Questions to Ask While Reading the Bible
10 answers from biblical creationists—Role 1
Published: 21 Feb 2022 (GMT+10)
British mag Premier Christianity recently published an online article past clergyman and quondam geologist Michael Roberts, called 'ten questions to enquire a young earth creationist'.1 Readers (over 30,000) of this monthly magazine are mainly UK charismatic evangelicals2 but Premier seeks to provoke, inspire and engage readers from a broad Christian spectrum.
In response to Michael Roberts' 10 questions, we have prepared "10 answers from biblical creationists", in two parts (questions 6–10 are answered in the follow-upwardly article, Function 2). CMI's mission is to back up the effective proclamation of the Gospel by providing credible answers that affirm the reliability of the Bible, in detail its Genesis history. In line with this, we often quote ane Peter iii:15:
"But in your hearts accolade Christ the Lord as holy, e'er existence prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect."
Unfortunately, Roberts' questions comprise much overlap, therefore the responses in this article necessarily have some repetition. In what follows, all his comments are shown in red. He opens his commodity with the post-obit statement:
"… Genesis one talks well-nigh creation happening in six days not billions of years."
Roberts thereby admits the exegetical case for the plain meaning of Scripture is a potent i—so far so adept. However, his second introductory statement, "Merely for the last 2000 years most Christians take not believed in a young world," is audacious and unfounded, and will exist dealt with beneath under the relevant sections. His concluding opening remark, "it is merely in the last half century that it has go a big consequence for some Christians" is as well inaccurate—ironically—because church building leaders (sharing like views to Roberts) are the ones didactics heterodox ideas! So let's go into the meat of what he is claiming:
1. Tin can we start by like-minded that the Gospel is more about the Rock of Ages than the ages of rocks?
Answer: Only if the Rock of Ages is incorrect about the ages of rocks, how tin can He be a trustworthy foundation upon which to build our lives?
The centre of the Gospel is the crucified and risen Christ, and everything in the Quondam Testament leads up to that. Jesus, and not the age of my rock collection, is the heart of the Christian organized religion.
Michael Roberts' first question is framed in such a way equally to exclude—using a 'false dilemma fallacy'—the possibility that the ages of rocks and the Gospel are linked in whatever significant way. This false dilemma is driven home with this weak argument: "Jesus, and not the historic period of my rock collection, is the heart of the Christian organized religion"—well obviously so. However, the age of the World and the Gospel are fundamentally linked, and this subject needs to be discussed. Jesus Himself spoke most Earth history; for instance He placed homo and woman at the "kickoff of creation" during His discourse with the Pharisees over union and divorce (Matthew xix:4; Marking 10:6), and non 4.five billion years later Earth's germination. Jesus also likened His 2nd coming to the sudden onset of the Flood during the "days of Noah", when those not safely on board the Ark were all destroyed (Luke 17:26, Matthew 24:37). Jesus, therefore, upheld Genesis every bit literal history, which was the traditional Jewish view, based on Moses, entailing a six-day creation but thousands of years ago. Furthermore, Paul based his theology on the historic truth of Genesis, describing Jesus every bit the "Last Adam" (1 Corinthians fifteen:45) who rescues people from the penalty of sin (expiry). This has been humanity'south plight always since Adam's Fall from God'southward perfect creation (Romans 5:12, xv, 21; 1 Corinthians 15:21–22).
Michael Roberts' rock collection is not millions of years sometime equally he implies. It testifies non of long ages of death before sin (as per the evolutionary view), simply rather, gives testify of Noah's Flood and the truth of our Lord'due south testimony regarding it. Nor was Jesus incorrect about His genealogy (Luke 3:23–38), straight linking Him to the historical figures of Noah and Adam. Neither was His Father culpable of deception in allowing Jesus to teach error—a blasphemous consequence of such faulty thinking. The Gospel and the "heart of the Christian faith" are summed upward in Paul's statement, "For the wages of sin is decease, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord" (Romans half-dozen:23). If rocks really are millions of years old, this central Gospel text is false, placing death long before the wages of sin, thus destroying the logical link to the free gift in Christ Jesus. The Lord Jesus died to pay the penalty of sin's curse upon the human race, every bit a result of Adam'south trespass, and rose the third day to demonstrate He had conquered the curse of death. If Roberts' rocks really are millions of years old, then death was already role of nature long earlier Adam was around to sin, thereby making the atonement'south purpose irrelevant.
two. Does the historic period of the globe – or its shape – matter to a Christian?
Yes, the age of the Globe and its shape should matter to Christians because, if Scripture is wrong most such basic things as these, how tin can we trust Scripture on the weightier matters like salvation, ethics, mankind's time to come, or the theology based on these things? All these are based upon Scripture's reliability regarding the nature of reality.
For a Christian, the earth could be x,000, 10,000,000 or 10,000,000,000 years old and it does not thing which, as the Bible is not clear on the matter. Only to go against the proven results of science is only folly. For 250 years, geologists accept but found evidence for an aboriginal earth and none for a young earth.
This question implies the Earth'south historic period, similar its shape, can be directly measured—well it can't, it's a category-mistake.iii Earth'south age tin only be inferred and depends upon the worldview of the investigator. The philosophical assumptions behind these dating techniques invalidate whatsoever supposed merits for rocks being reliable clocks, and so are not "proven results of scientific discipline", as Michael Roberts claims.4 The investigator was non there to measure out the rock's initial weather condition of formation, nor observe how the rock might have altered throughout its history. Therefore, to assume that a stone's final condition is the consequence of nowadays-24-hour interval rates of change is an a priori assumption which excludes catastrophic, or accelerated processes (which would have been in functioning at Creation and the Overflowing). Events that are believed or presumed to accept occurred in history cannot be observed, let alone directly measured past scientists (every bit is the case with operational science). Evidence in the present tin can just exist interpreted inside i's called historical framework (worldview).
Reverse to Michael Roberts' claim, the Bible is clear regarding World history: a contempo perfect cosmos, marred by the Fall, followed past the global Flood. The chronogenealogies from Adam to Abraham that are recorded in Genesis enable a adding of Earth's historic period, from creation to the nowadays day, of approximately half-dozen,000 years. One but cannot force millions of years into the Bible'south history without doing violence to the text, and Hebrew scholars, (such as James Barr), know this. Roberts claims that, for "250 years, geologists take only institute testify for an ancient world and none for a young earth" but this is circular reasoning, every bit it hinges upon those same geologists interpreting the rocks from the perspective of 'methodological naturalism'. Such thinking excludes a priori any explanations allowing for a supernatural cosmos or global Flood. The fact is, Scriptural geologists writing at the time of Lyell, and scientists right through to the nowadays 24-hour interval, have all believed, co-ordinate to Scripture, that the Earth is thousands, not billions of years quondam. They provided evidence directly from field observation that geology is better explained past catastrophic processes, demonstrating geological evidence consequent with Earth history every bit recorded in Scripture.
Roberts' claim that geologists have constitute no evidence for "a immature earth" clearly demonstrates he is unaware of the evidence, because in that location are many evidences that the billions-of-years belief system that he accepts without question is seriously faulty. At that place is much powerful and positive show for a young earth, including dinosaur soft tissue discovered in dinosaur bones supposedly hundreds of millions of years in historic period; or the presence of carbon 14 in diamonds, coal, oil and other fossils; or global geological formations that tin can just be explained by invoking continental scale catastrophic flooding, such every bit planation surfaces, and water gaps; or the amount of salt in the earth's oceans, etc. For an all-encompassing list of evidences for a young world from multiple perspectives see CMI's commodity 101 evidences for a young age of the world and the universe.
three. Does the Bible teach that the earth is spherical?
When read in context, Scripture does indeed offer evidence consistent with understanding the Earth as spherical.
Young earth creationists volition often argue there is science in the Bible because the biblical writers were inspired to teach that, reverse to the wisdom of their time, the earth was spherical. Some claim Isaiah xl:22 points to the earth existence spherical. But the translations rightly say a "circle" not a sphere. Neither is it possible to read a spherical earth into Genesis i:6-8. This is because the Bible is not interested in science. Galileo said "The Bible tells united states of america how to go to heaven and not how the heavens go."
Roberts seems to be arguing that Scripture describes the Globe equally existence apartment, and so therefore should not be used to annotate on mod scientific ideas. Simply if Scripture is incorrect regarding such key 'scientific' concepts (such equally the Earth's shape), surely it means the Bible tin't exist relied upon for spiritual or morally authoritative statements either.
Contrary to Michael Roberts' statement, biblical creationists practice not argue that there is "science in the Bible", rather, the Bible as God'south Give-and-take is reliable and accurate in its statements about the nature of reality. Although the Bible is not similar science textbooks (which regularly require updating), Scripture provides the overarching image through which the created order can be understood and rightly interpreted. Michael Roberts has not demonstrated from history that the biblical writers wrote "opposite to the wisdom of their time" that the "globe was spherical". The ancient Greeks, for example, certainly believed and taught the Earth'due south sphericity, contrary to the 'flat globe myth.'v
Michael Roberts' statement regarding Isaiah forty:22 is inaccurate, as the Hebrew text employs the word חוּג (khug) to draw the Earth poetically from God'southward vantage ("He sits enthroned in a higher place the circle of the earth, and its people are similar grasshoppers"). Chore 22:14 employs the same word to poetically describe the heavens, which are clearly not being envisioned every bit a flat disc. Rather the English language word 'vault' is more advisable in both contexts, implying a 3 dimensional structure. Michael Roberts also states, "Neither is it possible to read a spherical earth into Genesis 1:vi–8." Agreed, but reading two verses previously in Genesis 1:3–five would seem to crave a spherical Earth for light and darkness to be divided past the terminator from mean solar day and dark (The terminator is the line that divides the daylit side and the nighttime nighttime side of a planetary trunk). Let readers decide for themselves:
The first twenty-four hour period: Low-cal, Genesis 1:3–5:
"And God said, "Let in that location be calorie-free," and there was light. And God saw that the low-cal was skillful. And God separated the calorie-free from the darkness. God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Nighttime. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day."
The second day: Firmament, Genesis 1:6–8:
"And God said, "Permit there be an expanse in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters." And God made the expanse and separated the waters that were under the surface area from the waters that were in a higher place the expanse. And it was and then. And God called the expanse Heaven. And there was evening and there was morn, the second day."
The fact is, in narrative and historical passages, Scripture teaches things consequent with a spherical earth. (It is of form true that other passages of the Bible, east.chiliad. those with a poetical genre, employ phenomenological language, just as the most ardent secular scientists do today.) Neither tin Michael Roberts force Galileo to serve his argument, because Galileo offered empirical scientific evidence for Earth's orbit around the sun (the heliocentric view) reverse to the Catholic Church'due south adherence to geocentric Greek philosophy. In other words, Galileo was not advocating anything reverse to Scripture. The fact that Scripture is trustworthy in its claims about the nature of reality ways we can trust its claims near salvation.
4. How could people in 1000 BC grasp the idea of geological time?
Easily! Many cultures at this time (and older) believed in an ancient Earth, including the Babylonians, Greeks and especially the Hindus who believed the universe was three.4 billion years onetime! The ancient Egyptians envisaged that their own history was in the order of hundreds of thousands of years, which they believed would go on for literally "millions of years" into the futurity, hence Rameses II temple was called the "House of Millions of Years".6 And no one should doubtfulness ancient human's intelligence (to grasp deep-time), as evidenced by their building projects, technology or civilization.
Geologists gradually began to run into that the globe was older than Ussher'southward age of 4004 BC after 1680. Looking at the rocks in Nant Peris in Snowdonia the Rev John Ray, a great botanist, began to wonder if the earth was older than Ussher had suggested. He was tentative and rather sceptical, but was asking the right questions. By 1800, virtually thought the age of the earth was in millions and that included most Christians.
In the 20th Century, radiometric age dating showed the earth is four.half dozen billion years old. That is based on the physics of radioactivity and has cypher to do with development. If the dates are incorrect then and so is all physics.
Geological time in a secular context is deep fourth dimension, i.east. millions and billions of years. Biblical creationists concord to an age of the universe and Earth of just over 6,000 years, which from the biblical perspective is very old. Bishop Ussher did not 'suggest' the age of the Earth, rather, he was a brilliant scholar who calculated creation at 4004 BC. Ussher's calculation was based on inerrant Scripture—"breathed out by God and assisting for teaching" (2 Timothy 3:xvi)—rather than naturalistic thinking based on the reasoning of fallen minds, studying a fallen creation (Romans eight:21).
Unfortunately, Roberts gives no reference to Rev. John Ray'southward writings, just what we tin can say is Ray was a devout Christian, and although he lived long before Charles Darwin, he was opposed to the idea of evolution every bit we now call up of information technology.
Michael Roberts continues, "By 1800, most thought the historic period of the earth was in [the] millions and that included near Christians". A survey of leading biblical commentaries of the early xixth century demonstrates biblical scholars (and by extension, the vast majority of churchgoers in British gild) held to a literal view of Genesis. However, it ought to be clear that truth is not adamant by appealing to the bulk—Christian or not—but rather by what Scripture says.7 The fundamental trouble is the worldview which secular geologists attach to regarding assumed processes in the unobserved by. It is this which leads them to vastly different conclusions regarding World history, compared to those who concur a biblical worldview. God never makes mistakes and nosotros should ever place God's Give-and-take above the thinking of fallible humans —"the Give-and-take was with God, and the Word was God" (John 1:i).
Radiometric dating has many problems, even though it is touted as settling the question of the Earth's ancient age. Radiometric dating is underpinned by three fundamental assumptions (irrespective of the particular radio-isotopes involved), specifically:
- Information technology is assumed that the original quantities of parent/girl material can exist known (parent isotope over time decays into daughter isotope);
- The rate of disuse is assumed to be constant;
- The 'system' (stone and its' environs) is assumed to have remained closed; i.e. there has been no leeching out of (or contagion with) either parent or daughter material.
These assumptions are about Globe'south unobserved initial conditions. To claim that radiometric dating shows the Globe to exist iv.6 billion years sometime is farther compounded by assumptions concerning the universe's unobserved past (eastward.g. Big Bang cosmology). Rather than dogmatically asserting these unknown parameters—based on deep-time assumptions which originate from the evolutionary perspective—would it not exist more sensible to start from the Bible, inspired by the One Who was an Eyewitness from the beginning?
Roberts' argument, "If the dates are wrong then then is all physics", demonstrates the category mistake that the historic period of the Earth cannot be directly measured (as explained in our reply to question 2.) It is alarmist and it conflates historical science with operational science. The vast majority of physicists behave their everyday work without any reference to a 4.6 billion year-one-time Earth, but as practically all biologists (except evolutionary biologists) happily conduct their research without any recourse to neo-Darwinian reasoning (encounter is evolution really essential for biology?). And as CMI has pointed out on numerous occasions, the dating of rocks is a highly subjective practise.
However, carbon dating is a huge problem for the belief in millions of years! Why doesn't Michael Roberts accept the carbon dates? He is rather selective in what evidence he considers, in other words he is being driven by his worldview, rather than by where the data leads.
5. Does the Bible always speak in a directly literal fashion?
No, not ever. Information technology depends upon the genre of literature being read, but Genesis 1–11 is celebrated narrative so it should be understood literally.
The biblical writers use language in many different means. There'due south narrative, poesy, simile, metaphor and more. At times narrative, fifty-fifty when historical, may contain poetry. Thus Genesis 1 appears to exist narrative at first sight merely then each solar day is written in a poetic-like course; "So God said, 'Let there exist…" followed by "And God saw that …. was good" with a refrain "And at that place was evening and morning…" Just because verse is used does non mean it is "untrue". Psalm 23 is pure verse using not bad imagery to bring out the love of God.
Roberts admits that "Genesis 1 appears to be narrative" merely that'due south because it is! Genesis 1 is identified as narrative by the use of the Hebrew vav(waw)-sequent construction, which only occurs in Hebrew narrative, and not in poetry. Roberts implies that the repetitiveness of some words means it is "poetic-like", but then reasons Psalm 23 is "pure verse" when it does non take repetitiveness of the sort he quotes from Genesis ane. What is more, repetition has besides been called 'the hallmark of Hebrew rhetoric' (prose non poetry). Either way, it has been clearly shown that Genesis ane is historical narrative—and and so should be read in the literal sense.
Of class this is problematic to Roberts. Where else is he going to put the millions and billions of years he adheres to? Since there is a timeline from Adam to the nativity of Jesus of around four,000 years (after cosmos), typically information technology is the duration of Creation week that is reinterpreted. But this requires considerable mental gymnastics to adapt these eons of time—those who exercise so should question if the rest of the Bible actually means what it says.
How can a denial of the plain meaning of Genesis 1 assistance people come up to a saving religion in the resurrected Lord Jesus? Quoting Abraham, Jesus said, "If they do not hear Moses and the Prophets, neither will they exist convinced if someone should ascent from the dead" (Luke sixteen:31). In ignoring the evidently meaning of Genesis ane (in favour of secular deep-fourth dimension thinking), Michael Roberts is in grave danger of making himself the last czar of truth over God's Word. He thus joins the ranks of those who say that the text in Genesis 1 says one thing just, because of science, information technology must mean something else. As Scripture states "allow God exist found true, but every human being a liar" (Romans 3:4).
(meet also Part 2 of this article)
References and notes
- Roberts, M., x questions to inquire a young globe creationist, premierchristianity.com/Blog/10-questions-to-ask-a-immature-globe-creationist, 13 November 2018. Premier Christianity also published a companion commodity: Mackay, J., x questions to ask Christians who believe in evolution, premierchristianity.com/Blog/10-questions-to-ask-Christians-who-believe-in-evolution, 13 Nov 2018. Yet, there was no article with this championship: ten questions to ask an old earth creationist. Such an omission is pertinent considering, in contempo years, Premier Christian Radio has done much to publicise the views of the 'one-time-world' American organization, led by Dr Hugh Ross, Reasons to Believe. RTB's 'progressive creationism' is critiqued in item by Jonathan Sarfati, see here. Render to text.
- Wording taken from https://www.premierchristianity.com/Nigh-Us. Render to text.
- Blackburn, Due south., The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Oxford University Press, p. 58, 1994. A category mistake/ error, is a semantic or ontological error in which things belonging to a particular category are presented as if they belong to a different category or, alternatively, a property is ascribed to something that could not possibly have that property. Render to text.
- See Reed, J.K., Rocks aren't clocks: A critique of the geologic timescale, Cosmos Book Publishers, Pulverisation Springs, GA, 2013. Render to text.
- Begun by Washington Irving in the 19th century with a fictional business relationship of Columbus, and popularized by Draper and White in their influential, anti-Christian polemics, and more than recently by Michael Roberts! Return to text.
- Wb. 3, 2.7-8, Hw.t-n.t-HH-k-rnp.wt "mansion of a one thousand thousand years (royal funerary temple)". Render to text.
- This is dealt with in our response to question 10, see role 2 of this article. Render to text.
Source: https://creation.com/10-answers-from-creationists-1
0 Response to "Questions to Ask While Reading the Bible"
Post a Comment