between ocean and sky, and it is from this idea of the sky-bound "body of water" that the concept of the "canopy" was developed--indeed, the word "canopy" is another possible translation for "firmament."

Yes, but I think Vigilante was implying something else. He seemed to be saying that there was some sort of "protective canopy" over the early earth that disappeared at the time of Noah. This idea is what I'd like to see some biblical defense of.

Vigilante did a nice job of summarizing some things that we have been taught (as kids, or by ICR or AIG) but which are simply not biblical--they are no more found in the text than is the concept of "purgatory". Remember that adding to God's word is not a good idea (Rev 22:18-19).

[technomage]

Yes, but I think Vigilante was implying something else. He seemed to be saying that there was some sort of "protective canopy" over the early earth that disappeared at the time of Noah. This idea is what I'd like to see some biblical defense of.

The idea of a protective canopy was developed by Creationists to explain the disparity between pre-Flood and post-Flood lifespans. As such, it is an extrapolation of Biblical data that is logical, but unevidenced--a good example of how logic, while potentially useful, can lead one astray of taken too far.

Glenn Morton has given his refutation of the "water canopy" idea in this article.

Remember that adding to God's word is not a good idea (Rev 22:18-19).

If one is to stick to a strict hermeneutic, that passage applies solely to the book of Revelation, not to the Bible as a whole. Extending it to the Bible as a whole is no less (but no more) evidenced than the concept of the water canopy.

[technomage]

KBertsche, I just realized what forum this was in--by forum protocol, I'm not allowed to post here.

My apologies to all.

[ApologiaPhoenix]

Hello all,

I stumbled upon this web page which has some very intriguing Bible verses supporting YEC:
http://www.creationmoments.net/news/common.php

Alright. Let's see how they hold up.

An excerpt:
And the evening and the morning were the sixth day. Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.
Genesis 1:31-2:1

Bible: The heavens and earth are finished.
Evolution: Things are constantly evolving into new forms.

To begin with, I am not TE. I am quite OEC. However, this doesn't faze me at all. I believe there is a fallacy of equivocation on the word, evolving. Everyone agrees that SOME evolution is taking place. This is simply microevolution. We have seen it happen. The beaks of the birds that Darwin saw is an example.

Note though that the birds are still birds. They never cease to be birds. That's why I make the distinction. Microevolution is evolution that takes place within the species.

For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day, and hallowed it.
Exodus 20:11

Bible: Hebrews should rest on a literal seventh day.
Evolution: Creation took billions of years. There is no "seventh day" to commemorate. Are Hebrews supposed to rest for millions of years?

If the book of Hebrews is correct, and I tend to think that it is, the seventh day is still going on. What is the point in this account then?

The point is one out of seven. The length was not the relevant factor. The Hebrews were even to observe 1 year our of 7 as a Sabbath year. If your same principle were to apply, then the Feast of Tabernacles would need to be celebrated for 40 years since that's how long the Israelites wandered in the wilderness.

He has made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth…
Acts 17:26

Bible: All mankind came from one original couple.
Evolution: Different tribes evolved in different areas.

Now this is where it gets annoying. It seems that if someone says that they're OEC, it is automatically assumed that they must hold to evolution. No. Adam and Eve were literal people (ANd actually, vis a vis Jesus's argument with the Sadducees ARE literal people) and were the first humans to ever walk this Earth.

And Adam called his wife’s name Eve; because she was the mother of all living.
Genesis 3:20

Bible: Eve was the mother of all humanity.
Evolution: Eve was just one link in a long chain of evolving humankind.

See above.

Creationists, please don't blow off looking at this web page. I found it particularly useful, especiallly as I have been having my own questions regarding the YEC/OEC controversy. I really needed to be reminded that the Bible itself does seem to have strong evidence for young-earth creationism.

Could you exegete Hosea 6:2-3 for me?

As for death in the garden, I will agree that it mentions human death and not animal death, however, I do not believe this is referring to physical death. I believe when God told them they'd die, then he meant it, and they did. from what I read in Romans 5, it is best to be translated as spiritual death in contrast to the life of the Spirit. (Does anybody think that Christ dying brought physical life to all men?)

Also, if man was naturally immortal, I don't think there would be any need to place in the garden the tree of life whereby man could live forever. I don't see the world as created to be perfect but as the way to the perfect world. Why would God create that? Because he knew what was coming. He created knowing already about the rebellion of Satan and the fall of man and did not create this world to last forever in this state.

I hope this helps. Continue your search for truth.