Why was Adam not deceived?

Why was Adam not deceived?

1 Timothy 2:13, 14 show that the first creation of Adam is connected to the fact that Adam was not deceived. Why was Adam not deceived? If the Hebrew text shows that God created the animals in two creative acts – one before Adam was created and one after Adam was created (but before Eve was created) – then we can understand that Adam had knowledge about the huge difference between God and creation that kept him safe from deception. See my summary of the 1 Timothy 2:11-15 passage explained in 20 short points posted here to understand the complete context of what we will be talking about in this post.

The discussion has taken on a question of whether animals could have been created after Adam if the old earth view is considered or if only a young earth model could fit the context. I will be posting several comments that came in under the 1 Timothy 2 passage and placing them under this post so that they can be answered here. I will then take each question and comment on them as time permits in my schedule.

32 thoughts on “Why was Adam not deceived?

  1. #1

    Cheryl, your last comment was four pages single spaced when I copied into a word document. This post and the comments we are all making here may be your first book! 🙂 I am going to address several issues you raised but I am going to break them in to multiple posts. But first I want to lay some cards out on the table.

    CBMW is fearful that if they let open the possibility that women are not subordinate then they will have opened the door to Scripture being discredited. They insist on things like “head = authority.” They take passages that are ambiguous and impose a narrow reading on the passage that supports their agenda and reject all other considerations. They even try to redefine the nature of the nature Trinity in order to protect their agenda.

    Answers in Genesis is a carbon copy of CBMW. They fear that anything other than a young earth 24-hour day interpretation will lead to discrediting the Bible and open the door secular evolutionism. They take passages that are ambiguous (like Genesis 2:19) and impose a narrow readings on the passage that supports their agenda and reject all other considerations.

    I am unfamiliar with David Bergen. I would invite you to Did God Create Animals or Man First? Keil and Delitzsch disagree with your interpretation here as do every scholarly source I have consulted across a wide range of Christianity. To insist that God made animals after Adam and before Eve is to impose an esoteric and idiosyncratic a meaning on the text for ideological reasons, not because the text requires it.

  2. On Length of Days:

    Heb 4:4-11

    4 For in one place it speaks about the seventh day as follows, “And God rested on the seventh day from all his works.” 5 And again in this place it says, “They shall not enter my rest.” 6 Since therefore it remains open for some to enter it, and those who formerly received the good news failed to enter because of disobedience, 7 again he sets a certain day — “today” — saying through David much later, in the words already quoted,

    “Today, if you hear his voice,
    do not harden your hearts.”

    8 For if Joshua had given them rest, God would not speak later about another day . 9 So then, a sabbath rest still remains for the people of God; 10 for those who enter God’s rest also cease from their labors as God did from his. 11 Let us therefore make every effort to enter that rest, so that no one may fall through such disobedience as theirs.

    The seventh day has not ended. Is Hebrews in error when it suggests the seven day was not 24 hours?

    I have done considerable reading and study in the history of science over the last twenty years. Church fathers like Irenaeus, Origen, Justin Martyr, Augustine and Thomas Aquinas suggested periods of longer than 24 hour days. Some speculated that each day was a thousand years. It was solid devout Christians, many of them clergy, that were the first geologist in the 17th and 18th centuries. They were the ones who first concluded that the earth was far far more ancient than we realized. They saw no issue. (It was Darwin, Marx and others who tried to co-opt science for secular humanist agendas in the mid-19th Century.) B. B. Warfield and William Jennings Bryan of the Scopes Monkey Trial fame believed in an ancient earth. Belief in secular evolutionism is not prerequisite for having an old earth perspective nor is a belief in the inaccuracy of the Bible.

    As for Contemporary Evangelical leaders, all of the below at a minimum allow for an ancient earth and almost all actively embrace it.

    Jack Akenberg (apologist)
    Gleason Archer (Prof. of OT/Hebrew, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School)
    Jack Collins (Prof. of OT at Covenant Theological Seminary)
    Chuck Colson
    Norman Geisler (theologian, apologist)
    Hank Hannegraff (apologist author)
    Jack Hayford (Pastor of Church of the Way, Four Square Gospel)
    Walter Kaiser (Prof OT and President of Gordon-Conwell Seminary)
    Greg Koukl (apologist)
    C. S. Lewis (apologist)
    Paul E. Little apologist, author)
    Mark A. Noll (Prof. Christian Thought at Wheaton College)
    Bernard L. Ramm (Eminent Evangelical theologian and defender of inerrancy)
    Francis Schaeffer (apologist)
    Chuck Smith, Jr. (pastor)
    Lee Strobel (apologist)

    These are just the Evangelicals.

    You wrote:

    “Now I think the *only* problem one might have is if one believes that the animals were created many millions of years ago. Having them created AGAIN after Adam was created might be a hurdle to jump.”

    Yes, and why do they believe animals have been around for millions of years. Because those are unequivocally and incontrovertibly the facts! The question is why those who insist on a 24 hour period insist on a more narrow interpretation than is warranted. This interpretation needlessly creates a barrier to people hearing the gospel as it seeks to promote some extra-biblical agenda. While we dare not ignore what scripture does say we also dare not make it say things it does not say.

  3. Genealogies…

    My 8th great-grandfather was John Cotton (1585-1652). In 1640, at age 55 he had my 7th grandfather John Cotton (1640-1699). If a Hebrew writer writing a genealogy wanted to emphasize my 8th great grandfather and me in the genealogy he could write:

    “John Cotton, in his 55th year begat (became the ancestor of ) Michael Kruse. He lived 67 years and had other sons and daughters (lines of descent).”

    This may sound odd to us but because of the use and purposes of genealogies in Hebrew culture, this was a legitimate use. The term for father in Hebrew can mean father, grandfather, or ancestor. Hebrew is a very limited language with same word having many meanings that have to be determined by context.

    Two Genealogies covering 430 years:

    1. Joseph to Joshua
    2. Levi to Moses.

    (Joseph and Levi were brothers, and Moses and Joshua were contemporaries.)

    Joshua’s Ancestors:

    1 Chron 7:20-27 (Ephraim was Joseph’s son)
    20 The descendants of Ephraim: …
    23 Then he lay with his wife again, and she became pregnant and gave birth to a son. He named him Beriah, because there had been misfortune in his family. 24 His daughter was Sheerah, who built Lower and Upper Beth Horon as well as Uzzen Sheerah.
    25 Rephah was his son, Resheph his son,
    Telah his son, Tahan his son,
    26 Ladan his son, Ammihud his son,
    Elishama his son, 27 Nun his son
    and Joshua his son.

    Summary

    Joseph
    Ephraim
    Beriah
    Rephah
    Resheph
    Telah
    Tahan
    Ladan
    Ammihud
    Elishama
    Nun
    Joshua (Hoshea)

    Moses’ Ancestors:

    Ex 6:16-20
    16 These were the names of the sons of Levi according to their records: Gershon, Kohath and Merari. Levi lived 137 years.
    17 The sons of Gershon, by clans, were Libni and Shimei.
    18 The sons of Kohath were Amram, Izhar, Hebron and Uzziel. Kohath lived 133 years.
    19 The sons of Merari were Mahli and Mushi.
    These were the clans of Levi according to their records.
    20 Amram married his father’s sister Jochebed, who bore him Aaron and Moses. Amram lived 137 years.

    Moses Summary

    Levi
    Kohath
    Amram
    (Eight Generations Missing)
    Moses

    We use genealogies in our culture to organize a comprehensive tabulation of our ancestors. The ancients used genealogies to establish origins and tribes for legal and religious purposes. Comprehensiveness was not their agenda.

    There several more less stark examples throughout scripture. When we read our culture back into the Word we have it saying things that are foreign to the text.

  4. As to the issue of genetics, you have completely misunderstood my point and it is partly because I did elaborate on the nature of the DNA analysis.

    “The idea that the first woman could be much older than the first man is a big red flag for me. It could not possibly have any agreement with the bible which clearly says that the first woman was made from the body of the first man. This part of Ross’ findings raises a big red flag for me.”

    I didn’t say that woman came first or that Ross believes this. I said that scientific research suggests an earlier date for woman than for man. Scientist see that as discrepancy. Woman could not have predated man by 10,000 to 20,000 years. How would humanity reproduce? Therefore, the scientist asks why the discrepancy exists. I didn’t fully explain how the DNA analysis works. I will elaborate a little more.

    The dating for males comes through studying the Y chromosomes which is passed from fathers to children. The dating for females is through mitochondrial DNA passed from mothers to her children. Over generations DNA tends to mutate at a very constant rate. We follow the Y from father to son, to son, to son… and the mito from Mother to daughter, to daughter, to daughter … Therefore, if we began with Adam’s Y and Eve’s mito and trace it over thousands of years we should expect to see the same level of diversity in the DNA for both men and women. We don’t! We see a more diverse collection of mito than we do with Y.

    Yes, everyone is descended from Adam and Eve. At the flood only Noah, his wife, three sons and their wives were spared. Correct? Therefore, since the sons all have Noah’s Y all Y DNA can be traced back to Noah. All of us have Noah as common ancestor. However, since mito DNA is from mothers through daughters we have three separate women (son’s wives) contributing their mito DNA to the gene pool. We are all descended from these three women.

    So at departure form the ark, we hit the “reset button” for or experiment of studying the mutation. But now, instead of having one Y and one mito, we know have one Y and three mito lines to deal with. The story of the flood explains why the DNA record appears to indicate that woman came 1,000s of years before man.

  5. Re: On Length of Days:

    (Heb 4:4-11)
    The seventh day has not ended. Is Hebrews in error when it suggests the seven day was not 24 hours?

    I think you’re mixing days here, the physical and the spiritual.

    If the 7th day has not ended then you could say the days of Genesis equal ages. But there are several problems with this.

    One is that Adam had to have been thousands of years old instead of what the Bible states. Do years mean ages too? Why not?

    Another is that Genesis says God RESTED, not “is resting” or “started resting”. But Hebrews speaks of God’s rest, something that people can enter into. If this were the 7th day, then all people have already entered into it, not just the saved. Yet Hebrews says only the saved enter it.

    I have done considerable reading and study in the history of science over the last twenty years. Church fathers like Irenaeus, Origen, Justin Martyr, Augustine and Thomas Aquinas suggested periods of longer than 24 hour days. Some speculated that each day was a thousand years.

    The people at AIG also have spent their lives studying science, and many were teachers of biology etc. before the evidence convinced them that YEC is true.

    The idea of “a day is as a thousand years” comes from 2 Peter 3:8 but it is taken out of context and highly speculative. Even so, it cannot be uncritically applied to Genesis.

    It was solid devout Christians, many of them clergy, that were the first geologist in the 17th and 18th centuries.

    So? This proves nothing but that people during that time were eager to relegate the Bible to inferior status compared to man.

    As for Contemporary Evangelical leaders, all of the below at a minimum allow for an ancient earth and almost all actively embrace it.

    Jack Akenberg (apologist)
    Gleason Archer (Prof. of OT/Hebrew, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School)
    Jack Collins (Prof. of OT at Covenant Theological Seminary)
    Chuck Colson
    Norman Geisler (theologian, apologist)
    Hank Hannegraff (apologist author)
    Jack Hayford (Pastor of Church of the Way, Four Square Gospel)
    Walter Kaiser (Prof OT and President of Gordon-Conwell Seminary)
    Greg Koukl (apologist)
    C. S. Lewis (apologist)
    Paul E. Little apologist, author)
    Mark A. Noll (Prof. Christian Thought at Wheaton College)
    Bernard L. Ramm (Eminent Evangelical theologian and defender of inerrancy)
    Francis Schaeffer (apologist)
    Chuck Smith, Jr. (pastor)
    Lee Strobel (apologist)

    These are just the Evangelicals.

    Not scientists. And there are many, many theologians who disagree with them, and many scientists, both Christian and atheist. Another site I highly recommend besides AIG is http://www.defendyourfaith.com/ , where on the lower left you can click for a list of the many scientists who no longer accept Darwinian evolution.

    Note: It’s JOHN Ankerberg, not Jack. I saw the “debate” he staged between Ross and Ham, and it was a pathetic display of bias. I’ve seen many Ankerberg-hosted debates over the years and they were all one-sided, but of course nobody minds when it’s in favor of the Bible. Yet in this case, the exact opposite is true. The YEC position was continually interrupted while OEC had free reign. Archer and Geisler were, if memory serves, Ankerberg’s college profs, and he adopted their OEC views. This is not to put down the many good teachings of all those people, but they have made a grave error on this issue.

    Yes, and why do they believe animals have been around for millions of years. Because those are unequivocally and incontrovertibly the facts! The question is why those who insist on a 24 hour period insist on a more narrow interpretation than is warranted. This interpretation needlessly creates a barrier to people hearing the gospel as it seeks to promote some extra-biblical agenda. While we dare not ignore what scripture does say we also dare not make it say things it does not say.

    Not so! The facts are not the problem, it’s the interpretation of them. That’s philosophy, not science. There is not one shred of proof that anything existed for millions of years. Not one. There are even open challenges for million-dollar rewards for anyone who can prove evolution, and they’ve never been claimed.

    Why do some of us insist that the days of Genesis were 24-hr. periods? I’ll tell you, but I could easily turn the question back on you: why do you insist that they are not?

    Look at the language used: “And there was evening, and there was morning, the nth day”. Hebrew experts whose articles I’ve read show without a doubt that whenever an ordinal is used with “yom”, it means a literal day. And what is the meaning of “evening and morning”, unless you stretch it beyond reason?

    But all of these common arguments in favor of the philosophical interpretive framework known as evolutionism are already soundly defeated in the many writings at fine sites like AIG, Defend Your Faith, and ICR. This debate goes on and on in a thousand message boards every day, and never ends. I seriously doubt we’re going to solve it here. But since all these arguments are already covered, why reinvent the wheel?

    We’ve all been forced to believe in an old earth, through school, entertainment, and documentaries all slanted to favor evo without discussing its faults. You can’t read a book, watch a show, or take a class without it being forced down your throat. This is reality. So nobody can say we haven’t heard the evo side of the story. Now it’s time to hear the Bible’s side, the YEC side. To catch up to the years we’ve had to listen to evo, it’ll take many more years to listen to YEC. Until then, this debate here is pointless and uninformed.

  6. Paula, but it is interesting that the seventh day does not have a morning and evening statement as do the others. Which I do think indicate that this rest lasted more than just one day.

    I understand the God rest thing like,

    1. God created
    2. God rested
    3. At some point sin entered
    4. God began to work again
    5. His work finished with His death and resurrection
    6. God is now resting (waiting for his enemies to be made his footstool (Hebrews 10:13))

    The rest spoken of in Hebrews 4, I guess is only available through Jesus Christ, to rest from working our way into eternal life, and just believe that Jesus has done the work for us, we can thus enter in his rest, by being in Him.

    Just some rapid thoughts

    In Jesus

  7. Hi Martin,

    Good point, but we still have the evening/morning/number for the creation days that we can’t ignore. And as one of the linked articles points out, God is working still, building his kingdom and preparing a place for us. So all things considered, it seems to me that the “rested” of the 7th day only refers to the creation of the physical universe and all it contains.

    So even if the 7th day were different from the rest, we still have a six-day creation.

    Plus, if the days are ages, then what significance do they have to the Ten Commandments? Exodus 20:8-11 says “Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God. … For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.”

    We would also have to find an explanation for the 7-day week, which is observed in practically every culture.

    On top of all that, we have the differing orders of creation week and evolutionary theory, and the enormous difference in time scale even if we allow thousands of years per day.

    Just little problems 😉

  8. Michael, Martin, Paula – go ahead and continue to discuss the issues as I work on my responses. I may not be as fast as you folks are 🙂

    Michael:

    Regarding your first post (#1).  You said:  “Cheryl, your last comment was four pages single spaced when I copied into a word document. This post and the comments we are all making here may be your first book! :)”

    Okay, I admit it, I am long winded.  In “Women in Ministry Silenced or Set Free?” my original script was, I think, about 112 or so pages.  With hard work and some help, I managed to get it down to 73 pages which was 3.5 hours in the final production form.  Can you imagine if I had left it as it was?  You would still probably be working through all of my points!  Sadly, I had to take out a great section on the Trinity and the documentation regarding CBMW’s claim that makes Jesus out to be permanently subordinated to the authority of his Father (taking their view of the Trinity outside the historical position and making the Word in practice never exercising an equal authority with the Father.)  It made the DVD too long and there was a concern that the average person might not be able to understand the deep theological discussion.  Even with the use of graphics, it may still have been too deep for some.  I am hoping that this section will be used in a DVD teaching series on the Trinity that we hope someday to produce.

    Secondly I am so glad that I have my own blog where I can say what I think without being censored for being too long.  I do have some posts that aren’t long winded at all, but on those I use graphics.  One graphic can shorten a post by a thousand words 😉

    My husband has been pushing me to take my research that was used in WIM and expand on it and put it into a book.  I have been resisting the thought, not because I don’t think it is a great idea, but wondering if an unknown author would sell and if the video format of the material which is itself a unique product would be better left this way as people seem to have little time to read and are typically more visual.  I am still pondering on what the Lord would have me do.  I have no book publishers on my doorstep at the moment so it seems easier to let that project rest for the time begin.

    Okay, now for your points.  You said:  “CBMW is fearful that if they let open the possibility that women are not subordinate then they will have opened the door to Scripture being discredited.”

    I agree with you for the most part.  However having read through reams of material from CBMW in my research project for WIM, and having listened to countless hours of their audio tapes from their web site, I have come to understand that they truly do believe that women are subordinate for eternity from their creation.  It isn’t that they even see a reason to open the door a crack to the idea that women are not subordinate, because they truly believe that women are subordinate to men in delivering God’s word and somehow God has ordained this subordination for a reason.  Because God himself has ordained the subordination of women, they will not give an inch to anyone who questions why a woman cannot teach the bible to men in her own home (even with her husband’s approval).  To them it is sinning against God and it is a serious matter to go against God’s “clear” prohibition.  So while they do not give an inch to the opposition, they are constantly pressing the point that if one does give women the opportunity to teach men and they bypass 1 Timothy 2:12 as God’s law against this teaching, then it becomes a slippery slope because one can do the same thing regarding many other things that some may not want to be a prohibition either – like homosexuality.

    Now strange as it may seem, I can find myself agreeing with them in principle.  If one takes scripture and removes everything that they don’t personally like (by avoiding passages that have clear prohibitions or by reinterpreting God’s prohibitions to soften or avoid God’s words on the matter) then scripture loses its authority and we become the ultimate judge of God’s word.  It is with sadness that I agree that this is what some egalitarians have done.  I have read where Paul is disrespected as a male chauvinist or as someone who got it wrong in the beginning.  The problem with this view is that it disregards God’s Holy Spirit as the ultimate author of scripture and follows the reasoning that God would allow corruption into the text that would distort his will and his word.  I don’t believe that this is possible because I believe that God inspired every word and every piece of grammar and he said what he meant.  That doesn’t mean that there are not some hard passages, but some passages take a lot more work to pull out what has always been in the text in context.

    When egalitarians disregard scripture like this, they unwittingly fall into a trap that allows complementarians to disregard our words and our reasoning process.  It is far better to take scripture as it is written and work through the difficult passages to understand what Paul is saying in context.  If we truly believe that scripture doesn’t contradict scripture, then it is in our best interest to “Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.”  2 Timothy 2:15.  If we can’t completely understand a hard passage, at least we can prove what it is not saying by appealing to a scripture that it would be contradicting if it was taken in the most straightforward way.  Disregarding scripture should not be an option.

    Michael, you said “Answers in Genesis is a carbon copy of CBMW. They fear that anything other than a young earth 24-hour day interpretation will lead to discrediting the Bible and open the door secular evolutionism. They take passages that are ambiguous (like Genesis 2:19) and impose a narrow readings on the passage that supports their agenda and reject all other considerations.”

    I can’t say that I have read a whole lot of Answers in Genesis material from their web site.  I have been too busy on other projects.  However I have some DVD’s of their teaching and I have seen several debates between young earth versus old earth people and I have two books that go through Ross’ material and refutes him point by point.  However I wouldn’t say that they are a carbon copy of CBMW although I would think that both are concerned about people disregarding scripture.  In that point, I agree with them both.  The heresies of the past have come about because people have disregarded scripture and gone off on their own tangent while their views are in direct opposition to God’s inspired word.  I have worked intimately with the cults and with cult members who have left their organizations and I have a library of cult material that dates back to 1879.  I have spent years reading the twist that the cults put on scripture and I have seen them disregard other clear scriptures that refute their heresies.  I agree that we need to be careful that as Christians we do not do the same thing that got the cults into trouble.  This is one of the few points that I do agree with CBMW.

    Now as far as rejecting other considerations, I think that is okay as long as you thoughtfully go through the other considerations and explain why they are not viable options.  I did this on WIM.  I went through the common explanations of 1 Timothy 2:15 and showed the reasons why I had to reject each of the other explanations of this verse.  These are serious objections.  However I agree with you that anyone who dismisses other renderings without a valid reason is being closed-minded.  I never want to fall into that category.

    Finally, Michael, you said:  “I am unfamiliar with David Bergen. I would invite you to Did God Create Animals or Man First? Keil and Delitzsch disagree with your interpretation here as do every scholarly source I have consulted across a wide range of Christianity. To insist that God made animals after Adam and before Eve is to impose an esoteric and idiosyncratic a meaning on the text for ideological reasons, not because the text requires it.”

    To be fair, they list the reading that God created animals after Adam as an option.  “Although in my judgment it is very unlikely that God created a special group of animals to be named by Adam (after creating all others before the creation of man—Genesis 1:20-27), some commentators hold this view. After his comments concerning the translation of yastar, Victor Hamilton indicated that the creatures mentioned in 2:19 refer “to the creation of a special group of animals brought before Adam for naming” (p. 176, emp. added). Hamilton believes that most all the animals on the Earth were created before Adam; however, those mentioned in 2:19 were created on day six after Adam for the purpose of being named.”

    I also have not come upon the understanding I have because of ideological reasons.  I came across the understanding because I came across the Hebrew grammar that showed that the text required the passage to be read in the way that I read it.  While the article you sent me to claims that the Hebrew can be rendered in the pluperfect, and at least one of the references they gave was done four years before the Bergen book was published, they do not give the grammatical reasons why the grammar can be given in the pluperfect.  In Bergen’s book, however, the precise grammar is given to prove that this passage does not fit the requirements for the pluperfect tense and therefore this option cannot be considered an option in Genesis 2:19.  I have read through the explanation and the requirement for the pluperfect and it appears to be a very solid case.

    Grammatically Genesis 2:19 cannot be properly rendered in the pluperfect and few bibles render it this way so it shows that the natural rendering is not the pluperfect because most bibles do not render it in the pluperfect.  Those who do render it in that way are said to be in error and unless this precise explanation of the grammar is refuted, and to my understanding it has not been refuted at all, I have to hold to scripture that Genesis 2:19 was written in such a way as to make it obvious to the original Hebrew recipients that Adam was privileged to some acts of God that no one else in history has even been privileged to witness.  I don’t think it is wrong to discard an inaccurate grammar reading of 2:19 if one has the Hebrew rules for rendering the pluperfect and this verse falls outside of those rules.

    So as we discuss this issue, and I am looking forward to responding as I am able time wise to each of your comments, I want to say right off the start in this first post that I respect you and would not consider your view to be a view that would cause separation between Christians, neither will I disregard any of your points or look down on you in any way.  I will thoughtfully consider what you have written.  My place is not to try to persuade you to go against your conscience, or to change your viewpoint to something that you cannot accept, but my place is to give you reason for the hope that is within me.  I am taking this as a challenge to offer the reasoning process regarding why I believe as I do.  This is why I have made this a separate post outside of the 1 Timothy 2 discussions.  You and I and whoever joins in this discussion will have some freedom to discuss these issues with Christian love and I hope a deep respect for God’s word and the truth that it reveals.  In the end we may exhaust all of points that we both have and we may still agree to disagree, but that’s okay.  I think in the end we will be better equipped to fully understand the reasoning of the opposing viewpoint and understanding each other is always a good thing.  It will definitely help me to see outside of my own box and I am hoping it will do the same for you.

    Okay does this qualify as chapter one of my new book?  Yikes!  I apologize in advance for my passion that will follow in the days ahead!  May God grant me the ability to be brief while still passionate for God’s Word which is The Truth!

  9. Paula, I will break these into multiple posts. I think they will be easier to address that way.

    “If the 7th day has not ended then you could say the days of Genesis equal ages. But there are several problems with this.”

    I am not saying that individual days are equal lengths, only that they are unspecified lengths of time but distinct periods.

    “One is that Adam had to have been thousands of years old instead of what the Bible states.”

    I am unclear why you think this would be the case. The last thing that happened on the sixth day (period) was the creation of Adam and Eve. The length of time between Adam and Eve’s creation was in the sixth day (period) but when Eve was created the sixth day (period) ended. Apparently nearly all of Adams 930 years were in the seventh day (period).

    “Do years mean ages too? Why not?”

    Again, you have lost me. The Hebrew yom is the word translated day. Hebrew has a thousand times fewer words than English. Many words in Hebrew carry many meanings that can only determined by context. Yom can be the period between sun-up and sun-down. It can be a 24-hour period. It can be an endless era.

    “The people at AIG also have spent their lives studying science, and many were teachers of biology etc. before the evidence convinced them that YEC is true.”

    My dad is retired Ph.D. chemist who among other things taught at a Nazarene University for ten years. I am in a bible study together with a Christian brother who is head of the science division of a local university with a Ph.D. from MIT in astronomy. I have a long time friend who is a physicist at Kansas State University who attends an Evangelical church along with her husband. I have a MA in the social sciences and have graduate work in the philosophy of science. I have spent the last 25 years on these topics as well. I have been around scientists all my life and I have read more than 25 books and countless articles on this topic from many perspectives.

    I did peruse the speakers lists at AIG and found maybe four with Ph.Ds in relevant fields. Of those, it was unclear whether they believed in a young earth or were simply opposing evolution. The young earth folks at AIG are in an exceedingly small minority of even Evangelical Christians. I have been around Evangelical Ph.D scientists all my life and don’t recall ever meeting one although clearly some exist.

    “Not so! The facts are not the problem, it’s the interpretation of them. That’s philosophy, not science. There is not one shred of proof that anything existed for millions of years. Not one. There are even open challenges for million-dollar rewards for anyone who can prove evolution, and they’ve never been claimed.”

    First, how did evolution get into the picture? I don’t recall saying anything about evolution. Second, “not one shred of proof.” The evidence for an ancient earth has been consistent and overwhelming and it has been so more at least 300-400 years. It was quickly determined that earth was at least millions of years old. As more evidence has been accumulated and measuring devices have become more precise scientists have been able to pinpoint with ever more accuracy dates of major celestial and earthly events. Scientists have learned more in the past decade than they have learned in all of previous human history. There has been consistent accuracy that the earth is ancient and that has varied is the precision of measurement.

    “Why do some of us insist that the days of Genesis were 24-hr. periods? I’ll tell you, but I could easily turn the question back on you: why do you insist that they are not?”

    Paula, I was already asked that by question Cheryl. That is most of what most of my comments were in response to. You have missed the point of my listing the early church fathers, the early scientists, people like William Jennings Bryan, and current Evangelicals. I wasn’t talking about their scientific credentials. I was talking about their strong Christian character and commitment to the authority of scripture. These folks saw no issue in non-literal 24-hour days based on reading of scripture. So the reason for the my question back was that if all of these witnesses from the beginning of the church to the present have seen no issue with it why are those militantly insisting on a 24-hr day doing so?

    I’ll stop here and write more later.

  10. Michael: Regarding your post #2 on the length of days.

    You said “The seventh day has not ended. Is Hebrews in error when it suggests the seven day was not 24 hours?”

    I understand and I think most people understand that the word in Hebrew as well as the word in English for “day” can mean several things depending on the context. I don’t think that is a point of contention at all. However I fail to see in the verses that you point to in Hebrews that says that the seventh day has not ended. The Sabbath rest that remains for the people of God is not God’s rest that he is doing but the rest that God provides for us. If God’s rest is still continuing i.e. the 7th Day has not ended, then I think that would contradict the words of Jesus. He said in John 5:17: But He answered them, “My Father is working until now, and I Myself am working.” If the Father is working until now, then he isn’t resting, right? Perhaps I have missed something that you see clearly. Where in Hebrews in the passage that you quoted does it say that God is still resting? Also if you believe that God is still resting, how would you explain the apparent contradiction of the words of Jesus that the Father is working right now?

    As far as some of the early Church fathers that thought that the days of creation were longer than 24 hour periods, I haven’t studied that so I can’t comment on it directly, but it doesn’t bother me any more than the same Church fathers who also believed that women were inferior to men. It isn’t an issue of salvation and the church certainly hasn’t been with one mind on many issues throughout our history. I don’t think we can condemn any of the church leaders for their position on secondary issues. I don’t anyway and I would hope you don’t either. That is why I have said that it is more important to me to give you reasons for why I believe as I do and why I reject the old earth theory rather than to try to convince you. It is an important matter to me, but it certainly doesn’t come close to a salvation issue.

    As far as the Evangelical leaders who embrace an ancient earth, I’m afraid that doesn’t impress me. I have never been impressed with PhD degrees. I have seen many men with PhD degrees take a very unbiblical stand on the women’s issue. In fact I think pretty much everyone that I counter in my DVD has a doctorate degree. I have had people who have been so impressed with the quality of people on CBMW’s board and their board of reference that they ask me how I could produce a DVD disputing their interpretations of scripture. While I accept these men as my brothers in Christ, their PhD degrees don’t seem to have stopped them from making some critical errors regarding the women’s issue. I also am reminded of the scriptures that say that God uses the lowly and those of us who are nothing in the world’s eyes to confound the wise.

    1 Corinthians 1:26– 29 in the Amplified Bible “For [simply] consider your own call, brethren; not many [of you were considered to be] wise according to human estimates and standards, not many influential and powerful, not many of high and noble birth. [No] for God selected (deliberately chose) what in the world is foolish to put the wise to shame, and what the world calls weak to put the strong to shame. And God also selected (deliberately chose) what in the world is lowborn and insignificant and branded and treated with contempt, even the things that are nothing, that He might depose and bring to nothing the things that are, So that no mortal man should [have pretense for glorying and] boast in the presence of God.

    I am not against education, but I think that sometimes education can be used to put more weight onto a person’s opinion than it ought to. Okay, here’s one of my thinking outside the box thoughts. If God hasn’t chosen many wise in the world’s standards then we might be better off disregarding any weight that PhD degrees places on one’s opinion and just test to see if a person is consistent with scripture rather then how much education they have. A case in point, it seems like the balance is off on the women’s issue in that more PhD kinds are on the side of the complementarian position. I know that there are people who won’t even dialogue with other people who aren’t on their PhD level. One Pastor told me it was intellectual snobbery. But I read a blog of a Baptist Pastor that really touched my heart. He said that he can learn from anyone no matter how insignificant that person is in other’s eyes. When we stop learning from others in the body of Christ just because they don’t seem to have the right amount of education, I think we miss out on so much that our Lord Jesus has for us.

    I agree with you when you say that we should not have any extra-biblical agenda, ignore what scripture does say and that we should not make scripture say anything that it does not say. I can’t speak for anyone else but myself, but I know that I want only the truth that scripture has and anything extra biblical that doesn’t line up with scripture, I want to reject. In my opinion, the view that is correct will always have all of scripture line up. When one must ignore scripture or rewrite it to fit one’s view, it becomes suspect in my eyes. One of the biggest objections that I have to the old earth theory is in how it changes the biblical account of the flood. I don’t want to assume that I know anyone’s motives on why they do that, but I just can’t see how one can take the flood account and make it a local flood.

    In Genesis 6:17 God says that he will bring a flood on the earth, not a flood on Egypt or Israel, or wherever.

    In Genesis 7:17 the flood lasted for 40 days and the waters came not just from the sky but the waters in the earth were opened up to gush out. In verse 18 the flood waters increased greatly on the earth. The Hebrew word for greatly is a word that can mean abundance, might or power. In verse 19 every mountain was covered “under heaven” and the waters were higher than the mountains by about 22.5 feet. I don’t see how a vast expanse of water that high above the mountains could possibly be a local flood.

    I also have a problem with Genesis 2:19 in that the old earth view doesn’t even want to try to make the verse fit into their timeline using the grammar that animals were also created after Adam as well as before Adam. In my view, I don’t have a problem if animals were only created before Adam. I also don’t have a problem if animals were created both before and after Adam. My view cannot be shaken in any respect no matter how the grammar is viewed. However it seems to me that the old earth view must contradict the grammar and cannot accept the grammar either way. I am not sure why because one would think that there would be some way to put the second creation of animals into their view without having any contradictions. If one cannot (and I would encourage you to try to see if you can find room for it) then this means that someone like me who holds to a strong view of scripture with inspired words and inspired grammar could never be an old earth person. Do you understand the dilemma that I see?

  11. Here is a really good quote from an article titled “Theological disagreement and the emerging church

    My son pointed me to this article and I think it is good article detailing how we need to be careful to understand the other’s viewpoint. I needed to read this one for myself because I too am human.  My intention is to properly represent the opposing side while I carefully and thoughtfully express my viewpoint.
    Here is the quote:

    Understanding the other calls for imagination, because we have to provisionally assume the other may be correct – or at least partially correct – if we are to truly listen. We may have to hold our convictions in abeyance as we hypothetically consider the position of the other.

    Coming to agreement requires confidence, because our self-worth cannot rest on our being merely right.

    Finding Christ’s mind demands humility, because we don’t like changing our minds and acknowledging that the other has a good point. Our certainty is such a warm comforting blanket that we hesitate to toss aside.

    What’s needed most of all is love – love for the other, love for God, and love for the truth – the three in balance.

    But it’s hard. In fact, these kinds of conversations are so difficult that often the only way that we can even begin is by crying out to God that His Spirit would empower us to proceed.

    God help us.

  12. Michael,

    I am not saying that individual days are equal lengths, only that they are unspecified lengths of time but distinct periods.

    I didn’t say they were equal in length, but that the days would be equal to ages, that is, they would stand for ages.

    The length of time between Adam and Eve’s creation was in the sixth day (period) but when Eve was created the sixth day (period) ended. Apparently nearly all of Adams 930 years were in the seventh day (period).

    How do you know Adam was created near the end of the sixth day, just because he was created 2nd last? Or that the 6th day ended right after Eve’s creation? According to the day-age view, measuring time is pretty much impossible and extremely arbitrary.

    We see in Genesis that God spoke and something colossal happened. There is no hint of how long it took. Each creation day could have been started with a creative act at the very beginning, with the majority of the day having no activity. So even on the 6th day, we have no idea how long it was or how much of it was left after humans were made. I have to conclude that your statement here is a baseless assertion.

    Again, you have lost me. The Hebrew yom is the word translated day. Hebrew has a thousand times fewer words than English. Many words in Hebrew carry many meanings that can only determined by context. Yom can be the period between sun-up and sun-down. It can be a 24-hour period. It can be an endless era.

    My point was that there is no objective way to measure time if day-age is true. But as I already stated, yom with an ordinal always means a literal solar day, especially accompanied by “evening and morning”. I don’t see where you have addressed this yet.

    My dad is retired Ph.D….I have a long time friend … I have a MA… I have spent the last 25 years…I have been around scientists all my life and I have read …

    This is an appeal to credentials, and as I’m sure you know, is only logically valid if all people with similar credentials agree on a given subject. That is not the case at all, so this is an irrelevant point.

    I did peruse the speakers lists at AIG and found maybe four with Ph.Ds in relevant fields. Of those, it was unclear whether they believed in a young earth or were simply opposing evolution. The young earth folks at AIG are in an exceedingly small minority of even Evangelical Christians. I have been around Evangelical Ph.D scientists all my life and don’t recall ever meeting one although clearly some exist.

    Here we have an attempt to “poison the well”, along with an appeal to majority view. Both logically irrelevant.

    First, how did evolution get into the picture? I don’t recall saying anything about evolution.

    Evolution is the only reason day-age was concocted. It is the reason, as has been documented, that so many people have rejected Christianity because they see the futility of trying to make Genesis fit with an old earth. Without it, there would be no justification for day-age.

    The evidence for an ancient earth has been consistent and overwhelming and it has been so more at least 300-400 years…

    Not true at all. But what good would it do for me to list the proof? If PhDs at AIG, ICR, and a host of other groups don’t mean as much as your MA etc., then what credentials are required?

    I see no age tags on any rocks, or transitional forms etc. Instead, I see evidence for the Flood. I see polonium halos in granite that prove near-instantaneous creation instead of millions of years of cooling. Old earth theory is full of gaping holes. If that were not true, then there wouldn’t be discussions about whether to allow unfavorable scientific facts to be allowed in science classrooms. (That happend in my state. They debated whether to only present those facts that seem to support long ages. This is not science!) I also see non-old earth scientists routinely censored from publication and funding. I could go on.

    So the reason for the my question back was that if all of these witnesses from the beginning of the church to the present have seen no issue with it why are those militantly insisting on a 24-hr day doing so?

    Who is militant, if not the OECs? They are every bit as narrow, every bit as biased, every bit as dogmatic about their view. For them to insist that yom cannot mean 24 hours in spite of “evening and morning, the nth day” is most militant and narrow. YECs simply take scripture as the context dictates.

    (For an excellent definition of the literal/historical hermeneutic, I recommend http://cyber.wmis.net/~ixthys/gpdd-mill-3.htm . It is part of a debate on Preterism but does a very thorough yet concise job.)

    But again, you appeal to credentials and majority. I don’t determine truth by those criteria, but by investigation and prayer. YECs and OECs both have the same facts, the same science, the same credentials. The difference is over interpretation, which is wholly philosophical.

  13. On Michael’s Post #3 on Genealogies:

    While “Father” and “Son” can be terms used for ancestors i.e. Jesus was the son of David (Matthew 1:1), the term “begat” cannot be used in this same sense. The Hebrew word “begat” is a verb meaning to give birth, to beget, to deliver. It cannot mean to bring forth eight generations later. It is always used of direct offspring. So in your example of your 8th great grandfather it could not be said that “John Cotton in his 55th year begat Michael Kruse.” That is not a proper usage of “begat” however you could say that “Michael Kruse is the son of John Cotton” or “John Cotton is father to Michael Kruse” because that would a proper usage for “father” and “son”.  I am not sure who told you that “begat” could be used in this way, but they are not correct.  However you are correct that “son” can be used in the sense of ancestor.

    If you were to do a search of the Hebrew Scriptures you will not find “begat” used in this way to make it mean some kind of ancestor.  It doesn’t mean that at all.  So in Genesis chapter 11:19 “And Peleg lived after he begat Reu two hundred and nine years, and begat sons and daughters” this means only one thing – that Reu was conceived and brought forth through Peleg his father. If you read through Genesis 11, you will find it filled with those who “begat” their children, with their ages that the children were born to them and the age that they died. It is impossible for the Hebrew word usage to place 8th generation ancestors into the lines of lineage in the way it is written – absolutely impossible. If you have a reference for a Hebrew scholar that says the word “begat” can refer to someone in an 8th generational line, I would seriously like to see their biblical evidence.

    In the 1 Chronicle 7 passage that you quoted, the word for “son” is the Hebrew word H1121 “bane” and it means son in the widest sense including grandson, nation, nephew. But in Genesis 11 the term is “begat” and it can only mean a direct son to the father.

    So when we read the genealogies of Genesis 11, we are reading the direct ancestors in line with their ages when they procreated their son and the age that they died. With this genealogy we can see the generations back to Noah and the flood and we can produce an accurate timeline of those generations.

  14. Michael, on your fourth post concerning Genetics:

    You said: “I didn’t say that woman came first or that Ross believes this. I said that scientific research suggests an earlier date for woman than for man.”

    I got the information from Ross’ web site and it says that science had dated the woman as older than the man. I did not mean to imply that you thought the woman was older or that Ross thinks that way now, but it appears that he either believed it in the past or was open to believing it because it seemed to be a scientific fact. This is where I balk at the “scientific evidence”. I hope you don’t mind if I tell you that I wouldn’t have been one of those who would be able to say that science could be right and then changed my mind and accepted the dating of woman to almost 60,000 years later so that now the man is older than she is. My reason would be purely scriptural because either science is right and the bible is wrong, or the bible is right and science is wrong.

    It seems that we no longer have to be concerned about the vast age difference because the DNA dating has changed and now the woman is 3,000 years younger than the man. So here’s the deal in my mind. Science will have to change that date again. Do you know why? Because the first woman was made from the first man and since he didn’t even live to be 1,000 years old, it is impossible for the first man to be 3,000 years older than the first woman.

    I am not sure if you believe the dating of first man at 43,000 years and first woman at 40,000 years but when science changes those dates again, I won’t have to adjust my view. I have no doubt that the woman came from the man and therefore she was around while he was alive and was at least a partial day younger than he was. I am happy that there are at least some scientists who ask why the discrepancy exists. I am sure there are lots who just accept the evidence of science and never question it.

    You said: “Therefore, if we began with Adam’s Y and Eve’s mito and trace it over thousands of years we should expect to see the same level of diversity in the DNA for both men and women. We don’t! We see a more diverse collection of mito than we do with Y.”

    Interesting. I can’t say that I understand everything you have written, because I am definitely not as smart as you are, but it is interesting.

    You said: “However, since mito DNA is from mothers through daughters we have three separate women (son’s wives) contributing their mito DNA to the gene pool. We are all descended from these three women.”

    I may be dense here but I don’t quite see how that has much to do with going back to Eve. After all, Noah, his wife, the three daughters-in-law, and Noah’s three sons are all descendents of Adam and Eve. The ultimate DNA trace has to go back to Adam, not Noah. My contention is that Eve is a descendent of Adam as she was taken from his DNA so although every son or daughter of Adam is traceable directly back to Adam the sinner, there is one human who is traceable back to Eve and from her back to Adam before Adam sinned. So in our genetics discussion, we must be able to trace Eve back to Adam because she is not a separate creation from the dirt but a DNA descendent of Adam. If we understand this, I am wondering what Christian geneticist could not possibly cry “foul” with scientific data that makes her either 57,000 years older than Adam or 3,000 years younger than Adam. This is the part that I do not understand. I know that the old earth belief is not a matter of separation between believers but I would like to see those who have the old earth belief stand up for scripture and shout down the scientific data that contradicts scripture. That would make me a lot more confident that the old earth view is not disregarding scripture and setting up a worldview that makes the next generation distrust the inspired words (begat) or the inspired dates (ages of the fathers when they produced their heir and when they died).

    Whew! I think I am finally caught up to you with your four posts. You certainly gave me a lot to work on for a couple of days, eh? Thanks, my friend!

  15. “Note: It’s JOHN Ankerberg, not Jack.”

    Paula, I think you know full well that Jack is a nickname for John, just like John Kennedy was known as Jack. Ankerberg goes by both. What earth does this have to with anything we are talking about?

  16. Day Age issue…

    The Hebrew translated day in Genesis yom.

    Genesis 2:4 at the beginning of the second creation account:

    These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day yom) that Jehovah God made earth and heaven. (ASV)

    Yet we just read Gen. 1 where it took six days for creation. Here “day” is used to describe this multiple “day” process.

    Yes, I have seen the widely circulated and erroneous claim that day with an ordinal must mean 24-hour day. (Even my “Mounce’s Expository Dictionary” gets this wrong.) Van Bebber and Taylor claim that in 358 cases out of 359 where day is used with an ordinal it represents a 24-hour day. However, in only 249 of those cases is an ordinal number with the singular use of day and all refer to events within the context of human activity and human history. In Genesis one, we are talking about a period in natural history before humanity.

    But what of our 359th case that did not meet the rule. Turn to Zachariah 14:7. This verse uses precisely the same Hebrew wording as Genesis 1:5, yowm-‘echaad.

    It will be a unique day, without daytime or nighttime-a day known to the LORD. When evening comes, there will be light. (NIV)

    but it shall be one day which is known unto Jehovah; not day, and not night; but it shall come to pass, that at evening time there shall be light. (ASV)

    And there shall be continuous day (it is known to the LORD), not day and not night, for at evening time there shall be light. (RSV)

    But it shall be one continuous day, known to the Lord–not day and not night, but at evening time there shall be light. (Amplified.)

    The most literal reading of this verse would be:

    “And it will be day one which shall be known to Jehovah.”

    The day is the “Day of the Lord,” which all biblical scholars agree is an era in history not a 24 hour day. Furthermore, it is instructive that it is used to indicate a unique and special kind of day.

    Then there are other passages like Hosea 6:2:

    After two days he will revive us;
    on the third day he will restore us,
    that we may live in his presence.

    This in not a literal 24 hour day. There is no rule of Hebrew grammar that requires yom with an ordinal to mean 24-hour day and biblical evidence of to the contrary. The Zachariah 14 passage actually strengthens the idea that something unique is meant by the Gen. 1:5.

    The Gen. 1 passage also includes the expression “there was evening, and there was morning” with each day. While we can find other verses that use both “evening” and “morning” in close proximity no where else in scripture is this phraseology used.. Thus almost certainly suggests something atypical is intended.

    Furthermore, as noted earlier, Hebrew is a very limited language that frequently resorts to metaphors and euphemisms. There was no Hebrew word for “long age” or “long period” in biblical times. Some have suggested olam could be used but it did not carry these connotations until long after the Bible was written. It is used in scripture to indicate a an indefinite extension into the future or past (usually the future) but it is never used in the sense of a lengthy era in the past with a fixed beginning and end. Therefore, in biblical Hebrew, if we wish to speak of fixed lengthy era in the past were are constrained to use the word yom with some qualifier, like maybe “there was evening, and there was morning” to euphemistically indicate a definite beginning and end.

    1. yom can mean era. It must be determined by context.
    2. There is not rule of Hebrew grammar that requires yom with an ordinal number to mean 24-hour day. There is biblical evidence to the contrary.
    3. “there was evening, and there was morning” is unique and almost certainly indicates that something is unique from the passage.
    4. There was no easy non-euphemistic way of communicating an ancient era of fixed duration in biblical Hebrew.

    My Conclusion:

    The Genesis “days” are specific epochs in history with fixed starts and ends (evening and morning) expressed in the preliterate and pre-scientific poetic language of biblical Hebrew.

  17. Paula wrote

    “On top of all that, we have the differing orders of creation week and evolutionary theory, and the enormous difference in time scale even if we allow thousands of years per day.”

    You are in error here. Both astronomy and the order things purportedly evolved in match the Gensis 1 account. That is wha makes it so astonishing.

  18. Cheryl,

    “My husband has been pushing me to take my research that was used in WIM and expand on it and put it into a book.”

    You should listen to him! 🙂

    “If one takes scripture and removes everything that they don’t personally like (by avoiding passages that have clear prohibitions or by reinterpreting God’s prohibitions to soften or avoid God’s words on the matter) then scripture loses its authority and we become the ultimate judge of God’s word. It is with sadness that I agree that this is what some egalitarians have done. I have read where Paul is disrespected as a male chauvinist or as someone who got it wrong in the beginning.”

    I am in full agreement with you here. There are those who have taken the their position not because of scripture but I spite of it. Curiously, in a book a just read about theology in the civil war there were many abolitionists who did the same. They opposed slavery in spite of the Bible not because of it. That undermined the authority of scripture on a host of issues. The same is true with this one.

    “However I have some DVD’s of their teaching and I have seen several debates between young earth versus old earth people and I have two books that go through Ross’ material and refutes him point by point.”

    And this is precisely what I have feared! How would you react to me as complementarian critic of yours said that I has never watched WIM but I had a point-by-point critique of WIM’s most adamant opponents and therefore know WIM to be in error?

    Prov 18:17

    “The first to present his case seems right, till another comes forward and questions him.” (NIV)

    If you have not read at least “The Genesis Question” and hopefully “A Matter of Days,” then you have not really listened to this other perspective! I encourage you to read for yourself what he says. I have read “Genesis Flood” and at least four or five other book length presentations of the Young-Earth view. I have occasionally visited websites of YECs and read articles written by them. I have truly listened to multiple sides of this debate and with a father and friends as scientists I have been around this debate a lot.

    “To be fair, they list the reading that God created animals after Adam as an option.”

    “I have read through the explanation and the requirement for the pluperfect and it appears to be a very solid case.”

    I am aware of they allow the alternative but you are missing my larger point. Your claim was that it must be read this way. This article was written by YEC folks. What the article highlights is that it is not a cut-and-dry case, open-and-shut case, even among YEC. That is my primary point.

    “I have read through the explanation and the requirement for the pluperfect and it appears to be a very solid case.”

    But did you read alternative views in their own words, not through the filter of their opponents? (Proverbs 18:17) Almost any case can be made to appear solid if you are only exposed to one side of it. The article makes clear that they believe the minority position to be that animals were created after Adam. Possibly the most widely referenced resource on such topics “Keil and Delitzsch” disagrees with your analysis. (That doesn’t make them right but it does mean the burden is on dissenters to make their case and refute the conclusion of the opponent.) I disagree that other translations have said this in the perfect sense. I think they have stated things ambiguously, sometimes using punctuation to set off one part of the verse from the other. I need to know not only what Barnes thinks but what his opponents think and why they are wrong.

    “Okay does this qualify as chapter one of my new book?”

    Just add this comment to it and you are there! 🙂

  19. Michael,

    Paula, I think you know full well that Jack is a nickname for John, just like John Kennedy was known as Jack. Ankerberg goes by both. What earth does this have to with anything we are talking about?

    Huh? You mentioned him first, and I related what I knew about him as it pertains to OEC. I don’t know how you missed the connection. And the name correction is important when you’re talking about well-known apologists and personalities. I don’t recall ever hearing anyone call him “Jack” in all the years I watched his show. It is not a general rule to call anyone named John, “Jack” either.

    And this was your main comment on that post?

    Hmmmm…

    You err in misunderstanding what “ordinal” means. It is not “one” but “first”, not “two” but “second”. Most of your examples of yom used with a number all used cardinal numbers, not ordinals. The only one you cited that was an ordinal was Hosea 6:2, and it is in a poetic passage. This is hardly a refutation of the point that taken together, the phrase “evening and morning, the nth day” must refer to 24-hour days. Genesis is not written as poetry but as historical narrative. Huge difference.

    You claim also that since only Genesis uses this phrase that it must therefore have some off-the-wall meaning. This is utterly ridiculous. It’s like saying that if Paul uses the word authentein only one place that we can just rip it out of context and attach any meaning we want.

    Then you use the old “primitive language” excuse as a last resort to denying the literal meaning of the text, as if God were at a loss for words and didn’t know what to tell Moses to write.

    My conclusion: Let the text tell you what God did, instead of insulting the intelligence of either Moses or God or the ancient Hebrews. What it can mean if you stretch it a lot is not what it does mean.

    And yes, the order of evolutionary theory cannot abide plants before sunlight, or millions of years of plants without insects. It doesn’t match at all.

    I’m sorry but it’s obvious no minds will be changed in spite of the plain meaning of scripture or the true facts of science. I’ve done all I can. I’ll leave you with a non-AIG and non-ICR science site:
    http://www.ridgecrest.ca.us/~do_while/sage/index.htm

    Of particular interest to you might be this list of links about scientists and credentials:
    http://search.msn.com/results.aspx?cp=1252&FORM=FREESS&q=credentials&q1=site%3AScienceAgainstEvolution.org

    Farewell.

  20. Paula,

    “I didn’t say they were equal in length, but that the days would be equal to ages, that is, they would stand for ages.”

    I went back and reread. You are correct, my error. I misread.

    “How do you know Adam was created near the end of the sixth day, just because he was created 2nd last? Or that the 6th day ended right after Eve’s creation? … So even on the 6th day, we have no idea how long it was or how much of it was left after humans were made. I have to conclude that your statement here is a baseless assertion.”

    You definitively said:

    “One is that Adam had to have been thousands of years old instead of what the Bible states.”

    No one knows about the timing a specific events. I was presenting you with a scenario that fits the era theory that refutes your claim, “Adam had to have been thousands of years old.” It is your claim that is the baseless assertion and my plausible scenario illustrates that.

    “My point was that there is no objective way to measure time if day-age is true. But as I already stated, yom with an ordinal always means a literal solar day, especially accompanied by “evening and morning”.”

    I wrote the comment above that starts “Day age issue..” above after you had posted this. Please scroll up for my response.

    From your comment:

    …….

    My dad is retired Ph.D….I have a long time friend … I have a MA… I have spent the last 25 years…I have been around scientists all my life and I have read …

    This is an appeal to credentials, and as I’m sure you know, is only logically valid if all people with similar credentials agree on a given subject. That is not the case at all, so this is an irrelevant point.

    I did peruse the speakers lists at AIG and found maybe four with Ph.Ds in relevant fields. Of those, it was unclear whether they believed in a young earth or were simply opposing evolution. The young earth folks at AIG are in an exceedingly small minority of even Evangelical Christians. I have been around Evangelical Ph.D scientists all my life and don’t recall ever meeting one although clearly some exist.
    Here we have an attempt to “poison the well”, along with an appeal to majority view. Both logically irrelevant.

    …….

    Please scroll up to your first response to me and reread these words you wrote to me:

    “The people at AIG also have spent their lives studying science, and many were teachers of biology etc. before the evidence convinced them that YEC is true.”

    EXCUSE ME!!! Who was making the appeal to credentials? Again you wrote in response to me:

    This is an appeal to credentials, and as I’m sure you know, is only logically valid if all people with similar credentials agree on a given subject.

    When Paula points to credentials that is legit but when I do it is an attempt to “poison the well”???

    I was not writing to demonstrate that my position has to be the correct because of credentials. I offered my credentials as context. I was trying to give you some background about myself so you know who you are in conversation with and what has shaped my convictions. Furthermore, while no argument can ultimately be settled on the basis of credentials neither are they irrelevant. Scientific fields are exceedingly complex requiring the comprehension abstract processes and relationships. That someone has gone through the rigor of being competent with these topics and has established credentials is relevant, not decisive. You offered credentials which I am to accept unquestioningly. I offered credentials and you become dismissive and trivializing.

    “Evolution is the only reason day-age was concocted. It is the reason, as has been documented, that so many people have rejected Christianity because they see the futility of trying to make Genesis fit with an old earth.”

    This is false. Did you not read my second post above? Evolution emerged as a coherent theory with the publication of Darwin’s book in 1859. Did Irenaeus, Origen, Justin Martyr, Augustine and Thomas Aquinas come up with these theories because of evolution? It is irrelevant how they came to their conclusions. The point is that they concluded it could was consistent with the Bible for there to be other than 24-hour days in Genesis without ever having heard of evolution.

    Did orthodox bible believing clergy in the 1600s and 1700s, venturing into geology, conclude that the earth must be ancient because of an idea that was 100-200 years away? Science emerged in Western Civilization like it did nowhere else because Christians believed in a God of order and reason. By systematically studying the material world they felt themselves entering into the very mind of God. Many of my scientist friends I know today express this same thrill. The overwhelming majority of scientists before the 19th Century were very solid Christians of this variety.

    The old-earth idea came first from people who believed in the authority of the Bible and God. That doesn’t make it right but it did not emerge because of evolution. It was one of the pieces that made Darwin’s theory plausible but it categorically was not constructed to support it. You have the order of events reversed.

    “Not true at all. But what good would it do for me to list the proof? If PhDs at AIG, ICR, and a host of other groups don’t mean as much as your MA etc., then what credentials are required?”

    Appeals to credentials again Paula? More sarcastic dismissive trivialization? Accept the unquestioningly accept the credential’s experts and then trivialize all dissenters? Nice!

    How about scientific credentials in the areas of biology, geology and astronomy which actually relate to science that deals with age of the earth. I counted maybe four with Ph.D. degrees that relate to this. As I said, of those four, I can’t tell if they are simply opposed to evolution or they are the age of the earth. My MA in social science academically qualifies me to speak with every bit as much authority on these scientific issues as all but four or five listed based on their academic credentials. Meanwhile, I know a whole world of Evangelical scientists in these specific areas who disagree with them.

    But we are going on a tangent. To me the specifics of science aren’t really central to the topic at hand. The assertion has been made that Genesis 1 must be 24-hour days and that animals must have been created after Adam and before Eve. None of us here that

    “Who is militant, if not the OECs? They are every bit as narrow, every bit as biased, every bit as dogmatic about their view.”

    This says more to me than anything you have written. You are convinced that anyone who disagrees with you is a militant, biased, dogmatic tyrant. I am not a brother in Christ to have a conversation with; possibly to be persuaded to a more biblical view. I am an enemy to be destroyed and humiliated if possible. At least you are honest. You wrote “every bit as” meaning you acknowledge the YEC narrowness, bias, and dogmatism you project on me.

    I am a busy a person who came her for conversation, I have no time for a flaming war. Paula, if you want to have a conversation lets have it and enough with the spite.

  21. Paula,

    I posted the above before I realized you had made a post. All through this you tone has been utter contempt and meaness. You have no respect or care for as a brother in Christ. Therefore, you are right. I do not think it is possible for us to have meaningful conversation. I will just say close my conversation with you with this:

    Num 6:24-26

    24 “‘”The LORD bless you
    and keep you;
    25 the LORD make his face shine upon you
    and be gracious to you;
    26 the LORD turn his face toward you
    and give you peace.” ‘

  22. Acutually, the recently departed Paula is correct in that I confused my ordinal and cardinal numbers. (I always confuse those for some reason.) That is what I get for writing off my head without refreshing my memory. The Zechariah and Hosea examples should be reversed. To illustrate my respective points. Sorry about that. The point still remains we are taking about unique periods prior to human history and there is no rule of Hebrew grammar that requires day with an ordinal mean a 24-hour day.

  23. With regard to generations:

    “While “Father” and “Son” can be terms used for ancestors i.e. Jesus was the son of David (Matthew 1:1), the term “begat” cannot be used in this same sense. The Hebrew word “begat” is a verb meaning to give birth, to beget, to deliver. It cannot mean to bring forth eight generations later. It is always used of direct offspring. …I am not sure who told you that “begat” could be used in this way, but they are not correct.”

    The Hebrew yalad is the same term used in Genesis 5 and Genesis 11 for begat in the KJV and ASV. It is translated “became the father of” in other translations. Yalad is the exact word in Exodus 6:20 in my third comment above!

    “Amram married his father’s sister Jochebed, who bore him Aaron and Moses. Amram lived 137 years.” NIV

    As I showed in my comment, Amaram married his aunt, Levi’s daughter. Yet she literally gave birth to Aaron and Moses 400 years and eight generations later? As we can see from the Exodus list, folks are no longer living beyond about 140 years.

    I see only two alternatives:

    A. Yalad is used to indicate what “became the ancestor of.”
    B. Exodus is in error.

    Do you see another?

    You mention Genesis 11:19. Back up to verses 12-13.

    “12 When Arphaxad had lived 35 years, he became the father of Shelah. 13 And after he became the father of Shelah, Arphaxad lived 403 years and had other sons and daughters.”

    Turn to Luke 3:35-36

    “35…Shelah, 36 the son of Cainan, the son of Arphaxad, …”

    Genesis 11 – Arphaxad to Shelah
    Luke 3 – Arphaxad to Cainan to Shelah

    Which is in error? Neither. The genealogies do not indicate the direct father to son relationships of contemporary Western genealogies. While Christians in the West, starting with Lightfoot and Ussher, have tried to calculate using these biblical genealogy dates. Why do you suppose we have no records of Jews doing this? Because they understood the purpose and use of the genealogies and knew that entire centuries are missing between named individuals. Such a calculation was pointless.

  24. Cheryl, this thing with the genetics really has me flustered and I can’t help but feel it is my fault.

    The bottom line of the DNA evidence is that there was a first man and woman (Adam and Eve) and that there was a flood. Hugh Ross has never believed or taught that woman came before man. We are all descended from Adam and Eve through Noah his wife, his three sons, and their daughters. I will try this from another angle.

    Adam and Eve had children. Adam passed on his Y chromosome to his sons. Eve passed on her mitochondrial DNA to her daughters. However, we know that with each generation there is a miniscule mutation of DNA each time it is passed on. Adam and Eve’s grandchildren’s DNA will be a miniscule amount difference from their parent’s DNA but just slightly more different from their grandparents. Keep following this out for several generations. Each individual has their parent’s unique contribution yet there is enough in common we can see the specific lines they came from like branches from a tree all the way back to the root.

    If it helps, think of a genealogy chart. We put Adam at the top and trace only his sons because the Y comes only through sons. Now we create a second chart with Eve at the top that traces only daughters because mito. DNA comes only through mothers. Just to make up a number, let us say that at the time of the flood there were 10,000 male lines and 10,000 female lines.

    When the flood occurs how many of these lines survive? One male line, because all living males have now come form Noah. All other men are dead with no survivors. But we have three female lines from the son’s wives who were likely each born of different mothers.

    * One surviving male line from whom everyone is descended (ulitmately from Adam)
    * Three surviving female lines from whom from whom everyone is descended (ulitmately from Eve.)

    The scientists know the rate of mutation of the DNA. The DNA can be likened to a time machine that will go back as far as the flood. The scientists go back 100 years take samples from a number of men and determine they diversity of lines is slightly less than today. They go back 100 years more. Slightly less still. They finally get to Noah and they stop because there are no other men alive to compare to and the diversity of the DNA diversity has vanished. Thus it falsely appears that Noah is the first man. They have no way of knowing of earlier generations because there is no other male DNA to compare to.

    Now our scientists get in the time machine and do the same for the women. They go back and back and come to Noah’s day and are left scratching there heads when they compare the DNA of the three wives. Because while the DNA has become far more similar it is not yet the same. It suggests (correctly) that there are earlier generations unaccounted for. But how can there be earlier women with out being earlier men? Thus, measuring the beginnings of humanity by this method falsely suggests a later date for man than woman.

    Ross has never taught that Eve came before man. He has reported what the science experiments showed. Those experiments indicated and earlier date for woman than man. No scientist believed this finding including Ross. It was impossible. But how to explain it? Ross’ point was that when we insert Noah and the flood into the picture everything falls into place. The Bible supplied the answer to this scientific mystery. The generations from Adam to Noah were hidden because of the way the experiment is conducted and what it measures. The anamoly in the experiment affirms the biblical account.

    I really regret raising this issue now. It was not my intention to say that the Bible is true because of something science said but rather to illustrate how the Bible actually provided the answer to a scientific question. I underestimated how complex this example was to grasp for folks who don’t read a lot of science. I have taken the discussion far a field from anything dealing with the post. I apologize for that. I just want to close making these observations of which I am certain:

    1. Ross has never believed or taught that Eve came before Adam or woman came before man. That is a misunderstanding of his report on the findings of science experiments, which has always included his biblical solution to the mystery, takes us back to Adam and Eve.

    2. Everyone is descended from Adam and Eve through Noah and his sons’ three wives. All other DNA lines were destroyed in the flood.

    3. It gives evidence that the flood account of the Bible is historically accurate.

    I hope I have explained it better but if it is still makes no sense I am content to leave it there. I hope you can at least trust me that my three statements are true.

  25. Hi Michael,

    Boy, you are going to make sure my mind has no cob webs, eh? Well, once again I must say that iron sharpens iron. I also have to say that I will have to leave your recent comments for another day, hopefully tomorrow. I have run out of time today and I do want to answer you back when my mind is all there 😉 Not fair for you to have to deal with a woman with only half a brain (well that may be my natural state, but I’m trying!)

    One comment before I go for tonight. It is important for me to reassure you of my respect and my care. I really want to do my best in sharing my scriptural view with a great amount of dignity and respect. The reason that I feel so strongly on this is because that is how I like to be treated. There are many times that I have been treated with disdain by complementarians and it felt yucky. I wondered if they knew how unloving they came across. It’s an amazing thing how even I can close my ears to really hearing the other person if I am being talked down to as if I was a terrible sinner.

    By the grace of God, I hope I never walk that road of being judgmental and unkind. I have experienced too much of that and I do not want to keep that ball a rolling. Don’t get me wrong. I am not saying that this is how you were being treated and I prefer to keep out of that conversation! I just want you to know that you are welcome here and I intend to challenge your socks right off those feet of yours! (Or just pull them down around your ankles, in a gentle and kind way, if I can’t get them off 😉

  26. (Mike now clutching at his socks. 🙂 )

    Thanks Cheryl. I am enjoying the conversation (for the most part) and I do feel you and I are having a conversation. I don’t spend this much time in conversation with people I don’t care about.

    I am sleepless so I have been surfing the net a little on the perfect/pluperfect aspects of 2:19. I found two online resources of interest. One is from the Concordia Theological Seminary in Fort Wayne. Dr. Douglas McC. L. Judisch writes in EXEGETICAL NOTES ON GENESIS 2: 18-24:

    “19. For the LORD God had formed from the ground every living thing of the field and every bird of the heavens, and now He brought [each] to the man to see what he would call each; and, indeed, everything which the man would call each living being that was its name.

    The initial word in the translation of this verse represents the strong waw being used to indicate positive logical consequence, since temporal consequence is excluded by the chronology of the creation clearly enunciated in Genesis 1. In this verse, indeed, the waw of logical consequence introduces not, as more commonly, a conception which logically proceeds from the preceding conception (as does the strong waw translated “and so” beginning the ensuing verse), but rather a conception which is required as the logical basis of the preceding conception (listed as IV.D. 2.e.(1.) in CHEL). Such a usage of the conjunction often implies a pluperfect understanding of the verbal form which it precedes, as is reflected here in the rendering “had formed” of the breviate aspect of ytzr (BDB, 427b- 428a).”

    The other website is called tektonics. It is more polemic but goes into much more detail about the “waw consecutive.” I found other sites with seemingly scholarly hosts linking this site as their argument for the pluperfect.

    I stumbled on another site where Josh McDowell advocated the pluperfect tense without giving strong details.

    Finally, one other observation. As I looked through the sites there were two types of sites that most adamantly subscribed to the perfect tense: Atheists and YECs. It appears to me that the first do so because atheists wish to discredit Christianity by showing “errors” in the bible and the second to discredit science. I have yet to find one resource that argues for the perfect before the late 20th Century. I am not leveling this charge at you but I am wondering about the sources you may be using. If I stop by the seminary later in the week I will do a little more digging.

  27. Mike,

    “(Mike now clutching at his socks. 🙂 ) Thanks Cheryl. I am enjoying the conversation (for the most part) and I do feel you and I are having a conversation. I don’t spend this much time in conversation with people I don’t care about.”

    Tee Hee, Okay, I get it, socks are up! I am enjoying the conversation too. Believe it or not I have never actually had a discussion with a Christian who is an old earth advocate. Perhaps that is because I don’t go around asking people.

    I’m going to answer your last post first and work my way through your other posts as I get time. I won’t be answering the ones you posted to Paula.

    For some reason my post is getting cut off so I will finish my comments under the next post called “Why Adam wasn’t deceived part two“.

  28. Someone posted the following quote during a discussion we were having on Adam and Eve, a quote from “Carson”, and I’m assuming the commentor meant D.A. Carson:

    “The devil was a murderer from the beginning, (is) probably a reference to the fall of Adam and Eve. By the success of his temptation, he robbed Adam of spiritual life, and through him brought death to the entire race (cf. Rom 5:12)” (p353).

    Here, Carson is saying that the serpent’s temptation got Adam to eat the fruit from the tokogae. Below is the temptation of the serpent saying basicaly that 1) you will not die and 2) your eyes will be opened and you will be like God.

    Gen 3:4 You will not certainly die,” the serpent said to the woman. 5 “For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.

    Paul says that Adam was NOT deceived:

    1 Tim 2:14 And Adam was not the one deceived

    If Adam was not deceived then he did not believe the lies of the serpent.
    If he did not believe the lies of the serpent then he could not have been tempted by what the serpent said.
    If he could not have been tempted by what the serpent said then the serpent could not have had success in tempting Adam.
    If he could not have had success in tempting Adam, then the serpent could not have robbed Adam of spiritual life.
    Adam ate willingly because he was not deceived. The serpent then did not take Adam’s life from him.

    Am I missing something or is Carson not even getting the story on Adam straight?

Comment to join the discussion

%d bloggers like this: