Like any interpretive option, literalism is a choice, not
the default option. That comes down to something as basic as assuming that
'create' refers to material origins. As a number of Old Testament scholars
note, in the ancient world, functional origins were more important than
material origins, and YECs make a major mistake by assuming that the ancient
world shared our obsession with material origins. That is not the case.
The literalism YECs espouse here is
inconsistent, as if they were entirely consistent, they would take the
references in Genesis 1 to a solid firmament separating waters above from
waters below, in which the sun, moon, and stars were embedded literally. Their
failure to be consistent suggests that their reading of the creation narratives
and Old Testament references to cosmology and creation is motivated more by the
need to preserve a particular reading rather than to be guided by the
text.
Fundamentalists in our community would be well
advised to take seriously the advice of C.C. Walker, second editor of The
Christadelphian, who recognised that "Moses’ testimony is not so “plain” that it cannot be
misinterpreted or misunderstood" [1] and refrain from uncritically
embracing views sourced from the fundamentalist wing
of the evangelical Christian world.
Exodus 20:11, creation and the Law of Moses
Ex 20:11 has long been regarded by YECs as a 'clobber verse', one that is wheeled out to shut down debate on the subject of origins. [2] The idea of a 'clobber verse' however runs counter to sound exegetical methods which recognise that building doctrines on an isolated passage of scripture is risky at best. This is particularly so here given that the first two chapters of Genesis contradict each other on the length of creation when read literally, while an avalanche of evidence from the natural world flatly demolish YEC. Against this background, the only possible approach for the intellectually honest exegete is to re-examine Ex 20:11 in context, to see what it really says, as opposed to what the YEC wants it to say.
Without endorsing CC Walker's explanation, it is significant that he recognised both the weight of scientific evidence against recent creation, as well as alternative ways to interpret Ex 20:11
Ex 20:11 has long been regarded by YECs as a 'clobber verse', one that is wheeled out to shut down debate on the subject of origins. [2] The idea of a 'clobber verse' however runs counter to sound exegetical methods which recognise that building doctrines on an isolated passage of scripture is risky at best. This is particularly so here given that the first two chapters of Genesis contradict each other on the length of creation when read literally, while an avalanche of evidence from the natural world flatly demolish YEC. Against this background, the only possible approach for the intellectually honest exegete is to re-examine Ex 20:11 in context, to see what it really says, as opposed to what the YEC wants it to say.
Without endorsing CC Walker's explanation, it is significant that he recognised both the weight of scientific evidence against recent creation, as well as alternative ways to interpret Ex 20:11
It has been thought that the law of the Sabbath necessitates six literal days in creation; but on second thoughts this does not seem conclusive, since the millennium is a “Sabbath” of a thousand years duration, and “one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day” (2 Pet. 3:9). [3]
It has been argued persuasively that a fundamentalist is one who does not think he has a hermeneutic. In other words, he simply assumes that a hyper-literal reading of an English translation of the Hebrew text, taken out of its ancient Near Eastern context is the default exegetical option. However, literalism, like any hermeneutical option is a decision, and the fundamentalist does not get to assume literalism as the default. He is obliged to fully justify that strategy. Given that the scientific evidence (the careful study of God's creation is no more 'man's wisdom' than is the careful study of the Bible) completely rules out recent creation, any reading of Ex 20:11 by necessity needs to take place within the framework of what we know about our ancient universe, and those facts a priori exclude YEC.
The first thing that we see when we examine Ex 20:11 in context is that it is not the only explanation for the Sabbath. Deuteronomy 5 also gives an aetiology for the Sabbath, and it makes zero mention of creation in six days being the reason for the sanctification of the Sabbath:
The first thing that we see when we examine Ex 20:11 in context is that it is not the only explanation for the Sabbath. Deuteronomy 5 also gives an aetiology for the Sabbath, and it makes zero mention of creation in six days being the reason for the sanctification of the Sabbath:
Exodus 20
|
Deuteronomy 5
|
The Ten Commandments
1 Then God spoke all these words, saying,
2 “I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery.
3 “You shall have no other gods before Me.
4 “You shall not make for yourself an idol, or any likeness of what is in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the water under the earth.
5 “You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, on the third and the fourth generations of those who hate Me,
6 but showing lovingkindness to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments.
7 “You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain, for the Lord will not leave him unpunished who takes His name in vain.
8 “Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
9 “Six days you shall labor and do all your work,
10 but the seventh day is a sabbath of the Lord your God; in it you shall not do any work, you or your son or your daughter, your male or your female servant or your cattle or your sojourner who stays with you.
11 “For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day and made it holy.
12 “Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be prolonged in the land which the Lord your God gives you.
13 “You shall not murder.
14 “You shall not commit adultery.
15 “You shall not steal.
16 “You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
17 “You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife or his male servant or his female servant or his ox or his donkey or anything that belongs to your neighbor.”
|
The Ten Commandments Repeated
1 Then Moses summoned all Israel and said to them:
“Hear, O Israel, the statutes and the ordinances which I am speaking today in your hearing, that you may learn them and observe them carefully.
2 “The Lord our God made a covenant with us at Horeb.
3 “The Lord did not make this covenant with our fathers, but with us, with all those of us alive here today.
4 “The Lord spoke to you face to face at the mountain from the midst of the fire,
5 while I was standing between the Lord and you at that time, to declare to you the word of the Lord; for you were afraid because of the fire and did not go up the mountain. He said,
6 ‘I am the Lord your God who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery.
7 ‘You shall have no other gods before Me.
8 ‘You shall not make for yourself an idol, or any likeness of what is in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the water under the earth.
9 ‘You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, and on the third and the fourth generations of those who hate Me,
10 but showing lovingkindness to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments.
11 ‘You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain, for the Lord will not leave him unpunished who takes His name in vain.
12 ‘Observe the sabbath day to keep it holy, as the Lord your God commanded you.
13 ‘Six days you shall labor and do all your work,
14 but the seventh day is a sabbath of the Lord your God; in it you shall not do any work, you or your son or your daughter or your male servant or your female servant or your ox or your donkey or any of your cattle or your sojourner who stays with you, so that your male servant and your female servant may rest as well as you.
15 ‘You shall remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt, and the Lord your God brought you out of there by a mighty hand and by an outstretched arm; therefore the Lord your God commanded you to observe the sabbath day.
16 ‘Honor your father and your mother, as the Lord your God has commanded you, that your days may be prolonged and that it may go well with you on the land which the Lord your God gives you.
17 ‘You shall not murder.
18 ‘You shall not commit adultery.
19 ‘You shall not steal.
20 ‘You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
21 ‘You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, and you shall not desire your neighbor’s house, his field or his male servant or his female servant, his ox or his donkey or anything that belongs to your neighbor.’
|
In Deut 5, Moses makes no reference to the Sabbath being commissioned to commemorate creation in six literal days. Rather, it was to remind Israel of their deliverance from slavery in Egypt. Given the existence of two different reasons for the commemoration of the Sabbath, it is more than probable that the compilers of the Pentateuch were more concerned with emphasising the importance of commemorating the Sabbath, and as such, these words represent a later tradition.
Furthermore, if one pays close attention to the personal pronouns in Ex 20, it becomes apparent that there are three shifts from first person (God speaking) to third person (compiler adding explanatory notes) in verses 7, 11, and 12:
7 “You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain, for the Lord will not leave him unpunished who takes His name in vain.
11 “For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day and made it holy.
12 “Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be prolonged in the land which the Lord your God gives you.
In all three passages, we see a switch from first person to third person, providing commentary on the perils of blasphemy, the reason for the Sabbath day, and the benefits accruing from obeying one's parents. None of these reflect the original words of God, but are additions to the text made by compilers, under inspiration. It is surely worth noting that if God really wanted to declare that the physical creation took place in six literal days 6000 years ago, the text would have reflected an unambiguous first person declaration in both Ex 20 and Deut 5. But we don't see that. Instead, we see a third person commentary in Ex 20:11, and nothing in Deut 5.
This shift from first person to third person is also seen in Deuteronomy 5. In verse six, Moses begins by recalling the words of God: "I am the Lord your God who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery." In fact, we see in Deut 5 a shift from first person to third person at exactly the same places (warning against blaspheming the name of YHWH, reason for sabbath, and the need to honour parents) providing further evidence that the original words of God did not contain the aetiologies for these three points that Ex 20 and Deut 5 provide:
You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain, for the Lord will not leave him unpunished who takes His name in vain.
Observe the sabbath day to keep it holy, as the Lord your God commanded you. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a sabbath of the Lord your God; in it you shall not do any work, you or your son or your daughter or your male servant or your female servant or your ox or your donkey or any of your cattle or your sojourner who stays with you, so that your male servant and your female servant may rest as well as you. You shall remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt, and the Lord your God brought you out of there by a mighty hand and by an outstretched arm; therefore the Lord your God commanded you to observe the sabbath day.
Honor your father and your mother, as the Lord your God has commanded you, that your days may be prolonged and that it may go well with you on the land which the Lord your God gives you.
In fact, given that the aetiology for the Sabbath is reported in Deut 5:14 as coming directly from Moses rather than an anonymous compiler (as is the case in Ex 20:11) one could make an excellent case that the explanation in Deut 5:15 has primacy. Certainly, for those inclined to argue typologically, one could argue that we too were also 'slaves in the land of Egypt' until redeemed by Christ. A similar typological interpretation of Ex 20:11 is difficult at best to achieve.
There is one further reference to creation in six days which occurs in Ex 31:12-18, and the acid test for this argument would be whether we see a shift from first person to third person. We do:
The Lord spoke to Moses, saying, “But as for you, speak to the sons of Israel, saying, You shall surely observe My sabbaths; for this is a sign between Me and you throughout your generations, that you may know that I am the Lord who sanctifies you. Therefore you are to observe the sabbath, for it is holy to you. Everyone who profanes it shall surely be put to death; for whoever does any work on it, that person shall be cut off from among his people. For six days work may be done, but on the seventh day there is a sabbath of complete rest, holy to the Lord; whoever does any work on the sabbath day shall surely be put to death. So the sons of Israel shall observe the sabbath, to celebrate the sabbath throughout their generations as a perpetual covenant. It is a sign between Me and the sons of Israel forever; for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, but on the seventh day He ceased from labor, and was refreshed."
When He had finished speaking with him upon Mount Sinai, He gave Moses the two tablets of the testimony, tablets of stone, written by the finger of God.
Once again, we see the same shift from first person to third person providing the six day aetiology for the Sabbath. We can see that nowhere in the first person narrative do we see a specific declaration from YHWH that the heavens and earth were made in six days. In fact, when we omit the third person comments in Deut 5 and Ex 20, the two narratives are quite similar, arguing against the assumption that Deut 5 and Ex 20 are variant forms of the ten commandments:
Exodus 20
|
Deuteronomy 5
|
The Ten Commandments
2 “I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery.
3 “You shall have no other gods before Me.
4 “You shall not make for yourself an idol, or any likeness of what is in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the water under the earth.
5 “You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, on the third and the fourth generations of those who hate Me,
6 but showing lovingkindness to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments.
7 “You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain,
8 “Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
9 “Six days you shall labor and do all your work,
12 “Honor your father and your mother,
13 “You shall not murder.
14 “You shall not commit adultery.
15 “You shall not steal.
16 “You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
17 “You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife or his male servant or his female servant or his ox or his donkey or anything that belongs to your neighbor.”
|
The Ten Commandments Repeated
6 ‘I am the Lord your God who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery.
7 ‘You shall have no other gods before Me.
8 ‘You shall not make for yourself an idol, or any likeness of what is in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the water under the earth.
9 ‘You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, and on the third and the fourth generations of those who hate Me,
10 but showing lovingkindness to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments.
11 ‘You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain,
12 ‘Observe the sabbath day to keep it holy,
13 ‘Six days you shall labor and do all your work,
16 ‘Honor your father and your mother,
17 ‘You shall not murder.
18 ‘You shall not commit adultery.
19 ‘You shall not steal.
20 ‘You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
21 ‘You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, and you shall not desire your neighbor’s house, his field or his male servant or his female servant, his ox or his donkey or anything that belongs to your neighbor.’
|
The absence of any explanation for the Sabbath in the first person narrative does not mean that the Exodus aetiology is of no value, but it certainly argues against the naive belief stemming from an unsophisticated, motivated, and literal reading of the text that God Himself decreed that the universe was made in six literal days, particularly when a careful, honest examination of the natural world shows that the universe is ancient and evolving.
Temple Cosmology and the Sabbath Rest
With the temple-cosmos creation motif in mind, the language of Hebrews 4, where the elect of God will finally enter into YHWH's Sabbath resonates strongly. The literalist view that YECs insists should be normative for all believers does not even begin to explore this theme.
There is a further element to Genesis and the seven day motif which is completely overlooked by the hyper-literalism that YECs have forced onto the Genesis narrative, and that is the link between temple and cosmos, and the concept of divine rest. Walton has shown that in the ancient Near East:
...building of temples was described in cosmic terms, that the temples were described as having cosmic functions, that temples were understood as models in miniature of the cosmos and were replete with cosmic symbolism, that cosmic origins were sometimes associated with temple building, that temples were sometimes thought to represent the world, and that deities rested in temples that had been constructed for precisely this purpose. [4]
As Walton notes, Isa 66:1-2 and Psa 132:7-8, 13-14 unambiguously link temple, cosmos, and divine rest:
Thus says the Lord, “Heaven is My throne and the earth is My footstool. Where then is a house you could build for Me? And where is a place that I may rest? For My hand made all these things, Thus all these things came into being,” declares the Lord.
Let us go into His dwelling place; Let us worship at His footstool. Arise, O Lord, to Your resting place,You and the ark of Your strength…For the Lord has chosen Zion; He has desired it for His habitation. This is My resting place forever; Here I will dwell, for I have desired it.
The idea of rest in the ANE world as Walton observes carried with it the concept of freedom to rule, [5] and this is seen clearly in Psa 132 which links the temple at Zion with the place where YHWH rests, enthroned as ruler.
The final element in this argument would be a clear link between a temple-cosmos and Genesis 1, and Walton argues (persuasively in my opinion) that temple-building language is used in Genesis 1. [6] It is hardly coincidence then that the seven day motif occurs in the dedication of Solomon's temple with a seven day dedication followed by a seven day feast:
The final element in this argument would be a clear link between a temple-cosmos and Genesis 1, and Walton argues (persuasively in my opinion) that temple-building language is used in Genesis 1. [6] It is hardly coincidence then that the seven day motif occurs in the dedication of Solomon's temple with a seven day dedication followed by a seven day feast:
2 Ch 7:9 "On the eighth day they held a solemn assembly; for they had observed the dedication of the altar seven days and the festival seven days"
In integrating these themes of creation predicated on a functional ontology, creation as temple-cosmos, and the deity entering a temple to rule on the seventh day, Walton speaks eloquently:
As is the case in temple construction, the mere completion of the material construction phase does not produce a functioning temple. Only when the functions are identified, the functionaries installed, and the deity has entered the temple does it begin to function. This is creation as it was understood in the ancient Near East. Even in the biblical picture of creation in Genesis 1, the manner in which the material stuff of the cosmos came into being and the time involved in this process had little significance. The amount of time is unspecified, and the manner in which the material stuff came to exist is also unspecified. Creation takes place when the cosmos/temple is made functional for its human inhabitant by means of the presence of God. [7]
It is no accident that in the final chapters of the NT the temple-cosmos motif returns for one final time. Rev 21 describes the New Jerusalem descending from heaven to Earth:
Then one of the seven angels who had the seven bowls full of the seven last plagues came and said to me, “Come, I will show you the bride, the wife of the Lamb.” And in the spirit he carried me away to a great, high mountain and showed me the holy city Jerusalem coming down out of heaven from God. It has the glory of God and a radiance like a very rare jewel, like jasper, clear as crystal. It has a great, high wall with twelve gates, and at the gates twelve angels, and on the gates are inscribed the names of the twelve tribes of the Israelites; on the east three gates, on the north three gates, on the south three gates, and on the west three gates. And the wall of the city has twelve foundations, and on them are the twelve names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.
The angel who talked to me had a measuring rod of gold to measure the city and its gates and walls. The city lies foursquare, its length the same as its width; and he measured the city with his rod, fifteen hundred miles; its length and width and height are equal.
A city shaped like a cube 1500 miles in dimension is clearly not intended to be taken literally, but the stupendous size suggests the possibility that the city was coterminous with the known world. If so, then as Rikki Watts observes:
the climax of the new creation is not the abandonment of the earth, but instead the coming of Yahweh himself to the earth to dwell among us. Here, then, is the climax of Genesis 's six-fold affirmation of the goodness of creation with its progression in both sets of days from heaven to earth. The final goal is not the destruction of creation, but rather the unification of heaven and earth such that the renewed earth itself now becomes Yahweh's very throne room. [8]
With the temple-cosmos creation motif in mind, the language of Hebrews 4, where the elect of God will finally enter into YHWH's Sabbath resonates strongly. The literalist view that YECs insists should be normative for all believers does not even begin to explore this theme.
Created in six days: Material Ontology or Functional Ontology?
The structure of the six day motif, combined with internal inconsistencies which arise when a hyper-literalist hermeneutic is forced on the first chapter, proves devastating to a YEC interpretation. The fact that days 1-3 and days 4-6 form two triads in parallel detailing the creation of domains, and domain inhabitants has long been appreciated:
Day 1
|
Light
|
Day 2
|
Separating waters above from waters below
|
Day 3a
|
Separation of dry land and sea
|
Day 3b
|
Creation of plants
| ||||
Day 4
|
Sun, moon, stars
|
Day 5
|
Creation of birds and sea creatures
|
Day 6a
|
Creation of land animals
|
Day 6b
|
Creation of humans
|
The fact that Gen 1:14 states that one of the main functions of the sun and moon was to separate day from night and regulate time not means that prior to day 4 there was no such thing as day and night if we read this as a literal account of origins, thus contradicting the literalist reading of Genesis 1, but points us towards realising that rather than dealing with material origins, we are dealing with an account of functional origins. This is underlined by the bipartite structure of two groups of three days, in which the first three days detail the description of domains, and the second three days the domain inhabitants and their function.
As Old Testament scholar John Walton persuasively argues, in days 1-3 we see God bringing into existence the three prime functions that would be of importance to any ancient society: time, weather, and agriculture:
The three functions—time, weather, and food production—are called into existence by the utterance of God and are given their functions through acts of separating and naming, with both the functions themselves and the actions that make them operational having precedents in the cognitive environment of the ancient Near East. They are evaluated and found to be perfectly functional (“good”) for the human world. These functions are comparable to the quintessential archetypes (mes) that are featured prominently in Mesopotamian literature, except that, in Genesis, God is positioned differently in relationship to them. The creative activity therefore involves bringing these functions into action in a system ordered around human beings. This concept is also recognized by Vanstiphout in his observations about Enki and the World Order:
The interest lies not so much in the material goods themselves—they were there anyway—but in the possibility of realizing their potential. The things themselves were already in existence: the need was for a system by which they could be used efficiently.
The scene is set to continue on to days 4–6, when the functionaries are installed and, in Mesopotamian terms, their destinies are decreed. [9]
Objections to the bipartite structure have focused on the apparent lack of obvious link between the creation of plant life in day 3 and the creation of humans on day 6. The second creation narrative suggests an obvious answer. Gen 2:5-7 states
Now no shrub of the field was yet in the earth, and no plant of the field had yet sprouted, for the Lord God had not sent rain upon the earth, and there was no man to cultivate the ground. But a mist used to rise from the earth and water the whole surface of the ground. Then the Lord God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.
Hebrew scholar Mark Futato notes that what we have here is a statement of two problems, the cause of these problems, and their solution:
1) No wild vegetation --> 1) No rain --> 1) God sent rain2) No cultivated grain --> 2) No cultivator --> 2) God formed a cultivator [10]
Not only do we see a specific link between plants and humans in these words, we also have an allusion to two of the three main functions outlined in Gen 1; weather and agriculture. [11] Far from being a case where the domain-domain inhabitant parallel falls down, it provides the means by which the two creation narratives can be linked, as well as providing a further example of how a creation predicated on functional ontology is arguably more important than mere material origins.
In light of this, given that Ex 20:11 (and Ex 31:17) are not part of the original first person divine narrative but are commentary on it by a later author, it is not unreasonable to argue that an ancient Hebrew, steeped in an ancient Near Eastern worldview which was more interested in functional origins than in material origins, would have seen creation in six days as being the time in which the three main functions critical to their society were called into existence, and the functionaries responsible installed into their domains. Unlike the YEC distortion of the narrative, this view does not conflict with what we know of the age and origin of the Earth as it is predicated on the origin of function. Furthermore, by decoupling questions of material origins from the creation narratives, it relegates the lesser questions of how creation took place to the scientific domain. Genesis has more important questions to answer.
The Earth is far older than six thousand years
Let's now look at the scientific facts that comprehensively rule out YEC and its belief that the entire universe was created in six literal days. The oldest rocks found so far come from NW Canada and have been dated to just over 4 billion years old. [12] Zircon grains, which can outlast their parent rocks have been dated to around 4.4 billion years. [13] The geological evidence for an ancient Earth is considerable. As geologist G.B. Dalrymple remarked:
"We can be confident
that the minimum age for the Earth exceeds 4 Ga - the evidence is abundant and
compelling. Rocks exceeding 3.5 Ga in age are found on all the continents, but
there are four especially well-studied areas on Earth the Superior region of
North America, The Isua-Godthaab area of western Greenland, The Pilbara block
in the northern part of Western Australia, and Swaziland in southern Africa,
where rocks 3.5 Ga or more in age have been found carefully mapped, thoroughly
studied, and dated by more than one radiometric method." [14]
Finally, the absence of any short-lived
radionuclides in the crust of the Earth bears powerful witness to the great
antiquity of the Earth. Apart from those produced naturally, no radionuclides
with half-lives younger than 82 million years are found in nature. [15] If the
Earth was 6000 years old, there would not have been enough time for them to
have decayed away, making their absence inexplicable. However, given the great
age of the Earth, their absence is completely explicable - they have long since
decayed away. There is a veritable avalanche of evidence confirming the reality
of an ancient Earth, and any interpretation of the creation narratives which
argues otherwise is automatically wrong.
Life has progressively appeared on earth over
hundreds of millions of years
By forcing a modern literal interpretation on
the six days of creation, we force them into irreconcilable conflict with the
known astronomical facts. While the universe is around 13.8 billion years old,
[16] the Earth is much younger at around 4.6 billion years old. Far from being
created after the Earth as a modern fundamentalist reading of the creation week
asserts, much of the universe is in fact vastly older than the Earth.
Fossil evidence for single celled life is at
least 3.4 billion old. [17] Complex multicellular life possibly dates back at
least 665 million years, [18] while jawed fish appear at least 410 million years
ago [19]. Tetrapods appear around 380 million years ago, [20] while
the earliest placental mammals date to at least 160 million years. [21] Snakes
appeared at least 167 million years ago, [22] while the evolution of birds from
dinosaurs has its origins at least 120 million years ago.[23] Finally, the
first appearance of anatomically modern humans is a little under 200,000 years
ago. [24] The actual order and sequence in which life on earth appears
completely falsifies a modern literal reading of Genesis 1.
Assertions that the universe was created to
look old are unprovable and imply God is deceitful
By the 19th century, the evidence for the great
antiquity of the Earth was regarded as compelling, as seen by the emergence of
the Day-Age and Gap theories, advanced to harmonise the geological facts with
Genesis. One attempt to rescue belief in a young Earth while acknowledging the
geological facts was made by the mid-19th century marine biologist Philp Gosse,
who claimed that as Adam was created a fully-grown adult with an appearance of
age, likewise the universe was created mature, with the appearance of an
ancient history greater than its actual age. Gosse advanced this argument in
his book Omphalos, from the Greek for 'navel', a nod to his belief that though
specially created, Adam would still have had a navel, a physical mark of a
gestation and birth that he never had.
Gosse's idea was widely panned, with even
sympathetic believers such as Charles Kingsley rejecting it, claiming that he
could not believe that God had "written on the rocks one enormous and
superfluous lie for all mankind." The 'omphalos hypothesis' is one that
cannot be falsified, so completely fails as a scientific hypothesis.
Furthermore, rather than being inherent in the text, it is one that is designed
to explain away a shouting contradiction between the scientific evidence for an
ancient Earth, and a particular fundamentalist reading of the Bible. Kingsley's
argument is one that many believers have advanced whenever this bizarre idea
emerges - God is not the author of a lie, not even a white one.
The intrinsic preposterousness of this argument
is clear when one looks at the nature of the evidence that omphalos YECs airily
dismiss as evidence of 'creation with maturity':
- Igneous intrusions - molten rock that long ago extruded into pre-existing strata - with minimum cooling times in the hundreds of thousands of years. [25]
- As previously mentioned, the absence of any short-lived radionuclides other than those produced continuously by known decay processes
- The remarkable consonance between relative dating via stratigraphic methods (older layers at the bottom, younger layers at the top) and absolute radiometric dating
- The convergence from multiple independent dating methods on the same rock to the same age
- A fossil record of progressively more and more complex life appearing - and becoming extinct - over hundreds of millions of years
- Ice cores [26], sediment varves on lake beds bed organic / carbonate layers, [27] and evaporite varves [28] with tens to hundreds of thousands of seasonal layers
- Magnetostratigraphy, which records evidence of multiple reversals of the Earth's magnetic field [29]
Omphalos YECs appear to think that creation
with appearance of age is restricted to creating canyons, gorges, mountains,
and other morphological features that are taken to represent a long geological
history, but as the examples given show, the scope of such geological evidence
is considerable, and goes past what would be necessary to create something that
was 'functionally mature':
- Why create strata with absolute radiometric ages corresponding to their relative ages, when this has no substantive impact on the function of the rock?
- Why create an igneous intrusion in rock layers that gives every appearance of having cooled from molten rock over hundreds of thousands of years, when again this has absolutely no impact on the function of the rock from a geomechanical point of view
- Why create rocks with no young radionuclides to give exactly the appearance that one would get on a planet thousands of millions of years old where all the young radionuclides have decayed away, leaving only the long-lived radionuclides, when this has absolutely no impact, as mentioned before, on the mechanical property of the rock? Why create a canyon to give the illusion of millions of years of history, then place in these rocks exactly the right combination of radionuclides to simulate a non-existent radiometric history which does not affect its structure and function?
- Why create the illusion of multiple reversals of the magnetic field that never existed right at the bottom of the ocean? Faking a long history of Earth to this degree would frankly be gratuitous, and go beyond a white lie to, as Kingsley memorably put it, writing "on the rocks one enormous and superfluous lie for all mankind."
- Why create fake ice core layers corresponding to non-existent years, fake alternating layers of organic and carbonate layers on river beds corresponding to non-existent seasonal changes, and fake layers of evaporites corresponding to annual evaporation events that never existed?
With respect to the final point, given that we
can see the processes occurring that generate these layers, the omphalos YEC
has no answer to the question "at what point to these layers cease to
represent actual annual events, and represent an invented history" or more
importantly "how do you tell the difference?" YECs who attack ECs
with the spurious argument "at what point in the genealogies do we go from
mythical to real people" forget that exactly the same argument can be
redirected at them, and with arguably more impact.
Gerard De Geer demonstrating the varve
chronological method in Essex Junction, US, in 1920 (where he made the first
measurements already in 1891). Source: Varve Chronology By Nils-Axel Mörner in "Geochronology - Methods and Case Studies",
book edited by Nils-Axel Morner, ISBN 978-953-51-1643-1, Published: July 25,
2014 under CC BY 3.0 license. © The Author(s).
The problem extends to the entire universe,
when we realise that most of the stars are far more than 6000 light years away.
Omphalos YECs attempt to evade this problem by airily declaring that God
created the light in transit, an assertion that is decidedly ad hoc, and as it
cannot be disproved is completely unscientific.
The implication of this argument is that the
light from any star that is more than 6000 light years away does not represent
an actual event that ever occurred, which means that effectively, the
astronomical record for any star, planet, nebula, or galaxy greater than 6000
light years away is an invented one. Furthermore, this record is not static -
we see evidence of galactic collisions, destruction of stars by black holes,
and supernovae. The light we see from all of these events that are more than
6000 years away therefore is effectively one giant light show which may or may not
have ever happened. This goes well beyond writing one enormous and superfluous
lie on the planet to one embedded in the very fibre of the universe itself.
That omphalos YECs are willing to ignore the clear testimony of the entire
universe to its great antiquity and a process of creation that did not take six
days, and instead elevate a human interpretation of the creation narratives
above that divine witness is disturbing, to say the least.
When interpreted literally, Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 contradict each other
As sequential accounts, with Genesis 1 relating a functional ontology of creation and Genesis 2 an account of the creation of the covenant pair, Genesis 1 and 2 are not in conflict. [30] However, if one assumes they are describing the same event, and both providing an account of material origins, then the chapters are forced into hopeless contradiction:
Source: Enns P
The Evolution of Adam
As OT scholar Peter Enns points out:
These two stories are clearly significantly different, and they cannot be harmonized by saying that the first gives the overview and the second fills in some of the details. The presence of two different creation accounts is troublesome for readers who assume that Genesis 1 and 2 are historical in nature and that the Bible’s first priority is to recount history accurately. Yet the divergence of these stories cannot be reasonably questioned. To stitch them into a seamless whole would dismiss the particular and distinct points of view that the authors were so deliberate in placing there. The differences between the two creation accounts are further complemented by differences seen in other Old Testament passages such as Psalms 77:16–20; 89:5–37; Job 9:4–15; 26:5–14; 38:4–38; and Isaiah 40:12–31; 44:24–28. It does not seem to be a concern of the biblical writers to provide God’s people with a “unified” story of creation. [31]
This alone shows that the hyper-literalism is simply the wrong way to read the narratives. By reading them in their ancient Near Eastern context, one quickly recognises that they are not accounts of material origins but detail a functional ontology of creation [32] that also functions as a polemic against ANE creation myths that threatened the orthodoxy of the Judean exiles. [33]
Conclusion
By privileging a hyper-literal reading of the creation narratives above the clear witness from creation that such a reading is impossible, YECs in our community are needlessly creating an environment in which crises of faith will emerge when those who share this view irrefutable evidence to the contrary. Too often, the end result is a loss of faith, and the creation of yet another angry ex-Christian. The environmental charity manager Gordon Hudson has eloquently written about how YEC can destroy faith:
My own faith was shipwrecked by this issue because I had been told time and again that belief in a young earth and creation of the species as they currently are without evolution was essential to being a proper, soundly converted, bible believing Christian. When I started to doubt creationism I also began to question all the other things I had been told about God. I felt lied to, and ultimately I found I no longer believed in God. In hindsight if I had been in an environment where it was possible to believe in the Gospel message without having to accept creationism I would probably still be a Christian, or at least have some level of faith in God. Although its unlikely that this level of faith would have made me acceptable to evangelicals as a “real Christian”. [34]
References
1. Walker CC "Is it 'Wrong' to Believe
that the Earth is a Sphere?" The Christadelphian (1913) 50:346-348
2. The addition
of evolution and denial of a six day creation to the 'Doctrines to be Rejected'
list by some ecclesias makes this readily apparent.
3. Walker CC "Genesis". The
Christadelphian (1910) 47:361-362
4. Walton, op cit p 178
5. Walton, op cit p 113-115
6. Walton, op cit p 180. Walton cites
ANE scholar Mark S Smith who observes "the motif of “seven days” in
both Genesis 1 and KTU 1.4 VII further indicates that the temple-building
constitutes a type of creation. Fisher might have also mentioned that the
tabernacle was thought to have been built over seven months (Hurowitz
1992:227), and Solomon spent seven years building the Temple (1 Kgs 6:38). As Hurowitz’
discussion (1992:242–43 n. 3) of temple-building indicates, these examples
suggest not that temple-building is a metaphor for creation in the Baal Cycle,
but that creation in Genesis 1 uses the language of temple-building."
See Smith, Mark S. The Ugaritic Baal Cycle: Introduction with Text,
Translation and Commentary of KTU 1.1-1.2. Vol. 1. (Leiden; New York; Köln:
E.J. Brill, 1994.) p 78
7. Walton, op cit p 182
8. Watts R "Making Sense of Genesis 1"
9. Walton op cit p 170-171
10. Futato M "Because it had rained: A
study of Gen 2:5-7 with implications for Gen 2:4-25 and Gen 1:1-2:3" Westminster
Theological Journal (1998) 60:1-21
11. If the second creation narrative predates
the first, then in it, as Futato argues, we can see a polemical element aimed
at Baal which for the pre-exilic Israelites would have been the bigger threat
to the orthodoxy of their faith as Baal, being a weather god, would also be
seen as the one who sent the rain.
12. Bowring, SA. Williams, IS.
"Priscoan (4.00-4.03 Ga) orthogneisses from northwestern Canada". Contributions
to Mineralogy and Petrology (1999) 134: 3-16.
13. Wilde SA. et al "Evidence from detrital
zircons for the existence of continental crust and oceans on the Earth 4.4 Gyr
ago" Nature (2001) 409: 175-178
14. Dalrymple GB The Age of the Earth
(1992: Stanford University Press) 399
15. ibid, p 477
16. C. R. Lawrence, JPL, for the Planck Collaboration,
Astrophysics Subcommittee, NASA HQ (18 March 2015) p 29 Accessed 3rd
November 2015
17. Wacet D. et al "Microfossils of sulphur-metabolizing cells in
3.4-billion-year-old rocks of Western Australia" Nature
Geoscience (2011) 4:698-702
18. Maloof A.C. et al "Possible animal-body fossils in pre-Marinoan limestones from
South Australia" Nature Geoscience (2010) 3:653-659
19. Min Z et al "A Silurian placoderm with osteichthyan-like marginal jaw
bones" Nature (2013) 502:188-193
20. Clack J.A. "The Fish-Tetrapod Transition: New Fossils and
Interpretations" Evo Edu Outreach (2009) 2:213-223
21. Zhe-Xi Luo et al. "A Jurassic eutherian mammal and divergence of marsupials and
placentals". Nature (2011) 476: 442–445.
22. Caldwell M.W., Nydam R.L., Palci A., Apesteguía
S. "The oldest known snakes from the Middle Jurassic-Lower
Cretaceous provide insights on snake evolution." Nature
Communications, (2015) 6:5996
23. Chatterjee, S., Templin, R.J. (2007).
"Biplane wing planform and flight performance of the
feathered dinosaur Microraptor gui." Proc. Natl.
Acad. Sci. (2007) 104: 1576-1580 As with the evolution of mammals
from reptile-like ancestors, it is hard to draw a definite line defining when
birds appeared, as some fossils could be called bird-like dinosaurs, or
dinosaur-like birds.
24. McDougall I, Brown F.H., Fleagle J.G.
"Stratigraphic placement and age of modern humans from Kibish,
Ethiopia" Nature (2005) 433: 733-736
25. Young D.A., Stearley R.F. The Bible,
Rocks and Time: Geological Evidence for the Age of the Earth (2008: IVP
Academic) p 327-334
26. Meese, D. A., A. J. Gow, R. B. Alley, G. A.
Zielinski, P. M. Grootes, M. Ram, K. C. Taylor, P. A. Mayewski, and J. F.
Bolzan (1997), The Greenland Ice Sheet Project 2 depth-age scale: Methods
and results, Journal of Geophysical Research, 102(C12),
26,411–26,423, doi:10.1029/97JC00269.
27. Ramsey C.B. et al "A Complete
Terrestrial Radiocarbon Record for 11.2 to 52.8 kyr B.P." Science
(2012) 338:370-374
28. Anderson R.Y. et al "Permian Castile
Varved Evaporite Sequence, West Texas and New Mexico" Geological
Society of America Bulletin (1972) 83:59-86
29. Donghuai S et al “Magnetostratigraphy and paleoclimatic interpretation of a continuous
7.2Ma late Cenozoic eolian sediments from the Chinese Loess Plateau”
Geophysical Research Letters (1998) 25:85-88
30. Old Testament scholar Michael Heiser
persuasively argues for reading Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 as sequential accounts,
with the human beings in each chapter separate creations: "Genesis 1
describes the creation of human beings. (The process is put in pre-scientific
or supernatural terms, and so doesn’t give us a scientific perspective on how
this happened)....Genesis 2 describes a distinct and separate creation of two
humans. (Again, the process is put in pre-scientific or supernatural terms, and
so doesn’t give us a scientific perspective on how this happened)."
Heiser M.S. "Taking Genesis 1-3 at Face Value: Is it Compatible with
Recent Genome Research?" The Naked Bible July 26th 2012
31. Enns, Peter. The Evolution of Adam: What
the Bible Does and Doesn’t Say About Human Origins. (Grand Rapids, MI:
Brazos Press, 2012) 52
32. Walton J Genesis One as Ancient
Cosmology (2011: Eisenbrauns)
33. Assyriologist Irving Finkel notes how a
'monotheistic framework' was evolving around Marduk, the deity venerated in
Babylon, around the time of the Judean exile: "[t]he Judaeans were
thus to encounter a native religious system more akin to their own than would
have been the case at an earlier date. Babylonian monotheism, whether a matter
of wider state policy or closed theology within the colleges (let alone debated
loose on the streets), must have offered a threatening backdrop to Judaeans
with their own belief in a single god and responsibility to preserve that
belief from contamination. It is also worth pointing out that the epithets of praise
that were heaped on Marduk (shepherd, champion of the poor and weak, protector
of widows and children, fighter for justice and truth) would not have sounded
strange to Judaean ears brought up in their own tradition." Finkel
I The Ark Before Noah: Decoding the Story of the Flood” (2014: Hodder
& Stoughton)
34. Hudson G "Why creationism is bad for Christianity - an open letter
to creationists in Edinburgh." Gordon's Blog
Oct 27 2010
This article is an adaptation of an earlier post published in 2014
