SIX DAY CREATIONISM AND EVOLUTION

PMW 2019-011 by Gabriel Rench (CrossPolitic Studios)

Gentry Note:
Postmillennialism is one feature of a Christian worldview. Another feature is the doctrine of Creation. In our modern world the doctrine of Six-day Creation is as hard to accept as is the postmillennial hope. But it is just as important. The world for which the postmillennial hope is designed is the world created by God — in the space of six, literal days. This article by Rench is largely a review of my book As It Is Written, but which is put in our current anti-God environment.

Most of us have been pulled over by a cop. Imagine for a moment that this happens to you. The cop flashes his lights, you dutifully pull over, hand over your license and registration. He informs you that he pulled you over because you didn’t stop at the stop sign. You respond with, “But officer, I interpreted the stop sign to mean, ‘Stop pressing the brake,’ so of course I drove faster!”

Pretty absurd right? Everyone knows the cop would slap you with a ticket. We all recognize shenanigans when people behave this way with mundane activities. But this behavior isn’t any cuter when theologians do it. And we see this sort of thing when it comes to the meaning of the creation week.

USA Today published an article entitled “Creationism support is at a new low. The reason should give us hope.” The article notes that, “New polling data show that for the first time in a long time there’s a notable decline in the percentage of Americans — including Christians — who hold to the ‘Young Earth’ creationist view.” The article states, “According to a Gallup poll [All Rise! – SB] conducted in May, the portion of the American public taking this position now stands at 38%, a new low in Gallup’s periodic surveys.”


As It is Written FRONT

As It Is Written: The Genesis Account Literal or Literary?
Book by Ken Gentry

Presents the exegetical evidence for Six-day Creation and against the Framework Hypothesis. Strong presentation and rebuttal to the Framework Hypothesis, while demonstrating and defending the Six-day Creation interpretation.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com


What is the reason for our “hope,” according to the article? “As the poll reveals, the biggest factor in the shift is a jump in the number of Christians who are reconciling faith and evolution. They are coming to see evolution as their God’s way of creating life on Earth and continuing to shape it today.”

This really shouldn’t encourage anyone. We must clearly distinguish between what a document says and whether we accept that proclamation. The stop sign is a clear indication that a car must come to a full stop. You can accept this or reject it, but no one can reasonably interpret a stop sign to mean something else.

We must keep this distinction in mind when it comes to the creation week. So what does the Bible say about the age of the earth? Kenneth Gentry notes in his book As It Is Written that the Bible very clearly says that the earth was created in six literal twenty-four hour days. There is simply no way getting around this. He adduces several lines of evidence concerning this.

First, the lexical meaning of the Hebrew word yom simply means a literal, twenty-four hour day. He cites nine biblical scholars who all agree that that is the meaning of the term (p. 31). Further, he states, “The Theological Lexicon of the Old Testament notes that there are two primary meanings of yom: (1) ‘The basic meaning of yom is “day (from sunrise to sundown)”’ and (2) ‘in the sense of the astronomical or calendrical unit’ (TLOT 2:537 538)” (p. 94).

Second, although yom can be used metaphorically, such as with the phrase “the day of the Lord,” the grammatical construction used in Genesis 1 always means day. Each day in Genesis 1 is bracketed with the phrase “evening and morning.” This clearly points to yom being a literal day.


Understanding the Creation Account
DVD set by Ken Gentry

Formal conference lectures presenting important information for properly approaching the Creation Account in Genesis. Presents and defends Six-day Creation exegesis, while presenting and rebutting the Framework Hypothesis.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com


Third, other passages in Scripture refer to the days as being literal days. Ex. 20:11 says, “For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.”

Fourth, there are also a number of passages that, without argument or explanation, refer to other passages in Genesis as literal. This is bolstered by the fact that Genesis is not poetry, but prose. “Indeed, Hasel (1984, 11) argues that ‘from a purely comparative approach of the literature structures, the language patterns, the syntax, the linguistic phenomena, the terminology, the sequential presentation of events in the creation account, Genesis 1 is not different from the rest of the book of Genesis or the Pentateuch for that matter.’” If Genesis 1 is not historical, then the rest of the Pentateuch isn’t. And numerous other passages interpret Genesis 1 as historical. Hos. 6:7 says, “But like Adam they transgressed the covenant.” 1 Cor. 15:21-22, “For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive.” Not to mention the genealogies of Jesus in Luke 3 and Matthew 1. See also Psalms 78 and 105.

Keeping in mind the distinction made earlier, this means that regardless of the linguistic shenanigans someone may want to engage in, regardless of whether anyone accepts what it says, the text of Scripture clearly declares a literal six-day Creation. This comes from the style, lexical meaning of the words, and the fact that Scripture itself interprets it that way.

What this means is that the reason people are willing to accept evolution is because they are rejecting what the text of Scripture clearly says. This strikes at the very heart of Christianity. . . .

To read full article: click

Advertisements

Tagged:

6 thoughts on “SIX DAY CREATIONISM AND EVOLUTION

  1. MyUniversalProfileID February 5, 2019 at 5:24 am

    Yes, the plain reading is as you state. But what about 2 Peter 3:8 ? That plainly admits quite a degree of figurative leeway?

  2. Kenneth Gentry February 5, 2019 at 8:18 am

    Thanks for reading, and interacting.

    The 2 Peter 3:8 statement specifically states that time has no effect on God. Its point is that any “delay” in Christ’s return does not undermine the fact that he will return. But there is no such day=1000 years statement (or its equivalent) in Genesis 1. Thus, such a thought should not be imported into the historical narrative.

    But everything about Genesis 1 identifies the “day” as a literal day. The article I posted and to which you refer lists only four exegetical arguments for “day” being understood in its most basic, natural sense. In a two-part study on this website, I provide seven exegetical arguments, while in my book on the topic (As It Is Written) I provide ten exegetical arguments. See Article 1 and Article 2.

  3. Rayburne F. Winsor February 6, 2019 at 1:49 pm

    I once posted a long comment on a similar article by Randy Alcorn entitled: Do you believe God created the universe in six literal (24 hour) days? I certainly do. I really am not concerned with how many (is it 38%) “evangelical Christians are compromising the truth of God’s Word regarding the sex literal (24-hour) days of creation in Genesis by bowing down to scientific opinion (“from the goo, through the zoo, to you” evolution) that accommodates millions of years to the days of Genesis rather than the clear,straightforward , literal meaning of six literal (24-hour) days in Genesis. There is no warrant biblically, scientifically or linguistically for doing so (from the perspective of the ancient Hebrew language). I have posted many long comments why I oppose theistic evolution (accommodating long ages to the literal days of Genesis) as not biblical. Jesus Christ himself accepted the Genesis account of creation (Matthew 19:4), including the supernatural creation of Adam and Eve, as well as the biblical account of Noah’s Flood (which would radically alter everything modern uniformitarian geologists have learned in Geology) as historical fact (Matthew 19:: 4, Matthew 24:37-39).

    We should not be surprised by this when we remember that, though many leading scientists (i.e. “scriptural geologists”) resisted the “old earth” ideas of James Hutton and Charles Lyell (Uniformitarianism) and defended scripture as both true and scientific, Regrettably, it was Christians, not evolutionary scientists, who first lead the charge against scripture, beginning in the 1800s when theologians (theistic evolutionists) readily adopted the “old earth” ideas, of Lyell (uniformitarianism) instead of Noah’s Flood. The Bible believing scientists of the day were in a difficult position of trying to defend scripture when even theologians (who compromised the literal history of Genesis) were against them. The situation remains even worse today, despite recent scientific discoveries about the universe, atom, the internal structure and incredible complexity of cells, DNA, the natural world, etc. Believing scientists, though understandably still in a minority, are leaving Darwinian Evolution, recognizing that strictly natural processes, operating at random on inorganic chemicals, could never have produced complex living cells. Unfortunately, though they have grown weary of arguing how random mutations (essentially harmful to a living organism) in a highly complex genetic code provide improvements to it (no functional genetic information-increasing changes on which “goo to you” evolution depends). So, what do they do? They re-adopt Creation, but still hold on to the old earth and formulate a local Flood account to fit modern uniformitarian geology. How much better it would (and I believe employ better science) to come all the way back to a biblical worldview (instead of just a halfway or middle position between biblical creation and natural evolution (Theistic evolution).. See other comment below:

  4. Rayburne F. Winsor February 6, 2019 at 1:51 pm

    One could write a book on why it is imperative that Bible-believing Christians not compromise the historical truth of Genesis 1 ( i.e. Day-Age theory, Gap theory, Framework Hypothesis theory) by adding or accommodating evolution to the Genesis account. First, theistic evolution, which is just evolutionary development with God added on, is diametrically opposed to supernatural, ex nihilo (out of nothing), , fiat, (divinely spoken Word\) creation, which even Darwin, who was also a divinity student, rejected: In a letter he wrote to Charles Lyell in 1861, he stated: “The view that each variation has been providentially arranged seems to me to make Natural Selection entirely superfluous, and indeed takes the whole case of the new species out of the range of science” . Not only was theistic evolution rejected by Darwin, but also was never seriously considered by the other founding fathers of evolution. The evolutionary claim of an old earth (4.5 billion years old) denies the veracity of the first 11 chapters of Genesis regarding the order of creation (contrary to evolution, the Bible says birds were created on Day 5 at the same time as the sea creatures –before dinosaurs and other land animals; the Bible says the work of shaping the earth was finished on Day 3 before the moon was made on the 4th day into earth’s creation, not smashed from the earth in a cataclysmic collision; etc.), the distinctness of created kinds (10 times in Genesis 1), the absence of death and bloodshed before the Fall (see Genesis 3; Romans 5:12), the instantaneous creation of Adam and Eve and all of creation functionally mature (which explains the appearance of age), the “very good” status of the creation at the end of the creation week (Genesis 1:31), the great longevities of the patriarchs, and the global nature of the Flood, as attested by over 200 Flood traditions by peoples all around the world, over 30 scriptural references (indicating universality of Great Flood), and layers of water-deposited sedimentary rocks containing separate and distinct and intact kinds of fossilized plants, birds, animals, etc. (not transitional or intermediate fossil) all over the earth.
    Every major doctrine of Christianity stands or falls upon the historical foundation laid in the first 11 chapters of Genesis. Obviously, if death were here eons before Adam sinned (Genesis 3), as evolution requires, then creation had already been spoiled and death is not the penalty for sin, as scripture plainly teaches (Genesis 2:16; Romans 5:12). This, in turn, means that Christ’s death and resurrection were ineffective and meaningless, and the biblical teaching (Romans 8:18-23; Rev. 21) of the final restoration (Paradise Regained) of this fallen world to its original state before the Fall (only much more magnificent and glorious)–no sin, no death. no curse–is sheer nonsense. Dr. James Barr, formerly Oriel Professor of the Interpretation of Holy Scripture at Oxford University and renown as one of the world’s leading Old Testament Hebrew scholars , wrote, “So far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world class university who does not believe that that the writer (s) of Genesis 1-11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience.” The word “day” (Hebrew yom) associated with a numeral (i.e. “first day” “second day,” “third day” in Genesis 1 (and that used 359 times in the Old Testament outside of Genesis 1 ) always means a literal 24-hour day. To make sure that no one missed the obvious meaning of a literal 24-hour day, the writer (s) of Genesis 1 under inspiration of the Holy Spirit further qualifies “first day, ” “second day” etc. with “evening and morning”–“and the evening (that part of the day associated with darkness) and morning (that part of the day associated with light) were the first day” (“second day, “third day” etc.). But many who are easily embarrassed (yes, that includes genuine Christians and theistic evolutionists like Dr. John Lennox, astronomers like Hugh Ross and others) by the opinions of secular scientists concerning the unproven assumptions of radiometric dating (which has been off by hundreds of thousands/millions of years, even on rocks of known age) will claim that Genesis 1 and other creation passages are myths, parables, poetry, dramas, allegories or analogies–the only exceptions to the perspicuity of scripture and cardinal rule that “context defines the meaning of a word”—anything, in order to escape the obvious fact that they are written, and read as, a straightforward historical narrative. Even such astounding scholars as Dr. E. J. Young of Westminister Seminary in Philadelphia, an authority of massive erudition in Hebrew and cognate languages holds that “Genesis is not poetry. There are poetical accounts of creation in the Bible–Psalm 104, and certain chapters in Job, and they differ completely from the first chapter of Genesis. Hebrew poetry had certain characteristics, and they are not found in the first chapter of Genesis.” He further states: “The man who says I believe that Genesis purports to be an historical account, but I don’t believe that account” is a far better interpreter of the Bible than the man who says, “I believe that Genesis is profoundly true, but it is poetry”. The inspired, infallible Word of God trumps the opinion (actually “faith”) of fallible scientists, my friend. Don’t undermine or sell out the firm foundation (Genesis 1-11) on which your Christian faith is based, my friend, for the favor and praise of men. God will reward you in due time for your faithfulness to His inspired, infallible Word. God bless.

  5. MyUniversalProfileID February 6, 2019 at 4:04 pm

    Gen 1:8 links “Heavens” and “firmament”. Gen 1 describes the creation of. The Biblical cosmology. Of Earth. Under the arching Dome of the firmament. With waters below. And waters above.

    Modern deep drilling as well as high flying aircraft, rockets. And the International Space Station. Disprove. The scientific accuracy of this cosmology.

    Utilizing the Strongs concordance available online at the Blue Letter Bible website. I offer the following literal translation of Genesis, one verse one:

    “In the foremost. God carved out. These same heavens. And this same earth”

    The verb usually translated to create. Appears. To literally refer to carpentry. The cutting down of wood carving out of wood planing And polishing of wood.

    Yet what Genesis One Depicts God fashioning. Is the biblical cosmology – Earth under a domed Shaped. Firmament. with water’s deep below and high overhead.

    if you are willing to interpret. That cosmology somewhat figuratively. Given that current direct eyewitness observations from deep drillers and astronauts. Appears to contradict. The literal scientific accuracy of that biblical cosmology…

    If you are willing to relax harsh strict literalism. On that front. Then why not others as well. The value of the Bible is not limited to its scientific accuracy as a physics. Or biology textbook.

  6. Kenneth Gentry February 6, 2019 at 4:16 pm

    You are confusing phenomenological language as if it offers a literal statement. The dome language is the language of appearance, not a scientific statement. I stand by the exegetical observations I make on the full historical narrative of Genesis 1. I encourage you to read the full exegetical argument in my book, As It Is Written

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: