Young earth, no gap interpretation biblically valid

In "Outline of proposed theories for Genesis 1:1-2", we looked at the five major interpretations of Genesis 1:1,2. Seventh-day Adventists have historically understood these verses as the Young Earth-No Gap position. The Seventh-Day Adventist Encyclopedia sums this position up by stating: “on the first day of the Creation week . . . He [God] brought into existence the matter that composed the earth and that He proceeded immediately with the work of the six days.”[1] Keeping this in mind, we will see if the Young-earth, No Gap interpretation is a valid one.

I. "In the beginning"

The first question to answer is in the beginning of what? Is the word “beginning” in reference to a specific time or event that is knowable in Scripture? Is “beginning” an intangible time eons ago? Or does it refer to the “absolute beginning” of the world, or universe?

Lexical Considerations

“In the beginning" (Hebrew- re’sheet[2]) has four basic meanings. They are:

1. Chief[3] (chief place,[4] chief leader[5]), Leader[6] (President,[7] Prince,[8] Ruler[9]),
2. Principle[10] (of anything[11]),  Best[12] (Best of its kind[13]),
3. Head[14] (of man or beast[15]), Top[16] (of mountain,[17] peak[18] highest place,[19] summit[20]),
4. First[21] (at first,[22] first place,[23]  first part[24]), Beginning[25] (primary motion from rest[26]), commence[27]

The definition that fits the context the best is number four. This meaning defines the initiation of a process or first part of something; whereas the first three describe qualities or positions of something, someone, etc. Genesis 1:1 could have been written “at the first God created,” “at the start God created,” or “at the commencement God created . . .," etc. Re’sheet does not have the meaning of “in time(s) past,” “in ancient time,” “in past ages,” etc. If Moses had wanted to use a Hebrew word that refers to a time before creation week, he had the choice of using: 1 ) Ri’shown--former, formerly, before, aforetime, old time, foremost; 2 ) Gohlahm--ancient time, anciently, of old; 3 ) Shilshowm--idiom for 'in times past', times past, past, beforetime. Because Moses did not use any of these words, and because re’sheet doesn’t carry the lexical meaning of “ages past,” “in times past,” etc., we can know Moses was trying to convey a specific time that is knowable to us.  A point of interest in this discussion is the Good News Translation of Gen. 1:1-,“In the beginning, when God created the universe.”  In our next article[28] we will see that “heaven” and “earth” do not refer to the creation of the universe,[29] “time,” etc.[30] In summary, “beginning” (re’sheet) has a lexical meaning of a point in time or first part of something that is knowable. It does not denote a point in time followed by a gap or space (primary motion from rest implies the motion continues without stopping). It also doesn’t designate between an “absolute beginning”[31] (whatever this means) and “beginning.”

Comparative ConsiderationsRe’sheet is used 51 times in the Old Testament. A comparative word study is in harmony with the definitions given above. In Scripture, re’sheet defines the starting point of a process, time period or first part of something. For example:

1. Beginning or First part of a kingdom, reign, year, nations[32],
2. Beginning or First part of yearly produce, livestock, offerings. . (dough, corn, sheep, offerings, wine[33]),
3. Beginning or First part of moral or physical attributes (wisdom, sin, strife,[34] strength, might[35]),
4. Beginning or First part of a thing, man, etc.[36] (in contrast to “the end”- Is. 46:10).

The Old Testament reveals that re’sheet is not used as a nebulous or unknowable word. Rather, it delineates a specific point of time that can be measured or understood from the context or other passages. The context of Genesis one is the “filling“ and “forming” of the earth and heavens. Therefore, “beginning” is directly related to the subsequent actions of God in Genesis one and two.

Grammatical Considerations Grammatically, the opening word bere’sheeth (a form of re‘sheet) is in the “absolute state”[37]and the opening phrase is an independent clause.[38] (For detailed discussion of the grammatical, syntactical and stylistic considerations of Genesis 1:1,2, please see Gerhard Hasel's “Recent Translations of Genesis 1:1,” The Bible Translator 22, 1971[39]). Verse one is not dependent on verse two, but rather two (and three) are dependent on verse one. Some modern translations have misdiagnosed this, and begin with the phrase “when in the beginning” (NJV, NEB, NAB, CEB, NRSV). These versions imply that the “beginning” is something that happened long before verse two. Dr. Hasel has shown that bere’sheeth should be translated “In the beginning” and that it “has the support of word studies, grammar, Masoretic pointing and accentuation.”[40] If Moses wanted to say the “heavens and earth” began ages ago (Active-Gap Theory- occurring after verse 1), he would have used the construct state and the first phrase would have been a “Dependent clause” (“when in the beginning . . .”). As we will note in the Syntactical Considerations, verses two and three also begin with the linking word “and” (“AND the earth was without form . . . AND God said, ‘Let there . . .’”). This unifies the first three verses together in time- which rules out the Passive-Gap Theory (which proponents say happened after verse 2).

Contextual Considerations

“Heavens and the earth were finished”-

Genesis 2:1 says, “thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.”

When the Hebrew word “finished” (kalah) is used in the O.T., it references a process (building, construction, numbering, prophecy, etc.[41]) that continues uninterrupted from its commencement. In other words, the word “finished” stands in opposition to “beginning” like book ends of a process that once started, progresses until finished with no gaps or lulls. In reality, this is the summary statement of the creation account, not Genesis 1:1.

“Generations of the heavens and the earth”

Genesis 2:4 says- “these are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created....” The Hebrew word for “generation” (toh-l’dohth) has the meaning of: a genealogy,[42] family history or lineage,[43] family connected by birth,[44] successive generations, etc.[45] The Bible uses this word with family lineages, in which the line goes back, unbroken until the beginning. Examples of this are Jesus' lineage in Luke 3, and the generations of Adam in Genesis 5.[46] Dr. Richard Davidson comments, “The chronogenealogies of Gen 5 and 11 have indicators that they are be taken as complete genealogies without gap[s] . . . tight interlocking features make it virtually impossible to argue that there are significant generational gaps.”[47] In a similar way, the chronogenealogy of Genesis 1 contains interlocking features (“evening and morning . . . first day“) that vitiate gaps or spaces. In the Old Testament, the first generation of a genealogy is followed directly and contiguously with the second. To be consistent, the first generation (of “heaven and earth”) would be followed consecutively and contiguously with the events and days of creation. Therefore, once the heaven and earth are created (Gen. 1:1), their “family line” would continue with the next “generation” following directly.

Syntactical Considerations

The syntax of Genesis 1:2 contains “three noun clauses, which all describe the state of existing contemporaneously with the action expressed in Genesis 1:1. In other words, verse two describes the state of the earth during the time when the activity of verse one was ended and that of verse three began.” (emphasis mine)[48] In Hebrew, verse two begins with the word “and” (Hb.- waw), and it is in the copulative form.[49] According to Dr. Hasel, when “the noun [is] in an emphatic position followed by the verb [it] leads to a meaning that may be rendered[50]- 'And (as far as) the earth (is concerned it) was . . .'"[51] Hebrew scholar D. Kidner concurs that verse two is connected to one, “By all normal usage the [second] verse is an expansion of the statement just made, and its own two halves are concurrent.”[52] What this means is that there is no gap (of time) between verse one and two; verse two is simply a description of the earth created in verse one. Verse three also begins with the word “and” (waw- copulative), so that “just as verse 2 is connected to verse 1, so also there is a link between verses 2 and 3.”[53] Dr. Hasel concludes his remarks on the syntax by stating- “The author of the first verse of the Bible expresses the idea that ‘in the beginning’ . . . God created ‘heaven and earth‘. . .  this created world was in a condition described in verse 2. Next God transformed this condition into the one presently existing.” (emphasis mine)[54] This is confirmed by another exegete- “Genesis 1:3 begins with another conjunction, so we know it is part of the continuing action. . .[55]

Stylistic Considerations

Stylistically, Genesis 1 is characterized by the consistent use of short sentences: “And God saw that . . . was good” (1;4,10,12,18,25,31);’ and there was evening and there was morning, . . . Day one” (1:5,8,13,19,23,31). The implication of this stylistic uniqueness militates against a syntactical construction of verses 1-3 that makes these verses into a long and complicated sentence structure.”[56] Verse one contains a single short phrase and “verse 2 consists of three noun clauses.”[57] Therefore, the brevity of the phrases in verses one and two are consistent with the rest of the chapter, belonging to a “series of characteristically short sentences.”[58] While verses one and two may not begin with the distinctive “and God saw,” or “and God said,” etc., they still have the same short cadence.

One argument against Genesis 1:1,2 being included in the creation week, is the formula- “And God said . . . Day one,” “And God said . . . Day two,” etc. The contention is that all the days begin with “And God said,” and conclude with “day one,” “day two,” etc., therefore verses 1,2 are not “within that framework”. There are several reasons why Genesis 1:1,2 don’t fall within this pattern, and why we shouldn’t insist on this “formula” as applying:

1. Verse 1 gives us a reference point (“beginning“)- so that we know WHEN God speaks (v. 3). If verse one began- “And God said. . .”- we would not know at what point in time He began His work.
2. Verse 3 begins with “and”- which links verse 3 with verse 2. Verse 1 doesn’t start with “and,” since it is not continuing an activity- it is initiating one.
3. The “planting of a garden” (2:8), the creation of a “mist” to water the ground (2:6), etc.- do not fall within the “formula” of chapter one- since they are within the complementary chapter 2.
4. Ps. 33:6 says the “heavens” were made by the “word of the Lord.” As for the earth- they were made “by the word of God” (Heb. 11:3). These verses show us that God spoke the “heavens and the earth” into existence. Therefore, the alleged “formula”-  “God said. . .” was still followed, even if we don’t know this from Genesis 1. (more on this in the next article)
5. God “covered the earth with the deep” (Ps. 104:6) and “strengthened the fountains of the deep” (Pr. 8:28). The “deep” (including the “waters”) was created in a way not expressed in Genesis 1.
6. The following were not specified within the “pattern” of “and God said. . . Day one”- yet were created during the first week: 1) The “springs of the sea” (Job 38:16), 2) commanding “the morning” (Job 38:12), 3) Causing “the dayspring” (Job 38:12), 4) “forming the mountains” (Amos 4:13), 5) “creating the wind” (Amos 4:13[59]), 6) “builds spheres in the heaven. . . arch of the earth” (Amos 9:6, A.R.V.[60]), 7) calling for “the waters of the sea” (Amos 9:6), 8) forming “the light, and darkness” (Is. 45:7), etc. These and other passages show that we should not limit our understanding of creation to the alleged “pattern” of Genesis one- “and God said. . . Day one, etc.”.

In light of the lexical, grammatical, syntactical, contextual, comparative and stylistic information, the evidence points to the creation of “heaven and earth” at the “beginning” of the first day of the creation week. The above findings confute the idea that Genesis 1:1 refers to an “absolute beginning,” “ancient beginning,” “primordial beginning,” etc. The focus of Genesis one and two is the creation week, therefore “beginning” (re’sheet) is directly linked (in space and time) and related to the information that follows.

II. “Created”

Lexical Considerations The word “created” (bara) in Genesis 1:1 has two primary meanings:  1 ) To create,[61] bring into existence,[62] bring forth,[63] cause to exist (that which had no existence),[64] produce into being,[65]  and 2 ) to form,[66] to build or fashion,[67] to shape,[68] to engrave, cut out,[69] etc. The meaning that is in harmony with the context is number one, since the “earth was without form and void” (verse 2). The “shaping,” “building” and “forming” would take place on days two through six. It was the creative act of “causing to exist” that which had not previously existed, that Genesis 1:1 is referring to--creatio ex nihilo.

“Created” (bara) and “made” (asah) The fourth commandment has been used to support God creating the “heavens and the earth” on the first day of creation. It reads, “for in six days the Lord made the heaven and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them” (Ex. 20:11). The passage seems to affirm that God “made” the heaven and the earth DURING the “six days” of creation. Critics of this understanding assert that since the word “made” (asah) is different that the word “created” (bara) in Genesis 1:1[70]they cannot be conflated. However, this fails to take into consideration the nuanced differences and similarities between these two words. In Gen. 2:3, “God created (bara) AND made (asah)” the heavens and the earth. Therefore, bara (“created”) and asah (“made”) are used in harmony with each other.

Like bara, asah has two general meanings: 1 ) To make out of pre-existent matter,[71] to form- fashion,[72] modeled,[73] fabricated,[74] etc.; and 2 ) A General word, to perform an act--doing,[75] acting,[76] working,[77] do mightily,[78] bring about,[79] etc. Some lexicographers state it this way, “asah” is a “very general word- like ‘do’ and ‘make’ in English.”[80]  In the fourth commandment, God is referring to ALL His created works involving the earth and heavens. Therefore, He uses a word that applies to His activity in general. God “molded” and “formed” man, and animals (Gen. 2:7,19) out of pre-existing material, but He “created” other things (Light, trees, etc.) by His word. Therefore, “asah” does not stand in tension to “Bara.“ Rather, was the best general word God could have used to include those things created from nothing, AND those from pre-existing material (man and animals).

Conclusion

From our brief survey, we have seen that the evidence points towards the creation of the “heaven and the earth” on the first day of creation. At this point we can summarize the following: 1 ) “Beginning” (re’sheet) is a knowable point of time at the first day of creation, 2 ) God created the world out of nothing (creatio ex nihilo) in the recent past on the first day of creation, 3 ) this understanding is in harmony with the fourth commandment which includes “heaven, earth, sea and all that is in them,” 4 ) the popular geologic dating results are not in harmony with the Biblical record, so they must be revised to correlate with Scripture. In the next article, we will look at the three elements that God created in the “beginning” of the first day (verse 2)- “heaven,” “earth” and “water” (including “the deep”). In the final article we look at why any of this is relevant.

[1]    “Creation” in the Seventh-day Adventist Encyclopedia, ed. Don F. Neufield, 35

[2]  The specific Hebrew form of resheet used in Genesis 1:1 is B’resheet

[3]   Jastrow, Hebrew-English Dictionary, Samuel Pike, Hebrew Lexicon, William Osborn, English-Hebrew Lexicon, W.H. Barker, Hebrew Lexicon, Brown-Driver-Briggs, Hebrew-English Lexicon

[4]   Samuel Pike, Hebrew Lexicon

[5]   Josiah Willard Gibbs, Hebrew-English Lexicon

[6]   Jastrow, Hebrew-English Dictionary, William Osborn, English-Hebrew Lexicon, William Duncan, English-Hebrew Lex.

[7]   Jastrow, Hebrew-English Dictionary

[8]   Mitchell & Davies Hebrew/Chaldean Lexicon

[9]   William Roy, Hebrew-English Dictionary

[10]   Samuel Pike, Hebrew Lexicon, William Roy, Hebrew-English Dictionary, Jastrow, Hebrew-English Dictionary, Brown-Driver-Briggs, Hebrew-English Lexicon, Thomas R. Brown, Lexicon, W.H. Barker, Hebrew Lexicon

[11]   William Osborn, English-Hebrew Lexicon

[12]   Thomas R. Brown, Lexicon

[13]   Josiah Willard Gibbs, Hebrew-English Lexicon

[14]   Jastrow, Hebrew-English Dictionary, William Roy, Hebrew-English Dictionary, Samuel Pike, Hebrew Lexicon, William Osborn, English-Hebrew Lexicon, Josiah Willard Gibbs

[15]   W.H. Barker, Hebrew Lexicon, Mitchell & Davies Hebrew/Chaldean Lexicon

[16]   Samuel Pike, Hebrew Lexicon, W.H. Barker, Hebrew Lexicon

[17]   William Roy, Hebrew-English Dictionary, William Osborn, English-Hebrew Lexicon

[18]   William Roy, Hebrew-English Dictionary

[19]   Josiah Willard Gibbs, Hebrew-English Lexicon

[20]   Mitchell & Davies Hebrew/Chaldean Lexicon

[21]   Samuel Pike, Hebrew Lexicon, William Osborn, English-Hebrew Lexicon, W.H. Barker, Hebrew Lexicon, Thomas R. Brown,  Lexicon, Brown-Driver-Briggs, Hebrew-English Lexicon

[22]   Samuel Pike, Hebrew Lexicon, W.H. Barker, Hebrew Lexicon

[23]   John Parkhurst, Hebrew Lexicon

[24]   John Parkhurst, Hebrew Lexicon

[25]   Jastrow, Hebrew-English Dictionary, Samuel Pike, Hebrew Lexicon, Josiah Willard Gibbs, Hebrew-English Lexicon, Brown-Driver-Briggs, Hebrew-English Lexicon, Mitchell & Davies Hebrew/Chaldean Lexicon, John Parkhurst, Hebrew Lexicon

[26]   Thomas R. Brown, Lexicon

[27]   William Osborn, English-Hebrew Lexicon

[28] “in the beginning” does not refer to the “beginning of the universe,” the “beginning of time,” etc.  A thorough refutation of this idea can be found in Ferdinand Regalado’s article- “The Creation account in Genesis 1: Our world only or the Universe?” (Journal of the Adventist Theological Society, 13/2, Autumn 2002) http://www.atsjats.org/publication_file.php?pub_id=54&journal=1&type=pdf

[29] See also - http://www.truthnet.org/Genesis/Genesis-Chapter1/Genesis-Chapter-1-Creation-of-Universe.htm

[30] The Institute for Creation Research has written- “No other cosmogony, whether in ancient paganism or modern naturalism, even mentions the absolute origin of the universe. . . the concept of the special creation of the universe of space and time itself is found nowhere in all religion or philosophy, ancient or modern, except here in Genesis 1:1. . . this  verse records the creation of space (“the heaven”), of time (“in the beginning”), and of matter (“the earth”) . . .”

http://www.icr.org/bible/Genesis/1/1-3/

[31]http://dialogue.adventist.org/articles/06_3_davidson_e.htm

[32]  Gen. 10:10; Jer. 26:1; 27:1; 28:1; 49:34; Deu. 11:12; Nu. 24:20

[33]  Nu. 15:20, 21; Neh. 10:37; Deu. 18:4; 1 Sam. 2:29; 2 Ch. 31:5

[34]  Pr. 1:7; Mic. 1:13; Pr. 17:14

[35]  Gen. 49:3; Deut. 21:17; Ps. 111:10; 78:51; 105:36, Jer. 49:35

[36]  Job 8:7; Job 42:12; Ecc. 7:8; Prov. 8:22

[37]https://www.ministrymagazine.org/archive/1976/January/the-meaning-of-genesis-1:1

[38]https://www.ministrymagazine.org/archive/1976/January/the-meaning-of-genesis-1:1

[39]https://www.ministrymagazine.org/archive/1976/January/the-meaning-of-genesis-1:1

[40]   Hasel, Ministry, Op. Cit.

Dr. Hasel notes: “Moses could not have used any other construction to denote the first word as in the absolute state, but he  could have opted for a different construction to indicate the construct state. . . [the] Vulgate, Aquila, Theodotion, Symmachus, Targum Onkelos- All place the first word of the Bible in the absolute state- - and an independent main clause. . .  [furthermore] The Masoretes (who supplied the Hebrew text with vowels and accents, Placed the first word in Genesis with a disjunctive accent tiphha- construing it as an absolute.

[41]  Ex. 39:32- Tent of the Congregation                                                         2 Chr. 4:11- Huram finished the work that he was to

Ex. 40:33- Moses finished the work                                         2 Chron. 7:11- Solomon finished the house of the Lord

1 Ki. 6:9- So he built the house and finished it                                   Dan. 12:7- all these things shall be finished

1 Ki. 7:22- so was the work of the pillars finished

[42]   William Wallace Duncan, Hebrew and English Lexicon

[43]   Edward Mitchell and Benjamin Davies, Complete Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon, Josiah Gibbs, Hebrew-English Lexicon, Jastrow, Hebrew-Aramaic-English Dictionary

[44]   Edward Mitchell and Benjamin Davies, Complete Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon

[45]   Brown-Driver-Briggs, Hebrew and English Lexicon

[46]  Other genealogies would also include: Gen. 6:9- the generations of Noah, Gen. 10:1- the generations of the sons of Noah, Gen. 11:10- the generations of Shem, Gen. 11:27- the generations of Terah, Gen. 25:19- the generations of Isaac, Ex. 6:19- Levi, according to their generations, Nu. 3:1- the generations of Aaron, Ru. 4:18- the generations of Pharez, etc.

[47]http://www.andrews.edu/~davidson/Publications/Creation/Biblical%20Account.pdf

[48]   Hasel, Ministry, Op. Cit.

[49] Hasel, “Recent Translations of Genesis 1:1,” The Bible Translator 22, 1971

[50]   Hasel, Ministry, Bible Translator, Op. Cit.

[51]  N.H. Ridderbos, “Genesis 1:1-2,” (Oudtestamentische Studien 12, 1958), 231

[52]   D. Kidner, Genesis, p. 44

[53]   Hasel, Ministry, Op. Cit.

[54]   Hasel, Bible Translator, Op. Cit.

[55] Rich Deem, http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/genesis1.html

   “And God said, 'Let there be light,' and there was light‘. . . every thought is begun with a conjunction, so we know that all        of this is part of the continuing action.”

[56]   Hasel, Ministry, Op.Cit.

[57]   Hasel, Ministry, Op. Cit.

[58]   Hasel, Bible Translator, Op. Cit.

[59] Quoted in E.G. White, Ministry of Healing, p. 414

[60] Quoted in E.G. White, Ministry of Healing, p. 414

[61]  John Parkhurst, Hebrew-English Lexicon; William Roy, Ibid, Mitchell & Davies, Ibid; Brown-Driver-Briggs, Ibid

[62]  Thomas Brown, Hebrew Lexicon

[63]  William Roy, Hebrew-English Dictionary

[64]  William Roy, Hebrew-English Dictionary

[65]  John Parkhurst, Hebrew-English Lexicon

[66]   John Parkhurst, Ibid; William Osborn, Ibid; Josiah Gibbs, Ibid; Brown-Driver-Briggs, Ibid; Samuel Pike, Hebrew Lexicon

[67]  William Roy, Ibid; Mitchell & Davies, Ibid; William Duncan, Ibid; Brown-Driver-Briggs, Ibid

[68]  Brown-Driver-Briggs, Hebrew-English Lexicon; Jastrow, Hebrew-Aramaic-English Dictionary

[69]  Josiah Gibbs, Hebrew-English Lexicon; William Duncan, Hebrew-English Lexicon; William Duncan, Ibid;  Jastrow, Ibid

[70]http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/genesis_one_age_earth.html

[71]   John Parkhurst, Hebrew-English Lexicon

[72]   John Parkhurst, Hebrew-English Lexicon; W.H. Barker, Hebrew Lexicon

[73]   William Roy, Hebrew-English Critical Dictionary; W.H. Barker, Hebrew Lexicon

[74]   William Osborn, Hebrew-English Lexicon

[75]   Jastrow, Hebrew-Aramaic-English Dictionary

[76]   W.H. Barker, Hebrew Lexicon; John Parkhurst, Hebrew-English Lexicon

[77]   William Roy, Hebrew-English Critical Dictionary; John Parkhurst, Hebrew-English Lexicon; Josiah Gibbs, Lexicon

[78]   Brown- Driver- Briggs, Hebrew-English Lexicon

[79]   Brown- Driver- Briggs, Hebrew-English Lexicon

[80]   John Parkhurst, Hebrew-English Lexicon

I reject Stephen Hawking's God too

Some people certainly seem to have more faith than others. The famed British theoretical physicist and cosmologist Stephen Hawking caused a stir once again this week as he made a presentation at the California Institute of Technology.

Individuals anxious to hear him began lining up 12 hours before his lecture was scheduled to begin, the line growing to more than a quarter-mile long. A second auditorium was arranged with a video feed, but still there was not enough room for the throngs that wanted entrance. One man was observed to be offering $1,000 for a ticket, to no avail. A huge jumbotron was set up outside on the lawn, where an estimated 1,000 listeners clambered for a view.

And what did Hawking have to say? The main point of the presentation seemed to be his continued insistence that the universe came into existence without the help of God. He joked about God’s supposed power and omnipresence. He ridiculed contemporary religion’s approach to science, citing Pope John Paul II’s insistence that creation was a holy event, and beyond the scope of observational science. “I was glad not to be thrown into an inquisition,” Hawking joked.

For someone who doesn’t believe in the existence of God, Hawking certainly does bring him into the discussion surprisingly often. As I have read Hawking’s materials, and noted his frequent pejorative references to the idea of God, I’ve been struck with how his conception of God differs so drastically from mine.

To be absolutely frank, I would have to admit that the God that he has rejected, I reject as well. I think if I were to ask him to describe the God that he doesn’t believe in, he would be surprised to learn that a Christian pastor doesn’t believe in that God either. Even in Tuesday’s presentation he poked fun at the idea of an eternally present God with the quip, “What was God doing before the divine creation? Was he preparing hell for people who asked such questions?”

Unfortunately for Hawkins and many others, their perceptions of God are based upon the imperfect representations that we as Christians have made of him. We claim to be disciples of Jesus, but too often our own spirit and attitudes and ways of treating others are nothing like his.

Through the centuries, traditions and doctrines, sometimes borrowed from pagan philosophies and superstitious deities, have supplanted the Bible’s clear revelation of the character of God, until thinking men and women are led to reject these caricatures, thinking they are rejecting God. But back to Hawking’s theoretical question: Was God whiling away his pre-creation eternity scheming the demise of his detractors or doubters?

Quite to the contrary. If Hawking would only learn about God from the Bible, the written word of God, and from the life of Jesus, the incarnate Word sent to reveal God to mankind, he would not be asking such foolish questions. In fact, the Bible does not present the picture of a God who in the beginning was selfishly scheming to punish those who might doubt or even reject his existence. The God revealed in the Bible foresaw the plight of humanity fallen in sin and proactively planned to save mankind even at a tremendous cost to himself. Rather than being the egocentric God that Hawking’s question presumes, defensive of himself and punitive towards those who don’t appreciate him, the Bible reveals instead a God who unselfishly loved, and unselfishly gave. And who planned to do this if necessary even before the world was created.

“Knowing that you were not redeemed with corruptible things, like silver or gold, from your aimless conduct received by tradition from your fathers, but with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish or spot. He indeed was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you.” (1 Peter 1:18-20)

Referring to Jesus, John the revelator calls him the “Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.” (Revelation 13:8) Not that Jesus actually died before the world was founded, but the decision was made in the heart of God that even should man rebel, God would save mankind at any cost to himself. Rather than scheming the demise of Stephen Hawking (and you and me, for all have sinned and gone contrary to the ways of unselfish love), God was selflessly planning to save mankind at any cost to himself, even to the point of giving his only son to perish in our place (John 3:16).

Does it take faith to believe in such a God? Certainly. But it’s not faith without evidence. There are good reasons to consider the Bible trustworthy, dependable. There is striking evidence in favor of intelligent design. And most of all, the evidence of divine power to work changes in my own heart and in the lives of others strengthens belief in my God and his word. I believe that you and I are here today because a loving God intentionally and intelligently created us (John 1:1-3) and still sustains us (Colossians 1:16, 17).

But it also takes faith to believe in other theories of origins. Hawking’s preferred view of why we are here, as he explained Tuesday evening, involves what’s known as M-theory. It posits that the big bang not only created the universe — it created multiple universes, increasing the odds of a universe being capable of sustaining life. The problem is that the likelihood of an unexplainable event creating multiple universes seems less likely than that of it creating only one. This theory is an admission of the improbability of life coming about on its own through naturalistic means, and in order to increase those odds it assumes even more faith in the accomplishments of the big bang. It’s simply a transference of improbability to an event they make no claim to understand anyway. It’s like they’ve been confronted with the fact that an explosion in a print shop is not likely to form a fully accurate dictionary, and responded with the theory that the explosion must have created many, many dictionaries, increasing the odds of one entry in one of them being accurate.

Some people certainly seem to have more faith than others.

My struggles as a creationist at La Sierra University

Members of the Seventh-day Adventist Church leadership have encouraged me that laymen in the church, especially those alumni with first-hand experience like me, should be actively involved in bringing about change to the crisis at La Sierra University. It is my hope that the following information will enlighten, awaken, and help church leaders and laymen alike play their part in bringing about this much needed change. I will first convey my personal experience as a student at La Sierra University. The following information and corresponding exhibits constitute a factual account of my experience as a student of La Sierra University under the administration of current LSU President Randal Wisbey.

While a student at La Sierra University, my academic freedom and civil rights were repeatedly violated because I exposed the truth about what was being taught in LSU classrooms. I was subjected to multiple unjust disciplinary actions for merely speaking up, stating my concerns, and defending the Adventist doctrine of Biblical Creation.

In February of 2009, I passed out a paper at La Sierra University Church on Alumni weekend describing what was being taught in LSU’s Biology Department. This resulted in a confrontation for which I later apologized. I assumed all was well and registered for classes spring quarter without incident. However, at the beginning of the next school year in September of 2009, the Wisbey administration tried to prevent me from registering for classes by placing my student account on a “Disciplinary Hold.” I was told I would not be allowed to register for classes or attend the University because I had “passed out information” at Church without permission. On September 21, 2009, I wrote a letter to the Discipline Committee asking for the reasons why I was not allowed to attend La Sierra University to be provided to me in writing. (Read more)

This is a letter to Dan Jackson, North American Division president of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, written by Louie Bishop's lawyer. [scribd id=134027314 key=key-21719izcc5yg5inucvgh mode=scroll]

Outline of proposed theories for Genesis 1:1-2

 “In the beginning, God created the Heaven and the earth.”

These ten words have been called “majestic,” “great,” “magnificent,” “sublime,” “profound,” etc. Theologians have recognized them as “straightforward,” “simple,” “clear” and “unmistakable.” One scholar described Genesis 1:1 as a “plain statement that even a child can easily understand.“ Underneath the smoke of these adjectives, however, lies a heterodox of interpretations that belie their simplicity. The current Quarterly for 2013 discusses some of these theories. This article will briefly outline the major theories proposed for Genesis 1:1, 2.

I. Active Gap Theory (Ruin-Reconstruction)

Some see Genesis 1:1 as referring back to the creation of the physical world and all life on it to a moment of time long before the seven days of creation. They believe that a subsequent “appalling cataclysm obliterated every trace of life upon it and reduced its surface to a state that might be described as ‘without form, and void in verse two.’” This “Gap” or “Space” of time between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2 has been referred to as the “Active Gap” or “Ruin-Reconstruction Theory.” Proponents of this theory assert that during this gap, “Satan was ruler of the earth which was peopled by a race of ‘men’ without any souls. Eventually, Satan, who dwelled in a garden of Eden composed of minerals (Ezekiel 28), rebelled by desiring to become like God (Isaiah 14). Because of Satan’s fall, sin entered the universe and brought on the earth God’s judgment in the form of a flood (indicated by the water of Genesis 1:2), and then a global ice-age when the light and heat from the sun were somehow removed. All the plant, animal, and human fossils upon the earth today date from this ‘Lucifer’s flood’ and do not bear any genetic relationship with the plants, animals and fossils living upon the earth today.” In general these gap theorists are “opposed to evolution, but do not believe in a recent origin of all things.” The gap theorist assumes the proposition that God reshaped the earth and re-created all life in six literal days after ‘Lucifer’s flood,’ hence the name ‘ruin-reconstruction.’”

Bible commentaries written before the Theory of Uniformitarianism and the scientific revolution of the early 1800s, are silent about the “Ruin-Reconstruction” theory. The man most responsible for it’s origin is Thomas Chalmers (1780-1847), a famous Scottish theologian. Chalmers and William Buckland (1784-1856) proposed:

Millions of millions of years may have occupied the indefinite interval, between the beginning in which  God created the heavens and the earth and the evening or commencement of the first day of the  Mosaic narrative... The condition [of the earth and waters] is also described as a state of confusion and emptiness (tohu va bohu), words which are usually interpreted by the vague Greek term chaos, which may be geologically considered designating the wreck and ruins of a former world.

As modified by George H. Pember (1837-1910), this view came to be widely disseminated in the older editions of the Scofield Reference Bible. It was probably the dominant view among evangelicals until the 1960s. Dake’s Annotated Reference Bible, and The Newberry Reference Bible also helped to foment the “Active Gap Theory.” Contemporary supporters of this theory include: Harry Rimmer, (Modern Science and the Genesis Record, 1937), George DeHoff (Why We Believe the Bible 1944), Benny Hinn,  John Hagee (asserts that “the earth was created and flooded before the six days of creation in which mankind appeared”), and Billy Graham.

II. Passive Gap Theory (Restitution Creationism--Creatio ex materia)

The “Passive Gap Theory” understands “Genesis 1:1 as a reference to the creation of the universe, including the earth in its raw state, billions of years ago. Contrary to the Ruin-Restoration theory of the early Scofield Bible, only non-fossil bearing rocks are billions of years old.” Thus, the six days of creation (verse 3 onwards) start “sometime after the Earth was ‘without form and void.’ This allows an indefinite ‘gap’ of time to be inserted after the original creation of the universe, but prior to the six days of creation--when present biological species and humanity were created. Gap theorists can therefore agree with the scientific consensus regarding the age of the Earth and universe, while maintaining a literal interpretation of the biblical text.”

According to theologian Aurther Custance, the historical antecedents of the “Passive Gap Theory” extend back to the Jewish commentators of the Midrash and Targum of Onkelos. This understanding was more clearly and forcefully articulated by the 11^th century Flemish Catholic theologian, Hugo St. Victor. Hugo’s understanding was that the disordered state of the earth “was only awaiting the ordering hand of God to make it into a Cosmos.” Thirteenth century Catholic theologian Thomas Aquinas (1226-1274) reiterated this view when he wrote his Summa Theologiae: "it seems better to maintain (the view) that the creation [of the “heaven and the earth”] was prior to any of the days (literally, before any day)." 16^th century French Jesuit theologian Dionysius Petavius (1583-1652), wrote: "The question of 'How great an interval there was ', it is not possible except by inspiration to attain knowledge of." Catholic philosopher Benedict Pereira wrote:

Even though before the first day, the heavens and the elements were made subsequent to the  substance (ie., basic essence of creative activity) nevertheless they were not perfected and completely   furnished until the period of the six days: for then was given to them (their) furnishing, (their) fulfillment (filling up), and (their) completion. However, just how long that darkened state of the world lasted, ie., whether it lasted more than one day or less than one day, this is not clear to me . . .

The “Passive Gap Theory” first gained prominence during the Middle Ages and the Counter-Reformation. Although the antecedents of this Theory might be traced to ancient Jewish writings--it was the Catholic scholars who first solidified and actively promoted it. The current Catechism reflects this understanding:

'In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.' Creation . . . did not spring forth complete  from the hands of the Creator. The universe was created “in a state of journeying” (in statu vitae)  toward an ultimate perfection yet to be attained, to which God has destined it...

During the 19^th century, the “Passive Gap Theory” made its way into the thinking of the Protestant theologians. Hebrew Professor E.B. Pusey of the late 1800s, dismissed the “Ruin-Restoration” geologic theory, but embraced the “Passive Gap Theory.” He concluded: “'in the beginning God created . . .’ what intervened between ‘in the beginning’ and the remodeling of our habitation does not concern us. . . . It was not my business to enter upon the claims of geology.” Theologians who promoted this view include: German Orientalist, Julius Wheelhouse (1844-1918), E. Konig (1882), John Nelson Darby (1800–1882), Dutch theologian G. Aalders, A. Heidel, B.S. Childs, D. Kidner, E.J. Young, E. Maly and G. Henton Davies. Some Contemporary theologians who appear to have adopted this position are: Apologist Dr. John Ankerberg, philosopher and theologian Dr. William Lane Craig, Bible scholar Dr. Norman Geisler, radio personality Hank Hanegraaff, apologist Greg Koukl, etc.

III. Summary Statement Theory

Another understanding of Genesis 1:1 is that it is a “Summary statement,” “Heading” “superscript,” or “Title.” Dr. Waltke, a Reformed evangelical professor of Old Testament and Hebrew, asserts that Genesis 1:1 is a summary verse of the rest of the chapter-- not simply the first event in the chapter. He writes:

In the beginning. The daring claim of verse 1, which encapsulates the entire narrative, invites the  reader into the story. Its claim and invitation is that in the beginning God completed perfectly this entire  cosmos. ‘Beginning’ refers to the entire created event, not something before the six days nor a part of  the first day. (Note: This is a relative beginning. As verse 2 seems to indicate, there is a pre-Genesis  time and space.) Although some have argued that 1:1 functions as merely the first event of creation,  rather than a summary of the whole account, the grammar makes that interpretation improbable.

One explanation of this theory proposes that the Hebrew language uses headings or “announcements” of events that follow them. A narrative that tells something that happened in the past can use verbs in the wayyigtol sense. One scholar describes it this way:

They are used to announce broadly sequential events. If an author wishes to provide background  information relevant to the story, he will typically do so in an introduction using mainly verbs in the perfect or weqetal tenses. That’s exactly what we find in Moses’ Creation account in Genesis 1. The result is that Day 1 begins in verse 3 with the first wayyiqtol verb wayyomer elohim (And God said); the same way Days 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 begin. This also means that verses 1 and 2 record events that happened prior to Creation Day 1 and speak of the conditions in Creation at the time the first Day  begins.

Among the scholars who have adopted this position are: German theologian Hermann Strack (1848-1922), German Old Testament scholar Herman Gunkel (1862-1932), Lutheran theologian Otto Procksch, Walther Zimmerli (1907-1983), Old Testament theologian Gerhard von Rad (1901-1971), Old Testament scholar Walther Eichrodt (1890-1978), H.A. Brongers, U. Cassuto, Old Testament scholar W.H. Schmidt, German Lutheran O.T. scholar Claus Westermann (1909-2000), New Testament theologian, Herman Nicolaas Ridderbos (1909-2007).

IV. Young-Earth Theory (No Gap- Creation of Universe and Earth on the First Day)

Another theory of Genesis 1:1, 2 holds that God created the universe, matter, heavens, angels (including Lucifer) in verse 1, and then immediately went on to form and fill the earth in six literal days. This view is propagated by the Institute for Creation Research and Answers-in-Genesis Organization. They propose that verse 1 is part of the first day of the creation week, and that everything was brought into being--including angels, God’s abode, time, energy, etc. Before this, only God existed. The approximate time of this creation took place between 5,700 and 10,000 years ago. Henry M. Morris and John C. Whitcomb Jr. are the main proponents of this theory. This became the foundation of a new generation of young Earth creationist thinkers, who organized themselves around Morris' Institute for Creation Research. Sister organizations such as the Creation Research Society have sought to re-interpret geological formations within this young Earth creationist viewpoint.

V. Young-Earth Theory (No Gap--Creation of “Local Heaven” and Earth on 1^st day)

This theory differs from the previous one, in that it limits the creation to the raw materials for the earth and the local heavens (including the solar system and local “heavens“) on the first day. In other words, God created the unfilled, unformed (Hebrew--tohu va bohu) earth (including the “deep”) and local galactic and solar heavens at the beginning of the first day of the creation week. O.T. theologian Gerhard Pfandl explains:

This view, held by Luther and Calvin and many Christians since, understands Genesis 1:1 to be part of the first day of the Creation week. Thus verse two describes the condition of the earth  immediately after the creation of ‘heaven and earth’ (our planetary system) and before the creation of light. The fourth commandment says, ‘In six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the  sea and all that is in them’ (Ex.  20:11; 31:17). According to the traditional Creation theory, the phrase ‘all  that is in them’ includes the raw material of the heavens and the earth.

This view does not speak of the creation of the entire universe in Genesis 1:1. Dr. Gerhard Hasel notes that: “verse 1 does not seem to speak of the creation of the entire universe in its totality, but of the [earth] and its surrounding heavenly sphere.” F. Regalado commented:

“When we closely examine Gen. 1, especially such words as ‘in the beginning’ and ‘heaven and earth,’ contextually and linguistically, we can say that the creation narrative is talking only about our world and is silent about the creation of the entire universe . . . .”

Commentator Adam Clarke asserted that “Genesis 1:1 is interpreted “in a more restricted sense to mean the solar system.” Old Testament scholar William Shea echoed this when he wrote: “Genesis 1:1 is even further restricted to the earth and the atmospheric heaven surrounding it.” He also challenges the idea that Genesis 1:1 refers to the universe:

An examination of the occurrences [where ‘heaven and earth’ is used in the Creation account] shows  that the word ‘heavens’ does not focus upon the universe, but rather upon the atmospheric heavens  that surround this earth . . . Thus the focus of the use of the phrase ‘heavens and the earth’ in Genesis 1 is upon this earth, not the universe . . . This shows the geocentric emphasis of this Creation account.

This Young Earth theory seems to have had roots in ancient Judaism--the commentary on Genesis by Ibn Ezra (c. 1089–1164). Jose ben Halafta in 160 AD, dates the creation of the world to 3751 BC while the later Seder Olam Zutta to 4339 BC. The Hebrew Calendar has traditionally since the 4th century AD by Hillel II dated the creation to 3761 B.C. Early Christians include Eusebius, Jerome, Hippolytus of Rome, etc. Protestants included Isaac Newton, Johannes Kepler, Melanchthon, Martin Luther, Andreas Helwig, etc. The Seventh-Day Adventist Encyclopedia states: “SDAs have always affirmed belief in creation ex nihilo--that God was not indebted to previously existing matter when He brought the earth into existence. They have generally taken it for granted that it was on the first day of Creation week that He brought into existence the matter that composed the earth and that He proceeded immediately with the work of the six days.”

Conclusion

What difference does it make how we interpret Genesis 1:1, 2? A few points to keep in mind regarding an accurate understanding include: 1 ) Whether or not the world was created from nothing (creatio ex nihilo), 2 ) What the word “Beginning” means--the “beginning of time,” “beginning of the earth,” the “absolute beginning“, etc., 3 ) When were “heaven,” “earth,” “water” created?, 4 ) Is it consistent with other actions of God in Scripture- that He would make an “unfinished” world for millions of years, and come back to complete it later? If so--why? 5 ) Did God really make “the heaven, earth, sea and all that is in them” in six days as the Fourth Commandment declares?, 6 ) There are no other “gaps” in the creation account--if this is the exception, wouldn’t the text make it clear there is a “gap“?, 7 ) Does the dating of geologic formations and strata affect the reading of the text? In the next article, we will see if Genesis 1:1, 2 sheds any light on the meaning of these “Ten Grand Words.”

Roger Morneau on the Origin of the Theory of Evolution

First, let me define my terms, and explain clearly what evolution teaches. When I say “evolution,” I do not mean change over time, or even adaptation to new environments. I am referring to the scientific teaching that life came from non-life through random chemical processes, and that all living forms, including humans, evolved by a blind, step-by-step process over vast eons of time. Blind, because the process is unguided. The famous biologist Jerry Coyne had this to say about the philosophical implications of evolution:

Evolution is unique amongst the sciences because it strikes people in the solar plexus of their faith directly. It strikes them at the idea that they are specially created by God, because evolution says you’re not; it says that there’s no special purpose for your life because it’s a naturalistic philosophy; we have no more extrinsic purpose than a squirrel or an armadillo. And it says that morality does not come from God; it is an evolved phenomenon. And those are three things that are really hard for humans to accept, particularly if they come from a religious tradition.

Here, then, is something to ponder: if God does exist and is the Creator, but evolution teaches that we were not created by God, that there is no special purpose to our lives, and that we are not morally responsible, who invented evolution?

One of the most interesting books I’ve read is Roger Morneau’s A Trip Into the Supernatural. After World War II, he was invited to join a secret society of Satan worshippers. After being part of the society for only a few months, God pulled him out, and he was lead to join the Seventh-day Adventist (SDA) Church. While he was still part of the society, he had a conversation with the high priest of the Satanists that contained important information regarding the theory of evolution.

Here is the story according to the priest: prior to the 18th century, Satan, through his study of Bible prophecy, came to the conclusion that Daniel 12:4 was about to be fulfilled and that the Industrial Revolution was about to begin.

At the beginning of the 18th century, he called a general council of all of his spirit counselors, and they formulated a three-part plan to take complete control of the human mind throughout the period of change that was soon to come upon the world.

The first part of the plan was to convince the world that he and his demons did not exist. This part of the plan succeeded fairly well. As Michael Schermer put it, “By the 18th century, astronomy replaced astrology, chemistry succeeded alchemy, probability theory dislodged belief in luck and fortune…” This laid the foundation for naturalistic thinking—the idea that God has never, and still does not ever interfere with the world.

The second part of the plan was to gain control of people’s minds through hypnotism. He chose the brilliant German doctor Franz Mesmer to accomplish this task. By the end of Mesmer’s career, hypnosis was a respected tool of the medical profession. Now, television shows and popular songs can hypnotize millions of people at once.

The third part of the plan was to destroy the credibility of the Bible. This was to be accomplished through the introduction of the theory of evolution. Charles Darwin and Thomas Huxley were chosen by Satan to systematize and popularize this doctrine, in part because they had both been hypnotized as children.

One paragraph of the book in particular bears repeating in its entirety:

To my shock and surprise, the priest then claimed that "the spirits consider anyone who teaches the theory of evolution to be a minister of that great religious system, and the individual will receive a special unction from Satan himself. Satan gives him great power to induce spiritual blindness, to convince, and to convert. In fact, he holds such people in such high regard that he assigns a special retinue of angels to accompany him or her all his or her life. It is the greatest honor that Satan can bestow upon a person in the presence of the galaxy."

So where did such an idea originate according to historical sources? While Charles Darwin gets credit for publishing the first fully-formed exposition of the modern theory of evolution, complete with the driving mechanism of natural selection, the seeds of the theory were planted much earlier. Georges-Louis Leclerc and others in the 18th century argued that organisms had changed over time, and that life had been on the earth for much longer than the Biblical chronology allowed.

One of the preeminent thinkers to propose a rudimentary theory of evolution was actually Erasmus Darwin, Charles’ grandfather. Here are excerpts from a chapter of his book The Temple of Nature, published in 1803:

Ere Time began, from flaming Chaos hurl'd Rose the bright spheres, which form the circling world; Earths from each sun with quick explosions burst, And second planets issued from the first. Then, whilst the sea at their coeval birth, Surge over surge, involv'd the shoreless earth; Nurs'd by warm sun-beams in primeval caves Organic Life began beneath the waves…

Organic life beneath the shoreless waves Was born and nurs'd in ocean's pearly caves; First forms minute, unseen by spheric glass, Move on the mud, or pierce the watery mass; These, as successive generations bloom, New powers acquire and larger limbs assume; Whence countless groups of vegetation spring, And breathing realms of fin and feet and wing…

Thus the tall Oak, the giant of the wood, Which bears Britannia's thunders on the flood; The Whale, unmeasured monster of the main, The lordly Lion, monarch of the plain, The Eagle soaring in the realms of air, Whose eye undazzled drinks the solar glare, Imperious man, who rules the bestial crowd, Of language, reason, and reflection proud, With brow erect who scorns this earthly sod, And styles himself the image of his God; Arose from rudiments of form and sense, An embryon point, or microscopic ens!

Piece by piece, the foundation was laid for the acceptance of evolutionary theory on biological grounds. On the geological front, in 1785, James Hutton published his influential work implying a great age to the geological record. In this article, he applied the principle of uniformitarianism (though it wasn’t called that until later) to the earth’s geological history. This was a necessary development for evolutionary theory, because it provided an interpretation of the geological record that suggested that a great deal of time had passed since earth’s formation and the origin of life.

Satan worked so carefully to lay each piece of the groundwork for the theory of evolution that a decade after the publication of On the Origin of Species, evolution had become widely accepted.

Satan’s goal has always been to unite the inhabitants of the earth in rebellion against God. The Satanist priest claimed that accepting the theory of evolution made a person a de facto member of Satan’s kingdom. I am convinced that Satan is overly optimistic about the extent of his kingdom, and that not all the people he claims as his really are (see Ellen White’s comments on the death of Moses, for example). God is merciful and we must never assume that He has given up on a person or does not have a plan for his or her life. Nevertheless, the worldview that accompanies evolution makes some unequivocal claims: God did not create the world in six days, and the creation was not perfect, so the Spirit of God, who inspired the Bible, is a liar. Thus, human reason must be above the clear word of Scripture.

Once human reason is elevated to the place of highest authority in the universe, the consequences described by Jerry Coyne become inescapable. Bereft of any absolute authority, any arbiter of reality, we are forced to pull ourselves up by our own bootstraps and live a life that has only the feeble, relative meaning we are able to imagine on our own. Our end becomes one of vast nothingness.

The theory of evolution also strips the SDA church of its mission and message, minimizing the consequences of humanity's fall into sin, removing the rationale for remembering the Sabbath day as a memorial of creation, making Jesus’ ministry on this earth of no effect by the outlawing of miracles (such as the resurrection), and ultimately casting doubt on God’s ability to recreate a new, perfect earth.

Many might think that I’m being too hard on evolutionary theory. After all, doesn’t science support it? I have three responses. First, the Word of God is my foundation. The very short section of the Bible that God wrote with His own finger includes this comment: “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy… 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: 8, 11). Exodus also records the belligerent rebellion of a man who collected sticks on the Sabbath immediately thereafter and was stoned. This should make it exceedingly clear to us that God was referring to literal days.

Second, the theory of evolution retains its status as “mainstream science” only because the media gatekeepers vigilantly attempt to keep any evidence or reasoning that might dethrone evolution out of the sight of the public. Questioning evolution in scientific journals or the mainstream media is absolutely forbidden.

Third, the theory of evolution is not supported by geological or biological evidence. Evolution does not spring from careful scientific investigation. It is, rather, the outcome of assuming naturalism, and coming up with the best possible theory of origins in the absence of a Creator.

What about theistic evolution? In its most basic form, theistic evolution rests on a foundation of methodological naturalism, and does not contradict Darwinian evolution. Methodological naturalism states that God does not interact with the world, and thus, miracles do not happen. The most important miracles in question are the creation of the world by God, the virgin birth, and Christ’s resurrection. The list of forbidden miracles should also include Christ’s second coming, the resurrection of the dead, and the creation of the earth a second time. Very simply, no miracles = no Christianity.

Theistic evolution is an attempt to gain the friendship of the world while avoiding atheism. First, this is scientifically unnecessary. Second, James had some strong words regarding those who advocate friendship with the world: “Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God“ (James 4:4).

Let us not capitulate to the demands or the deceptions of the devil in any way. We, as a church, will pay for any wavering on this issue in the souls of our children. If we stand firmly for truth, God Himself will fight for us.

Questions on origins

A review of the deep questions students, teachers, and many others face in the origins conflict. Icons will include: the origin of life; age of the universe, the earth, and life; as well as the sequence of the fossils. This presentation will serve as an introduction of the 1,268 slide presentation prepared especially for the students and teachers in Adventist schools.

The fine-tuned universe

The incredible precision of the universe is often overlooked in discussion about science and God. The topic is also too often neglected in the Adventist conversation. This topic will be introduced by a video prepared for the general viewer and will also serve as an introduction to the 14 video series titled "Where Is Truth?: In the Bible, in Science, or Both?" by Ariel Roth.

Carbon-14 and Egyptian history

In an article in Science, Christopher Bronk Ramsey et al. documented a massive number of radiocarbon dates on material from various Egyptian dynasties. Some of the difficulties the data raise for the dating of the Santorini eruption, and for various theories of the Exodus, are considered. References: 1. Bronk Ramsey C et al., 2010. Radiocarbon-based Chronology for Dynastic Egypt. Science 328:1554-7 2. Bruins HJ, 2010. Dating Pharaonic Egypt. Science 328:1489-90 3. http://www.sciencemag.org/content/suppl/2010/06/15/328.5985.1554.DC1.html

Source: It's About God