One thing that really
irks me about individuals who argue the Bible is the timeline issue. Just to
clarify, it's one thing to say the Bible is approximately 4,000 years old but
that does NOT mean the Bible states the planet or our universe is 4,000.
For starters, the
dinosaurs are referenced in the Bible so it acknowledges the existence of such
giant animals that walked the earth. Let's begin with Genesis 1:1. It's an
undated verse! It says the earth was created in 6 days and He rested on the
7th. But there's a few things I'd like to point out. In the Bible, the word
"day" can indicate more than just the conventional 24-hour period. We
see examples of this when it speaks of "The Day of the Lord" and this
day involves a series of events, that is understood to be well over 24 hours.
It also does use the word literally but it's very clear on the distinction.
Wherever you find a
numerical adjective: example first day second day etc. it obviously refers to a
24-hour day. So we take from this that it took God six 24-hour periods to
complete the creation of the Universe. Also please take note that on day one
Adam was not created in the form of a baby. He was created in the form of a
grown man. Although there is much debated the age of the planet, God could have
very well created everything with age already established. In other words He
could have created an aged earth. Doing so is not well outside of the
parameters of God's power. God exists outside of the time space continuum so
this is something that could very easily be accomplished by Him.
In case you were
thinking of 2 Peter 3:8 as a contradicting verse, its not. Make sure when you
study the Bible, you do so within the context of the Scripture its in. We know
one other entity who likes to take Scripture out of context and that is Satan!
He did this when he tempted Jesus so please, let the Bible speak for itself.
Genesis 1:5 says
"And God called the light day, and the darkness He called night. And the
evening and morning were the first day." This explicitly tells us what God
defines as one single 24 hour period. 2 Peter 3:8 says, "But you must not
forget this one thing, dear friends: A day is like a thousand years to the
Lord, and a thousand years is like a day." This verse is not defining a
day; its telling us that God exists outside of time. He is not under the same
physical laws in the world as we are. In this chapter, Peter is urging us to
not be procrastinators because the Day of the Lord is coming. See the
difference? I just wanted to make this clarification before I continue.
Furthermore,
arcaeologists often use speculative (and inaccurate) techniques such as
radiocarbon dating, dendrochronology (tree-ring analysis), and pottery dating
schemes. Yet each of these methods is beset with serious flaws, not the least
of which are the abasic assumptions upon which they are constructed. In two
timely, well-researched articles ("Dating in Archaeology: Radiocarbon
& Tree-Ring Dating" and "Dating in Archaeology: Challenges to
Biblical Credibility") Trevor J. Major (1993, 13:74-77) amd Garry K.
Brantley (1993, 13:81-85) explained the workings of these various methods and
exposed the faulty assumptions upon which each is based. After listing and
discussing five important problem areas associated with carbon-14 dating, and
after discussing the problems associated with obtaining accurate tree-ring
growth rates, Major wrote:
"Radiocarbon dating
assumes that the carbon-12/carbon-14 raio has stayed the same for at least the
last hundred thousand years or so. However, the difference between the
production and decay rates, and the systematic discrepancy between radiocarbon
and tree-ring dates, refute this assumption. Similarly, we should not accept
the claims for dendrochronology at face value. Bristlecones may add more than
one growth ring per year, and the "art" of cross dating living and
dead trees may be a considerable source of error. Both radiocarbon dating and
dendrochronology face technical problems, and are loaded with old Earth ideas.
They assume that nature works today the same way as it has worked for millions
of years, yet the facts do not support this contention. Neither method should
give us cause to abandon the facts of Biblical history (1993, 13:77).
I found an excellent Apologetics article written by Bert Thompson, Ph.D.
that talks about the age of the Earth and the Bible The website is full of
wonderful articles and I suggest you read them in your spare time.
"A simple,
straightforward reading of the biblical record indicates that the Cosmos was
created in six days only a few thousand years ago. Standing in firm opposition
to that view is the suggestion of atheistic evolutionists, theistic
evolutionists, progressive creationists, and so-called “old-Earth creationists”
that the current age of the Universe can be set at roughly 8-12 billion years,
and that the Earth itself is almost 5 billion years old.
Further complicating
matters is the fact that the biblical record plainly indicates that living
things were placed on the newly created Earth even before the end of the
six-day creative process (e.g., plant life came on day three). The evolutionary
scenario, however, postulates that early life evolved from nonliving chemicals
roughly 3.5-4.0 billion years ago, and that all other life forms gradually
developed during the alleged “geologic ages” (with man arriving on the scene,
in one form or another, approximately 1-2 million years ago).
The renowned biblical
scholar, Edward J. Young, forcefully expressed this point when he wrote:
"It is of course
true that the Bible is not a textbook of science, but all too often, it would
seem, this fact is made a pretext for treating lightly the content of Genesis
one. Inasmuch as the Bible is the Word of God, whenever it speaks on any
subject, whatever that subject may be, it is accurate in what it says."
(1964, p. 43).
The question then
becomes: “Does the Bible address the age of the Earth?” Yes, it does.
The truth of the matter
is that the Bible, being a book grounded in history, is filled with
chronological data that may be used to establish a relative age for the Earth.
It is not “silent” on this topic, and thus there is no need to “wait and see”
or to “reserve judgment.”
The Bible, for example,
provides exact chronological data from Adam to Solomon. Combining information
from the Assyrian Eponym Lists and the Black Obelisk, the death of Ahab has
been determined to be 853-852 B.C. (Packer, et al., 1980, p. 48) and
therefore the reign of Solomon (some 40 years, 1 Kings 11:42) can be dated at
971-931 B.C. (Merrill, 1978, p. 97; Packer, et al., 1980, p. 50;
Brantley, 1993, p. 83). According to 1 Kings 6:1, 480 years before Solomon’s
fourth year of reign (967-966 B.C.), Moses brought the Israelites out of
Egypt. The date of the Exodus is 1446/ 1445 B.C. (Unger, 1973, pp.
140-152; Archer, 1970, pp. 212-222; Packer, et al., 1980, p. 51; Jackson, 1981,
p. 38; 1990, p. 17).
To this date is added
the time of the sojourn in Egypt (430 years, Exodus 12:40), thereby producing
the date of 1876 B.C. as the year Jacob went to Egypt (Packer, et
al., 1980, p. 50). Interestingly, the Bible records Pharaoh’s query of Jacob’s
age (and Jacob’s answer—130 years) in Genesis 47:9, which would make the year
of Jacob’s birth 2006 B.C. (Genesis 25:26). Abraham was 100 years old
when he begat Isaac, giving the date of 2166 B.C. for Abraham’s birth
(Genesis 21:5; Packer, et al., 1980, p. 54). The chronology from Abraham to
Adam is recorded very carefully in two separate chronological tables—Genesis 5
and 11. According to Genesis 12:4, Abraham was 75 when he left Haran, presumably
after Terah died at 205 years; thus, Abraham was born when Terah was 130 years
old, albeit he is mentioned first by importance when Terah began having sons at
the age of 70 (Genesis 11:27; 12:4; Acts 7:4).
Having established the
birth date of Abraham at 2166 B.C. (Archer, 1970, pp. 203-204), it is
possible to work from the time of Adam’s creation to Abraham in order to
discern the chronology of “the beginning.” The time from the creation of Adam
to Seth was 130 years (Genesis 5:3), the time from Adam to Noah was 1056 years
(Packer, et al., 1980, pp. 56-57), and the time from Noah’s birth to the Flood
was 600 years (Genesis 7:6), or 1656 A.A. (After Adam). It appears
that Shem was about 100 years old at the time of the Flood (Genesis 5:32;
11:10) and begat Arphaxad two years after the Flood (the Earth was not dry for
more than a year; cf. Genesis 7:11 with 8:14; see also Genesis 11:10) in
approximately 1659 A.A.
Arphaxad begat Salah in
his thirty-fifth year; however, Luke 3:36 complements the chronological table
of Genesis 11 with the insertion of Cainan between Arphaxad and Salah, which
indicates that likely Arphaxad was the father of Cainan. Proceeding forward,
one observes that Terah was born in 1879 A.A., and bore Abraham 130 years
later (in the year 2009 A.A.). Simple arithmetic—2166 B.C. added
to 2009 A.A.—would place the creation date at approximately 4175 B.C. The
Great Flood, then, would have occurred around 2519 B.C.(i.e., 1656 A.A.).
Numerous objections have
been leveled at the literal and consecutive chronological interpretation of
Scripture. For example, some have suggested that the tables of Genesis 5 and 11
are neither literal nor consecutive. Yet five of the Patriarchs clearly
were the literal fathers of their respective sons: Adam named Seth
(Genesis 4:25), Seth named Enos (4:26), Lamech named Noah (5:29), Noah’s sons
were Shem, Ham and Japheth (cf. 5:32 with 9:18), and Terah fathered Abraham
directly (11:27,31). Jude’s record in the New Testament counts Enoch as “the
seventh from Adam” (Jude 1:14), thereby acknowledging the genealogical tables
as literal and consecutive.
Moreover, how better
could Moses have expressed a literal and consecutive genealogy than by using
the terms “lived...and begat...begat...after he begat...all the days... and he
died”? Without question, Moses noted that the first three individuals (Adam,
Seth, and Enos) were consecutive, and Jude stated by inspiration that the first
seven (to Enoch) were consecutive. Enoch’s son, Methuselah, died the year of
the Flood, and so by three steps the chronology of Adam to Noah is literal and
consecutive, producing a trustworthy genealogy/chronology.
While it is true that
genealogies (and chronologies) serve various functions in Scripture, one of
their main purposes is to show the historical connection of great men to the
unfolding of Jehovah’s redemptive plan. These lists, therefore, are a link from
the earliest days of humanity to the completion of God’s salvation system. In
order to have any evidential value, they must be substantially complete.
For example, the
inspired writer of Hebrews, in contending for the heavenly nature of Christ’s
priesthood, argued that the Savior could not have functioned as a priest while
He was living upon the Earth since God had in place a levitical priesthood
to accomplish that need (Hebrews 8:4). Jesus did not qualify for the levitical
priesthood because “it is evident that our Lord hath sprung out of Judah”
(Hebrews 7:14, emp. added). How could it have been “evident” that Jesus Christ
was from the tribe of Judah—unless there were accurate genealogical records by
which such a statement could be verified? The writer of Hebrews based his
argument on the fact that the readers of his epistle would not be able to
dispute the ancestry of Christ due to the reliable nature of the Jewish
documentation available—i.e., the genealogies.
The truth of the matter
is that both scientists and theologians should be concerned
with fitting the scientific data to the truth—God’s Word—not with molding God’s
Word to fit current scientific theories (which, in a few short years may change—e.g.,
in Charles Darwin’s day the Earth had been “proven” scientifically to be 20
million years old, while today it has been “proven” scientifically to be 4.6
billion years old)."
The moral of this post
is we need to start thinking outside the box and not have such a tight grip on
science, which has been shown to be, at times, dead wrong. Consider this: my
science textbooks change every year but just to be fair, lets say major changes
in the scientific textbooks occur once ever decade. Well, my Bible has not
changes in well over 2,000 years.
REFERENCES
Ackerman, Paul (1986), It’s
a Young World After All (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).
Aling, C. (1981), Egypt
and Bible History (Grand Rapids, MI Baker).
Archer, Gleason L.
(1970), Old Testament Introduction (Chicago, IL: Moody).
Archer, Gleason L.
(1979), “The Chronology of the Old Testament,” The Expositor’s Bible
Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).
Baikie, James (1929), A
History of Egypt (London: A&C Black).
Brantley, Garry K.
(1993), “Dating in Archaeology: Challenges to Biblical Credibility,” Reason & Revelation, 13:82-85,
November.
Breasted, James (1912), History
of Egypt (New York, Charles Scribner’s Sons).
Cassel, J. Frank (1973),
“Biology,” Christ and the Modern Mind, ed. Robert W. Smith (Downers Grove,
IL: InterVarsity Press).
Clayton, John N. (1976), The
Source (South Bend, IN: Privately published by author).
England, Donald (1972), A
Christian View of Origins (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).
England, Donald (1983), A
Scientist Examines Faith and Evidence (Delight, AR: Gospel Light).
Jackson, Wayne (1981), “The
Chronology of the Old Testament in the Light of Archaeology,”Reason &
Revelation, 1:37-39, October.
Jackson, Wayne (1989), Creation,
Evolution, and the Age of the Earth (Stockton, CA: Courier Publications).
Jackson, Wayne (1990), “The
Saga of Ancient Jericho” Reason & Revelation, 10:17-19, April.
Jackson, Wayne and Bert
Thompson (1992), In the Shadow of Darwin: A Review of the Teachings of
John N. Clayton (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press).
Jordan, James (1979), “The
Biblical Chronology Question—[Part I]” Creation Social Sciences and
Humanities Quarterly, 2[2]:9-15, Winter.
Jordan, James (1980), “The
Biblical Chronology Question—[Part II]” Creation Social Sciences and
Humanities Quarterly, 2[3]:17-26, Spring.
Kantzer, Kenneth (1982),
“Guideposts for the Current Debate over Origins,” Christianity Today, pp.
23-25, October 8.
Kautz, Darrel (1988), The
Origin of Living Things (Milwaukee, WI: Privately published by author).
Major, Trevor (1993), “Dating in
Archaeology: Radiocarbon and Tree-Ring Dating,” Reason & Revelation, 13:74-77,
October.
Merrill, E.H., (1978), An
Historical Survey of the Old Testament (Phillipsburg, N: Presbyterian and
Reformed).
Morris, Henry M. (1974), Scientific
Creationism (San Diego, CA: Creation-Life Publishers).
Morris, Henry M. (1984), The
Biblical Basis for Modern Science (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).
Morris, Henry M. (1989), The
Long War Against God (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).
Morris, Henry M. and
Gary E. Parker (1987), What Is Creation Science? (San Diego, CA:
Master Books), second edition.
Morris, John D. (1994), The
Young Earth (Green Forest, AR: Master Books).
Packer, J.I., Merrill C.
Tenney, and William White Jr. (1980), The Bible Almanac (Nashville,
TN: Nelson).
Ramm, Bernard (1954), The
Christian View of Science and Scripture (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).
Riegle, D.D. (1962), Creation
or Evolution? (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan).
Rohl, David M. (1995), Pharaohs
and Kings: A Biblical Quest (New York: Crown).
Sears, Jack Wood (1969), Conflict
and Harmony in Science and the Bible (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).
Thiele, Edwin (1977), A
Chronology of the Hebrew Kings (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan).
Thompson, Bert (1982a), “The
Day-Age Theory: Another False Compromise of the Genesis Account of Creation,” Reason
& Revelation, 2:29-32, July.
Thompson, Bert (1982b), “The
Gap Theory: Still Another False Compromise of the Genesis Account of Creation,” Reason
& Revelation, 2:45-48, November.
Thompson, Bert (1994a), “Popular
Compromises of Creation—The Day-Age Theory,” Reason & Revelation, 14:42-44,46-47, June.
Thompson, Bert (1994b), “Popular
Compromises of Creation—The Gap Theory,” Reason
& Revelation, 14:49-56, July.
Thompson, Bert (1995), Creation
Compromises (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press).
Unger, Merrill (1973), Archaeology
and the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI, Zondervan).
White, J.E.M. (1970), Ancient
Egypt (New York: Dover).
Wysong, R.L. (1976), The
Creation-Evolution Controversy (East Lansing, MI: Inquiry Press).
Young, Edward J. (1964), Studies
in Genesis One (Nutley, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed).
No comments:
Post a Comment