The worst thing we Christians can do is to tie the infallible Word of God to a falsified Scriptural interpretation. I have presented data as to why the young-earth (YE) interpretation of the Scripture simply won’t explain the geologic data. The silence on the part of the YEers is evidence that Answers in Genesis not only has no answers for this data, but also they never show their readers such things, leaving them totally and unfairly unprepared to deal with geology.

I am going to present an alternative interpretation of the Scripture which retains the historicity of the Genesis account while not violating scientific data. It is the only interpretation I have found which allows the Biblical data and the geologic data to fit together. Contrary to what is often said about me by YEers, I am not here to destroy Christianity. I am here to show that there is a way to interpret Scripture that doesn't violate observational data and still retains historically accuracy to the Genesis account. I share with my YE brothers the desire to have a historically accurate creation account.

There will be those who will object (like GrayPilgrim did) that his view of Hebrew doesn't support the views below. I would caution people, as earlier I did GP, that we can't be like the 7 blind men who examined the elephant and each described it differently. There is more to the 'elephant' than just Hebrew, although Hebrew is a part of the mix and not to be ignored. But Hebrew is not the only part of the puzzle to the exclusion of everything else. I would argue that the pictures I have presented should not be ignored either. If GP wishes, as he did before, to claim that this is a new view and in theology new views are in the same class as Heresy, I will ask him to be intellectually honorable and either explain how the data in the seismic pictures I have presented fits within a global flood, or state publicly that he is ignoring that data. Same for Socrates (who is strangely missing and silent; does he have no answers?). Either explain the data or acknowledge that you will ignore the data.

I believe the historicity of the Genesis account of the Flood because the Bible does NOT teach a global flood. The word which is translated as 'earth' in Genesis 6 is 'eretz'. Abraham was told to leave his 'eretz' and go to an 'eretz' which God would show him. If 'eretz' means 'planet earth' then Abram was disobedient to God because he didn't get in a rocket ship and go to Mars. Since we know Abram was obedient, and left his 'eretz', (country/land) we have no problem accepting this translation of 'eretz' as a local area but strangely YEers will argue strongly that 'eretz' in Genesis 6-9 must mean 'planet earth' rather than a localized area of the earth. This is inconsistent.

Some will argue that the phrase 'under the whole heaven' means global. The word 'heaven' has a connotation of the visible vault of the sky. Thus, even this phrase does not require a global flood.

Since the Genesis account does not require a global flood, it means that the earth can be old and still agree with Genesis. The only way to have a young-earth is to have the geological column deposited rapidly and the Global flood is the only way to do that. The evidence I have presented clearly shows that the scientific data supports an old earth. It is good that Genesis can also.

I believe the Genesis account is historically accurate because it doesn't teach that animals were offered a life without death. There has historically been an objection to an old earth and evolution because of the belief that death entered the world through Adam. Evolution and an old earth would require death before the Fall. One verse used to support such a view is Romans 5:12, "Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world {cosmos}, and death through sin and so death spread to all men, because all sinned." (NIV)

Notice that the verse says death spread to all MEN. It does not say that death spread to the animals or plants. Death was man's punishment for sin. Man was the only creature given the possibility of immortality by God. If there was to be no animal death, there would be no reason for animal sexual reproduction and yet God, from the beginning created animal reproduction. A world in which animals were offered unending life would be more efficiently made by having God create 3 billion sexless cattle because no replacements would be needed. The fact that animals reproduced is evidence that replacements were going to be needed for those animals who died. Besides that there is no place in Scripture which clearly says 'animals would not die'.

The second passage often cited in support of animals not dying is the Romans 8:20-23: "For the creation was subjected to futility, not of its own will, but because of Him who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption into the freedom of the glory of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation groans and suffers the pains of childbirth together until now."(NAS)

The creation suffers from man's sin far beyond mere death. Man's sin has upset the ecological balance, we are not being good stewards of the earth (and I don't think we even know how to be). But the above passage does not say that creation was subject to death, but to futility.

I believe in the historicity of the Genesis account because God didn't call the creation perfect. One other argument against death before the Fall is the claim that God called the creation 'good'. From Foundation, Fall and Flood, 1999, I wrote:

"What advocates of this position overlook is that God, when saying that the creation was good, specifically did not use the word 'perfect'. There is a Hebrew word for perfect and God didn't use it of the initial creation. There are two words of interest in this context: tawmiym and towb. Tawmiym means 'perfect'; towb means 'good'. When God called the creation good, He used the word towb. This is the same word Lot used when he offered his very own daughters to the crowd outside of his house. Lot said "do ye to them as is good [towb] in your eyes". What Lot offered was not perfection! What Lot offered was disgusting, but he used the word 'good' [towb]."
"There is a word in the Hebrew language that God could have used to convey the concept that the creation was perfect. This is the word tawmiym. Tawmiym is the word God used of Noah, when He said that Noah was perfect in his generation (Genesis 6:9). It is also the word use to describe the paschal lamb, the lamb without defect. So, if God had really wanted to convey the idea that the world was perfect, it would have been very easy for him to do it. All he had to do was inspire the writer to use tawmiym. The failure to use that word fits very well with Jewish Rabbi Nahmanides' view that God called the world good because a small part of it was evil.26 A perfect world certainly could not contain death; but a good world could. God created the world and called it 'good'. But whose death?"

So, God didn't call the creation 'perfect' why do we insist on calling it what God didn't? There was death before the Fall--death of animals, not death of men.

I believe the Genesis account is historically true because it DOES teach evolution and it does NOT teach that animal life can't evolve. A look at Genesis 1:11 shows that God did not create the plants directly.

Genesis 1:11 "And God said, 'Let the land produce vegetation....'"

The Bible states very clearly that God used a secondary cause to produce the vegetation. God used the land. Just as God used Jonah to witness to the Ninevites, he used the land to create the plants. This implies God used evolution to create the plants. They were not created as young-earth creationists often teach because the best translations of the Hebrew state differently than they teach. God commanded the land to produce the vegetation; He didn't do it directly!

To continue with verse 1:11, "The God said, 'Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds.' And it was so." The second very important point here is that contrary to almost all Christian exegesis this verse does not teach that the plants were commanded to reproduce according to their various kinds. The land was commanded to "produce plants and trees...that bear fruit...according to their various kinds." This is merely saying that there were supposed to be various kinds of fruit which is quite different from saying that fruit could only reproduce fruit after their kind. There is a big difference between the two. Young earth Christians have clearly perverted what Genesis says here. If I send you to the grocery store to "get fruits after their kind", do you think I have told you something about the reproductive potential of fruit trees? Of course I haven't. I have told you to get various kinds of fruits from the store. This is the same thing that Genesis 1:11 is saying. God created various kinds of fruits.

Genesis 1:21 says "God created the great creatures of the sea and every living and moving thing with which the water teems, according to their kinds." Look at the object of this sentence and the modifying phrase, "Creatures... according to their kind." God created creatures according to their kind. They were not commanded to reproduce according to their kind. Once again, a very different situation. Why Christians misread this I really don't know.

Genesis 1:24 "And God said, 'Let the land produce living creatures according to their kind." Once again nothing about reproduction was mentioned. The land produced creatures according to their kind. This is not the same as saying animals reproduced according to their kind. "Animals" is not the subject of the sentence, "land" is. Thus this verse says nothing about reproduction. Assuming that the translators have remained somewhat faithful to the Hebrew, the subject/verb relationships here say nothing about the reproductive abilities of animals.

The three verses which are most often used to say that the Bible rules out evolution, do not even say what young-earth creationists say they do. Their entire view is based upon a gross misunderstanding of what the Bible actually says! Nowhere does the Bible say 'animals reproduce animals after their kind.' If it said that, I would have to give up this interpretation. But it simply doesn't say that.
Thus the Bible is perfectly in accord with the concept of evolution, i.e. that animals do not have to reproduce according to their kind. They are free to reproduce anyway they want.

For those who might need more convincing, consider Genesis 1:21 which says,

"And God created great whales and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, AFTER THEIR KIND, and every winged fowl after his kind:..."

Then compare that to Genesis 6:19-20 which says

"And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee; they shall be male and female. Of fowls AFTER THEIR KIND, and of cattle AFTER THEIR KIND, two of every sort shall come unto thee, to keep them alive."

What is fascinating is that anti-evolutionary Christians say that the phrase "after their kind" in Genesis 1 implies something about the reproductive capacities of animals and yet no one says that the same phrase used in a parallel fashion in Genesis 6 means something about the reproductive capacities. Thus internal Biblical evidence says that the phrase "after their kind" does not mean what the creationists say it does! The creationists have engaged in a tremendous misinterpretation of the Bible.

I believe the Genesis account is historically accurate because it teaches that the universe had a beginning, which is exactly what science has discovered after many attempts to rule it out.

I believe the Genesis account is historical because it doesn't teach an instantaneous and immediate creation of life in Genesis 1. The Bible actually doesn't say that God created things instantly in the order listed in Genesis 1. That is an interpretation of the Scripture. It MIGHT say that. But it doesn't say it unequivocally. Consider the famous verse:

And God said Let there be light and it was so

In Hebrew there is no punctuation. Does that verse mean

And God said: "Let there be light and it was so"

Which means that God said the "and it was so" part? Seems kind of a strange way to speak. Like if I were to tell my party guests, 'Let there be hamburgers and it was so" Why would I say the and it was so? The guests would think me mad.

Or does the verse say:

And God said: "Let there be light." And it was so.?

If this is the correct reading, then someone later wrote the 'and it was so' part. I believe that it was the human writer who added that phrase.

Most importantly, the Bible clearly does NOT say

And God said: "Let there be light" And it was so IMMEDIATELY.

The word 'immediately' simply isn't in the Scripture. The Bible says God created the light, but it doesn't say how, it doesn't even say WHEN in relation to the time that God spoke.

Thus, to claim as you do that the Bible teaches a quick immediately fulfilled creation is simply false. Where is the word quick, or immediate or any of that in the Scripture.

God was free to use the long periods of time to bring about our world. Just as God did not immediately bring the Messiah when he foretold Adam and Eve of him, God did not immediately bring the universe into fulfillment when He spoke of his PLANS for the universe in Genesis 1.

And I believe the Bible is historically true because it teaches a goo-to-you view consistent with evolution. God used earth (otherwise known as goo) to create Adam and then Adam to create Eve (I believe in that origin for the human race), and then used both of them to create YOU. Thus, all this criticism of the goo-to-you theory is an equal criticism of the Bible, which does teach God used goo to create us.

Novelty does get criticized. Fine. Criticize, but remember I will ask for your solutions to the problems I have put out in the posts listed below.

We Christians cannot afford to be like the seven blind men examining the elephant and only look at part of the data. Nor can we tie the infallible Word of God to a falsified interpretation. Why do I say falsified? Because the posts listed below show why YE views can't be true. If they can, then the YEers would be able to explain that data, but so far they are utterly silent.

We also can't be like Samuel Shenton, the president of the Flat Earth Society, who, when presented photos of the spherical earth taken from the Moon said: "It's easy to see how a photograph like that could fool the untrained eye." If Christianity is to take that approach, we will not be taken seriously in a technological world.

Here are the posts listing the issues which YE proponents need to explain or publicly say they are ignoring this data. If they think the above views are wrong, then I will ask which approach they are going to take on these issues. If you have no answers for the problems below, then you are tying the Bible to a false interpretation.

I will add a photo of bird footprints on the laminated sediments of the Green River formation. These are from Soldier Summit, Utah.(photo by Bob Elsinger.) These tiny bird footprints (compare the wedding ring) show that the water depth at this time was probably no more than an inch deep. That is a funny depth for sediments supposedly deposited in a global flood.

List of problems for YE geology.
http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/sho...threadid=11572
http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/sho...threadid=11513
http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/sho...threadid=11631
http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/sho...threadid=11693
http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/sho...threadid=11632
http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/sho...threadid=11683
http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/sho...6&pagenumber=2
http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/sho...threadid=11221
http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/sho...threadid=11339
http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/sho...threadid=11377
http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/sho...threadid=11458
http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/sho...threadid=11460

Ill definately be posting in this thread since I agree with most of what Morton posted. I would like to get into another discussion of Genesis 1 with people of different views. My last one with a few YECs got interrupted by my Reserve duty so it will be good to revisit that topic once again.

I have to study this weekend so Ill be posting some thoughts off of Glenns opening post tonight.

***Off topic: Why does the oatmeal packet say to use 2/3 cup of milk when it is obvious that the oatmeal will be watery if you do? Sheesh. Oatmeal is supposed to be thick people***




Russ

***Off topic: Why does the oatmeal packet say to use 2/3 cup of milk when it is obvious that the oatmeal will be watery if you do? Sheesh. Oatmeal is supposed to be thick people***

Probably for the same reason the tomato soup can says to use one can of water, when everyone knows you use 2/3 can of milk!

Today @ 05:55 PM post located here
Passant:



Probably for the same reason the tomato soup can says to use one can of water, when everyone knows you use 2/3 can of milk!

Good stuff

Thanks grmorton, it's very refreshing to hear someone speaking up for theistic evolution in genesis in this way.

I do not disagree with most of what you said. I do not agree with most of what you said. I simply think that the things you say are valid, even if they are not the views I know and love. And I'm willing to change my view if I think that's what God wants.
I do need to quibble on one small point here. You said:

grmorton:
If this is the correct reading, then someone later wrote the 'and it was so' part. I believe that it was the human writer who added that phrase.

You're probably right. That is probably the case. However, we cannot reject that phrase or even dismiss it as unimportant. Orthodox Christianity agrees that the Bible is a work of theopneusty, that is, it is divinely inspired. In that case, we accept the infallibility of what is considered "The Word of God." I hold the view that when Paul speaks of the Word of God as "God-breathed," he is speaking of the entire Old Testament (Tanakh).

I can and will accept people having some dispute with the things that Paul says in his letters. However, I am very wary of portions of the Old Testament being dismissed.

Nonetheless, I can find no error in your arguments. I'm going to look into this one for myself.

***Off-topic: I don't use milk in my oatmeal. Only hot water.***

kswiss:
I do need to quibble on one small point here. You said:

You're probably right. That is probably the case. However, we cannot reject that phrase or even dismiss it as unimportant. Orthodox Christianity agrees that the Bible is a work of theopneusty, that is, it is divinely inspired. In that case, we accept the infallibility of what is considered "The Word of God." I hold the view that when Paul speaks of the Word of God as "God-breathed," he is speaking of the entire Old Testament (Tanakh).

I don't disagree with what you say. At least I don't think I do. The phrase is incredibly important in figuring out the meaning. By doing what I am doing with the 'and it was so' part of Genesis 1:3, I don't think I am ignoring it. The NIV punctuates the verse as I did. The 'and it was so" part after God finishes speaking.

I can and will accept people having some dispute with the things that Paul says in his letters. However, I am very wary of portions of the Old Testament being dismissed.

Nonetheless, I can find no error in your arguments. I'm going to look into this one for myself.

I don't see how I am dismissing the phrase. Maybe I am a bit dense here.

and thank you for the kind words. This is the sort of rational discussion I was hoping to have when I came here.

***Off topic: I hate oatmeal! It's gooey and made of little flat flakes.*** [/quote]

warcraft3,

***Off topic: Why does the oatmeal packet say to use 2/3 cup of milk when it is obvious that the oatmeal will be watery if you do? Sheesh. Oatmeal is supposed to be thick people***

You sound like a man after my own heart. I use old fashoned rolled oats and mix equal parts water and oats. I guess you could begin with milk. I never understood the point of premixed oatmeal.

Off, the off topic topic: If you would PM me when you get to the creation topic I would like to join in.

beeman

/ot I don't like oatmeal.

/ot you can type /ot on a new line to get the blue coloring

- Fascinating. *rubs chin* Really, no sarcasm intended, this is a very interesting post to me.

- GR, a quick question please. Let's suppose for a second that the bible DID actually contradict geology (science) in a place that was necessary that we either choose science OR Christianity. Which would you choose?

- I bow to your extensive knowledge of geology (it certainly far surpasses my armchair studies), but it would seem to me that Genesis is okay with you specifically because you interpret it such that there was no global flood (only a local one) and that science, in this case a lot of geology, backs that up. Or is that backwards?

- In other words, whenever there is a clear contradiction between science and Christianity, and you must choose one, which do you choose?

AtheistArchon:

- Fascinating. *rubs chin* Really, no sarcasm intended, this is a very interesting post to me.

I appreciate the comment. In order to answer your question below, I must give some background on my view of various approaches to the Bible/Science problem. In spite of what many YECs have said about me and my atheist friends over the years, my goal in my life has been to see if there is a way in which the Bible and Science don't contradict each other. I believe I have found a possible way to do that without violating either Science or the Bible. I do this because (stepping way back from everything and looking at the world from a non-prejudged position) there are lots of religions which claim to be inspired of God. Indeed, the number is legion. So, if some alien anthropologist were to come to earth and try to deterime if any of these religions were true, how would he do it? I would suspect that those religions which violate observational reality would be the first scratched from the lists as possible contenders for the title 'true religion'. Thus religions which believe the earth is on the back of a turtle swimming in a sea of milk or butter or whatever, would go. So would religions which have no observational or archaeological support, like Mormonism. There simply were no chariots in the New World, nor were there horses to draw them. Most young-earthers will use the lack of archaological confirmation to whap the Mormons (who are very nice and moral people), but fail to see the beam in their own eye in the area of geology.

The more liberal among the theology folk seem to fail to realize that by making the Bible merely allegorical they are doing the same thing that was said by Peter Arnet about a Vietnamese village--'In order to save the village we had to destroy it'. I liken this approach to me being in a dark alley. I see you coming towards me with a knife in your hand. I don't know what your intentions are, but in order to avoid the pain I suspect is coming, I pull out my own knife and begin stabbing myself in my own belly. That way, you won't hurt me. This is like hitting yourself in the head.

- GR, a quick question please. Let's suppose for a second that the bible DID actually contradict geology (science) in a place that was necessary that we either choose science OR Christianity. Which would you choose?

Thus, I came to believe over the years that if Scripture were true, there simply had to be a way to make it all fit together. If there weren't, then I would have to ask myself: am I like the Mormons, believing something for which there is aboslutely no supporting evidence? Thus, while the answer is a bit more complicated than a mere choice of science or religion, I firmly believe that if Christianity and its basis can be shown to be hooey with no chance of it being correct, I would be stupid not to leave it.

Socrates mocked my struggles when I nearly became an atheist. What he doesn't understand is that such mocking is very poor strategy and not very compassionate towards those who are having difficulties. It was precisely because of the choice above that I had to struggle with that decision. I became convinced that Scripture doesn't really violate science. What violates science is the young-earth view. But they are winning and my side is losing. Of that there is no doubt. But I am responsible for making the effort to change them not for the results.

And I might put in here a note to Socrates. I wouldn't be here showing my geology if respect had been shown to me. It was reported to me that people were intentionally mis-spelling my last name leaving the 't' out. Such disrespect brought me here to see what was going on. Thus, I decided to show the data the youung-earth leadership doesn't ever show their people. Their silence shows exactly how bad young-earth creationism is at dealing with geology. Sometimes it is tactically better to treat people good. If not for that mis-spelling, I would not have heard of this place.

- I bow to your extensive knowledge of geology (it certainly far surpasses my armchair studies), but it would seem to me that Genesis is okay with you specifically because you interpret it such that there was no global flood (only a local one) and that science, in this case a lot of geology, backs that up. Or is that backwards?

That is not an unfair characterization. I think the whole thing revolves around the word 'eretz' which is now the name of an Israeli newspaper. It means 'The Land'. It doesn't mean, Planet Earth. The Flood affected the land, not Planet Earth. And because most of the laity doesn't know any Hebrew (and I certainly am no expert) I do know that eretz doesn't force one to beleive that the whole earth was flooded. If that is so, then the Bible does allow for an old earth.

And I will throw in that internal Biblical evidence shows that the genealogies upon which the theological support for the young-earth is based, are incomplete.

The Genealogies are most assuredly very incomplete. Assuming that the Flood was in 3000 B.C. David lived about 1000 B.C. In Luke 3 there are 42 names between Jesus and David. This is an average of 23 years per generation. If Abraham lived at 1800 B.C. there are only 13 names between David and Abe giving an average 61 year generation time.Did the average man in 1600 B.C. have his first child at age 61?

There are only 10 names between Abraham and Noah. Since YEC believes that this represents about 1200 years, that is an average generation time of 120 years. Are YECs willing to say here and now that post flood Sumerians lived lives of several hundred years and that their first born were born on average when the old geezers were 120 years of age?

Assuming that people in the 800 years between David and Abraham had the same generation time as between David and Jesus, then the Luke Genealogy represents about 1/3 of the people who should be there. Between Abraham and Noah, 1/5 of the necessary people. When you consider that people married and had children younger these figures for the missing people should be considered conservative.

That people are missing from the genealogies is no big surprise. The question is how many people? Can anyone cite a verse that says no geneological gap shall hold more than 5 people? The issue is not when the people lived or how old they are. The issue is whether or not they were real people. And the YEC reliance on the Biblical genealogies for dating the flood are resting on a bent and broken reed.

And I would add in proof, that Jesus, when he claimed the title 'Son of Man', was giving a genealogy, he was Son of Adam with at least a 4000 year gap in that genealogy.

- In other words, whenever there is a clear contradiction between science and Christianity, and you must choose one, which do you choose?

I would ponder it very long and hard trying to find a way to harmonize it. But in the end, I will go with the evidence. Faith is the assurance of things unseen. Faith is not the assurance of things impossible or disproven. We don't make things true by believing in that which simply can not be.

I spent the first 20 years of my adult life as a young-earth creationist ignoring the geologic data I showed this group. I will no longer deny data. I don't find the path to Truth in doing so.

Since I am not afraid of the data, do you have a contradiction you want to spring on me?

grmorton: The more liberal among the theology folk seem to fail to realize that by making the Bible merely allegorical...

I understand the point you're making, but I disagree that it is true for all liberal Christians who don't believe in inerrancy. In my own case, my disbelief in inerrancy and infallibility are based on the same thing as my belief in evolution: that is, the convergence of a number of lines of evidence.

1) Scientifically, I feel that trying to read modern sience into the scripture strains the text and risks missing important theological truths. In Genesis, for example, the cosmology is all wrong. We can best understand the theological meaning of the text by temporarily suspending our disbelief in that cosmology -- momentarily accepting as hypothetically true for the purposes of understanding the theological arguments.

2) Archaeologically, I see the Bible as a record that is remarkably good in some aspects, but highly suspicious in others.

3) Textually, the Bible is a very complex hodge-podge of theological history, poetry, prophecy, letters, and apocryphal tales. We have a record of how the "church fathers" put together our canon, and a mostly inferred record about the text of the OT was put together. We owe a huge debt of gratitude for what these me and women have left to us, but it is after all a tome assembled by them and not recieved intact.

4) (Most important.) Theologically, I have a major problem assigning inerrancy and infallibility to a created object. To me, God's only Word is Christ, and the only place that word is ever written is on the heart. For example, when the Apostle Paul wrote his letters, he was writing real instructions and comfort to real friends, not laying down holy writ. I think if he had been told his letters would someday be seen as inerrant and infallible, he would have been torn between two extremes: wry laughter, and rending his garments and saying "I'm just a humble servant like you; see that thou do it not!"

But, I understand your position, and I would also like to take this time to thank you for fighting for the idea that someone can be a Christian and a proponent of mainstream science. You've got more fans and friends in cyberspace than you can imagine.

-Neil

NeilUnreal:

I understand the point you're making, but I disagree that it is true for all liberal Christians who don't believe in inerrancy. In my own case, my disbelief in inerrancy and infallibility are based on the same thing as my belief in evolution: that is, the convergence of a number of lines of evidence.
....
[snip]

But, I understand your position, and I would also like to take this time to thank you for fighting for the idea that someone can be a Christian and a proponent of mainstream science. You've got more fans and friends in cyberspace than you can imagine.

-Neil

Thank you for the kind words, they mean a lot to me right now. I won't take up your excellent points in this thread (maybe I should) but suffice it to relate an incident with the guy who probably was my favorite boss of all times, who was a thorough-going atheist. He was one of the funniest individuals I have ever worked for and that trait probably ended up costing him his position. However, we were discussing why I was a christian once and we got into a discussion about various interpretations of the Scripture. I asked him if Genesis were allegorical and taught theological truths, could he accept it. He laughed really hard and said, "Noooo, because it isn't Truuuuue!"

While I have lots and lots of friends who can take the approach you take, and it doesn't bother them at all, I simply can't. I have to acknowledge, I agreed with my boss. If there is nothing real in Genesis, then I for one won't declare it to be true.

By the way, my boss thought that YEC should be taught in public schools along with the geologic data. He felt that the best way to defeat it was to allow it to be seen at the same time as the geologic data. Kinda reminds one of the silence here when I presented my data. The YECs should be careful for what they ask.

And to my former boss, who will never see this: Jeff, Here is to you.

/ot awwww all this christian empathy

I spent the first 20 years of my adult life as a young-earth creationist ignoring the geologic data I showed this group. I will no longer deny data. I don't find the path to Truth in doing so.

Since I am not afraid of the data, do you have a contradiction you want to spring on me?

- Thank you GR, your post was extremely enlightening. And no, no contradiction to spring on you at the moment, only my curiosity.

- You're a breath of fresh air.

Hey Glenn whats up?

I believe the historicity of the Genesis account of the Flood because the Bible does NOT teach a global flood.
The word which is translated as 'earth' in Genesis 6 is 'eretz'. Abraham was told to leave his 'eretz' and go to an 'eretz' which God would show him. If 'eretz' means 'planet earth' then Abram was disobedient to God because he didn't get in a rocket ship and go to Mars. Since we know Abram was obedient, and left his 'eretz', (country/land) we have no problem accepting this translation of 'eretz' as a local area but strangely YEers will argue strongly that 'eretz' in Genesis 6-9 must mean 'planet earth' rather than a localized area of the earth. This is inconsistent.


Some will argue that the phrase 'under the whole heaven' means global. The word 'heaven' has a connotation of the visible vault of the sky. Thus, even this phrase does not require a global flood.

Okay i have a few questions here Glenn.

Scripture seem so imply that God used the flood to wipe out the human population living at that time. So.....................if the flood was local when did it occur and did it indeed wipe out all the human population?

Or do you think it did not wipe out the entire population? Either way how do you connect the physical evidence with the scripture here to keep both consistant and in agreement?

I believe the Genesis account is historically accurate because it doesn't teach that animals were offered a life without death. There has historically been an objection to an old earth and evolution because of the belief that death entered the world through Adam. Evolution and an old earth would require death before the Fall. One verse used to support such a view is Romans 5:12, "Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world {cosmos}, and death through sin and so death spread to all men, because all sinned." (NIV)

Notice that the verse says death spread to all MEN. It does not say that death spread to the animals or plants. Death was man's punishment for sin. Man was the only creature given the possibility of immortality by God. If there was to be no animal death, there would be no reason for animal sexual reproduction and yet God, from the beginning created animal reproduction. A world in which animals were offered unending life would be more efficiently made by having God create 3 billion sexless cattle because no replacements would be needed. The fact that animals reproduced is evidence that replacements were going to be needed for those animals who died. Besides that there is no place in Scripture which clearly says 'animals would not die'.

Agreed. In fact I would argue that the conditions in the garden of Eden imply strongly that only man was given a means of avoiding physical death-----the tree of life.

The second passage often cited in support of animals not dying is the Romans 8:20-23: "For the creation was subjected to futility, not of its own will, but because of Him who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption into the freedom of the glory of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation groans and suffers the pains of childbirth together until now."NAS)

The creation suffers from man's sin far beyond mere death. Man's sin has upset the ecological balance, we are not being good stewards of the earth (and I don't think we even know how to be). But the above passage does not say that creation was subject to death, but to futility.

I also agree on this point 100%.

I believe in the historicity of the Genesis account because God didn't call the creation perfect. One other argument against death before the Fall is the claim that God called the creation 'good'. From Foundation, Fall and Flood, 1999, I wrote:

"What advocates of this position overlook is that God, when saying that the creation was good, specifically did not use the word 'perfect'. There is a Hebrew word for perfect and God didn't use it of the initial creation. There are two words of interest in this context: tawmiym and towb. Tawmiym means 'perfect'; towb means 'good'. When God called the creation good, He used the word towb. This is the same word Lot used when he offered his very own daughters to the crowd outside of his house. Lot said "do ye to them as is good [towb] in your eyes". What Lot offered was not perfection! What Lot offered was disgusting, but he used the word 'good' [towb]."
"There is a word in the Hebrew language that God could have used to convey the concept that the creation was perfect. This is the word tawmiym. Tawmiym is the word God used of Noah, when He said that Noah was perfect in his generation (Genesis 6:9). It is also the word use to describe the paschal lamb, the lamb without defect. So, if God had really wanted to convey the idea that the world was perfect, it would have been very easy for him to do it. All he had to do was inspire the writer to use tawmiym. The failure to use that word fits very well with Jewish Rabbi Nahmanides' view that God called the world good because a small part of it was evil.26 A perfect world certainly could not contain death; but a good world could. God created the world and called it 'good'. But whose death?"

So, God didn't call the creation 'perfect' why do we insist on calling it what God didn't? There was death before the Fall--death of animals, not death of men.

I agree here also.

I believe the Genesis account is historically true because it DOES teach evolution and it does NOT teach that animal life can't evolve. A look at Genesis 1:11 shows that God did not create the plants directly.

Genesis 1:11 "And God said, 'Let the land produce vegetation....'"

The Bible states very clearly that God used a secondary cause to produce the vegetation. God used the land. Just as God used Jonah to witness to the Ninevites, he used the land to create the plants. This implies God used evolution to create the plants. They were not created as young-earth creationists often teach because the best translations of the Hebrew state differently than they teach. God commanded the land to produce the vegetation; He didn't do it directly!

To continue with verse 1:11, "The God said, 'Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds.' And it was so." The second very important point here is that contrary to almost all Christian exegesis this verse does not teach that the plants were commanded to reproduce according to their various kinds. The land was commanded to "produce plants and trees...that bear fruit...according to their various kinds." This is merely saying that there were supposed to be various kinds of fruit which is quite different from saying that fruit could only reproduce fruit after their kind. There is a big difference between the two. Young earth Christians have clearly perverted what Genesis says here. If I send you to the grocery store to "get fruits after their kind", do you think I have told you something about the reproductive potential of fruit trees? Of course I haven't. I have told you to get various kinds of fruits from the store. This is the same thing that Genesis 1:11 is saying. God created various kinds of fruits.

Genesis 1:21 says "God created the great creatures of the sea and every living and moving thing with which the water teems, according to their kinds." Look at the object of this sentence and the modifying phrase, "Creatures... according to their kind." God created creatures according to their kind. They were not commanded to reproduce according to their kind. Once again, a very different situation. Why Christians misread this I really don't know.

Genesis 1:24 "And God said, 'Let the land produce living creatures according to their kind." Once again nothing about reproduction was mentioned. The land produced creatures according to their kind. This is not the same as saying animals reproduced according to their kind. "Animals" is not the subject of the sentence, "land" is. Thus this verse says nothing about reproduction. Assuming that the translators have remained somewhat faithful to the Hebrew, the subject/verb relationships here say nothing about the reproductive abilities of animals.

The three verses which are most often used to say that the Bible rules out evolution, do not even say what young-earth creationists say they do. Their entire view is based upon a gross misunderstanding of what the Bible actually says! Nowhere does the Bible say 'animals reproduce animals after their kind.' If it said that, I would have to give up this interpretation. But it simply doesn't say that.
Thus the Bible is perfectly in accord with the concept of evolution, i.e. that animals do not have to reproduce according to their kind. They are free to reproduce anyway they want.

There are two very powerful points here.

One being the rather strange wording in Genesis for how God created things. The phrase "let the land produce" (and similar statements) IS rather a strange way to describe direct supernatural creation. I can not think of a case in scripture where such language was used to describe a direct, immediate miracle. This leads me to suspect that maybe something strange and indirect is happening here. I thought this long before I ever heard of Glenn Morton, so my idea is coming from the TEXT ITSELF not from someone elses interpretation of Genesis.

The second point which I think is also FUNDAMENTAL is the fact that "after their kind" does not seem to be referring to reproduction. I admit that I did not notice this one until I read some of Glenns material, but after reading his argument I am convinced he is correct here. There is no clear indication that the phrase refers to reproduction.......indeed the wording SEEMS TO INDICATE OTHERWISE.

For those who might need more convincing, consider Genesis 1:21 which says,

"And God created great whales and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, AFTER THEIR KIND, and every winged fowl after his kind:..."

Then compare that to Genesis 6:19-20 which says

"And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee; they shall be male and female. Of fowls AFTER THEIR KIND, and of cattle AFTER THEIR KIND, two of every sort shall come unto thee, to keep them alive."

What is fascinating is that anti-evolutionary Christians say that the phrase "after their kind" in Genesis 1 implies something about the reproductive capacities of animals and yet no one says that the same phrase used in a parallel fashion in Genesis 6 means something about the reproductive capacities. Thus internal Biblical evidence says that the phrase "after their kind" does not mean what the creationists say it does! The creationists have engaged in a tremendous misinterpretation of the Bible.

This an excellent point. Always good to compare scripture with scripture to prove a point and I think the above illustration shows the validity of the argument. I believe that it his argument here is more than reasonable and seems to line up with what I find in scripture.

I believe the Genesis account is historically accurate because it teaches that the universe had a beginning, which is exactly what science has discovered after many attempts to rule it out.

This is an argument I usually stay away from since before the dimensions of time and space existed (I use the word "existed" loosely here) the word "beginning" doesnt seem to have much meaning.


Ill get to the second half later on tonight or tomorrow, but for the most part I agree with alot of what Glenn says. Although I think the framework view makes a stronger case concerning the nature of the "days" in Genesis, I think some of Glenns ideas are worth looking into.


Russ