Creation: Just Add Water??

If you’re reading this page, it’s probably because you believe that there is a God and that He’s all powerful – so powerful that He has the ability to create an entire universe. After all, that’s precisely what He did. If you subscribe to an Old Earth view of creation, I’d like to pose two questions to you:

Question 1: Do you believe God is so powerful that He can create another universe to look exactly like this one, and create it all in an instant?

I think most (if not all of us) would answer “Yes. He’s God, and if He wanted to make another universe that looks like this one, He can do it in an instant. That’s no problem for an all-powerful God.”

Which now leads us to the next question:

Question 2: If this same all-powerful God – capable of creating an entire universe in an instant – says He did it in 6 instants across 6 days, why do you insist on saying He did not do it that way, but rather, that He took billions of years to do it?

If you answer ‘yes’ to the first question, then you’ve acknowledged that, ultimately, “scientific proof” is irrelevant to the question of how God went about creating the universe. So to turn around and rely on “scientific proof” to negate what God explicitly says about a six-day creation is blatantly hypocritical.

Which invariably leads us to a third question:

Question 3: If we believe God’s power and Word are completely capable of creating a universe in one instant, what would cause us to go against our own logic and beliefs, and insist that this same combination is completely incapable of creating the same universe in six days?

Unfortunately, the answer is quite simple: unbelief and pride.

People who hold to an Old Earth view simply do not want to believe that God did what He said in the way that He said it. They’ll point to all sorts of “scientific data,” and spout theories about “gaps” and “day-age” and more, but in truth, if any of these had mattered one whit, they would have answered ‘no’ to Question 1. (And the only persons I have ever met that have answered ‘no’ to Question 1 were atheists.)

In the final analysis, Old Earthers reject a six-day creation simply because they care more about the word and opinions of men than the word and opinions of God.

Sad, but true.

  • Delicious
  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter
  • RSS Feed

10 comments to Creation: Just Add Water??

  • Hi,
    There is no real scientific proof for the long ages postulated by Athiests. Radiometric dating is based on assumption which are based on a belief in an old earth. When a rock or fossil is dated, they reference the geologic column (which is dubious itself), or the surrounding landscape to determine relative age. Eg. A lava flow cuts through rock layers dated 60My and 300My respectively. When a sample is sent to lab for radiometric dating, the dates can vary considerably. So only the dates that fit (in this case between 60-300My) are used. To det the age. The other dates are thrown out with excuse ”Maybe the sample was contaminated”. All radiometric dating is flawed. If looking at the evidence from a biblical perspective, most of the strata and fossils were formed during the flood of Noah. This is a more reliable model, and tends to explain geological formations better than uniformitarian models do.

    Even from a Scientific viewpoint, the Christian can view the earth in a young age perspective. The Bible may not be a scientific handbook, but it is a reliable eyewitness account, and therefore is scientifically correct.
    Love in Christ,
    Kobus Downey

  • Shifting gears from the immediate topic in this blog but pertinent to the creation spectrum – Genesis 1:26. I’ve been studying various Jewish interpretations of this verse and was curious if you had done any studying on the “let us make…” aspect regarding who the “us” or “we” were in this verse. There are numerous beliefs regarding the “us”…God/Holy Spirit, God/Angels, God speaking as royalty in the plural tense, and perhaps a few others. The trinity is obviously not one of concepts supported by the Jews, and truthfully, after studying this, imposing the trinity (a new testament revelation) on this passage seems the least likely of all the possibilities.

    I was surprised to learn that Jewish beliefs prior to Genesis stemmed from a polytheistic religion, and that the earliest usages of the plural for god is actually from when their stories had several gods in them. Also, the Egyptian religious culture (from which the Jews were obviously just liberated) was polluted with a system of polytheism and false gods. That the Jews became fiercely monotheistic after being given the book of Genesis tells me that they never interpreted Genesis 1:26 as anything other than a creation explanation from a singular God. Hmmm.

    Christians often try to point to the trinity regarding Genesis 1:26, but there are all sorts of holes in that line of thinking with the most notable being that the concept of the trinity wasn’t even developed until after the New Testament was written. Hence, there’s absolutely zero chance the plural “we” in the Hebrew bible refers to the Christian idea. Claiming so is just as ridiculously presumptuous as when Muslims try to rewrite the Jesus stories.

    Any thoughts on who the “us” is in this verse?

  • admin

    > Any thoughts on who the “us” is in this verse?

    There are several options:
    A – God is referring to the angels
    B – God is One Person and occasionally despite speaking (or being recorded) as more than One Person
    C – There are multiple Persons in the One Godhead

    How I process it:
    A – Unless there is explicit language elsewhere in the Bible, it’s pure assumption one way or the other as to whether angels are in view. I’m not aware of any such explicit language in the Bible. I’m aware of commentators who hold this view, but as we all know, commentators are not inspired. Let’s see if other options hold more promise.

    B – This is certainly within the realm of possibilities, but just like with PointA, unless there is a passage somewhere saying “I am One Person, even though I occasionally refer to Myself in the plural”, it’s anyone’s guess as to whether this is a expression of speech or a description of a reality.

    C – Although people like to say that the Trinitarian view is strictly a NT view, there are literally dozens of OT passages that don’t make clear sense w/o a Trinitarian view. Gen 1:26 is one of many, but hardly the most convincing. There are a number of times in the OT that we see an “Angel” character doing things that are unexpected of an angel. This warrants closer inspection. But first, let’s consider some facts about angels and God:
    – Angels are not equal with God.
    – Angels cannot grant wishes or blessings of their own accord. They are, by definition, servants and messengers.
    – Angels must not be worshiped; they worship God (Rev 7:11; Rev 19:10).
    – No man can see God and live (Exod 33:20; Deut 4:33; Deut 5:4-5).

    Yet throughout the Old Testament we see things like this:

    – Hagar meets an “angel of the Lord”. That “angel” hears her cries and makes a prediction to her about her offspring. When the angel leaves, Hagar claims she has seen God. This “angel” is acting in a God-like fashion, and Hagar is equating this “angel” with God. (Gen 16:7-13)

    – Three “men” visit Abraham for a meal. As the dinner discussion ensues, we get the distinct impression that two of them are angels, and the third “man” is speaking on behalf of God – even engaging in negotiations with Abraham. Abraham appeals to him as if he has the ability to intervene in the righteous judgment of God. In essence, Abraham is treating this “man” as God. (Gen 18)

    – After leaving Abraham, this “man” goes down to Sodom and Gomorrah to see the evil and do something about it. When judgment is dispensed on Sodom and Gomorrah, we see not one, but two Lords acting in concert to rain fire and brimstone on S&G. (Gen 19:24-25)

    – When Abraham is halted in his sacrifice of Isaac, an “Angel of the Lord” speaks of Himself as the one to whom Abraham was about to offer Isaac. Angels do not receive sacrifices. Clearly this “Angel of the Lord” was God. (Gen 22:11-12)

    – Jacob wrestles with a “man”, eventually calling him “God”. Jacob and the Prophets refer to this “man” as both an “angel” and as God. (Gen 32:24-30; Hosea 12:3-5)

    – Jacob recounts how the “Angel” saved him and prays that this “Angel” will bless his offspring. Jacob is ascribing God-like characteristics to an angel (Gen 48:16)

    These are from Genesis, but there are many more. We could go on and on throughout the OT showing how this peculiar “Angel” does God-like things:
    – The “Angel of the Lord” that appeared to Moses in the burning bush that calls Himself “God” (Exod 3:1-6)
    – The “Angel of the Lord” that was the pillar of cloud/fire on the Israelite camp – also called God (Exod 13:21; Exod 14:19; Exod 14:24)

    Yes, there are normal angels, but this special “Angel of the Lord” has authority that these other angels do not have. So either there is great confusion about angels in general, or this one “Angel of the Lord” is actually God Himself. If deductive reasoning can’t nail this one down for us, Hosea’s explicit language nips all contrary opinions in the bud. He says this “Angel of the Lord” is “God”.

    In the womb he grasped his brother’s heel, and as an adult he wrestled with God. Jacob struggled with the Angel and prevailed; he wept and sought His favor. He found him at Bethel, and there He spoke with him. Yahweh is the God of Hosts; Yahweh is His name.

    Yet this “Angel of the Lord” cannot be the same One Person as God the Father. Here are two of many reasons why:
    – The phrase “Angel of the Lord” doesn’t make sense if that angel is the one same Person as the Lord. That makes about as much sense as calling me the “servant of the Admin”. If I am, in fact, the admin, what’s the point in calling me the “servant of the admin”?
    – Passages like Gen 19:24-25 actually describe two distinct Lords working in concert (the one on the ground is presumably the one that had dinner with Abraham the evening before).

    For further study on this concept, Google “Christophanies in the Old Testament” or check out this link from Wikipedia:

    This understanding of this “Angel of the Lord” not being a regular angel is not new to Christians of the New Testament. Even Josephus (who was not a Christian) cited the Hosea 12 passage, saying that it was a “divine Person” as opposed to a created angel.

    For these reasons (which is well supported by many other passages in Scripture, and nowhere contradicted in Scripture), it is best to conclude that this “Angel of the Lord” is One with God – the Second Person of the Trinity: the Messiah. With this understanding, we can safely conclude that Gen 1:26 is direct support of a Trinitarian view of Creation. Even without John 1:1-3 spelling it out for us explicitly, this is where Occam’s Razor takes us.

  • Well…I still struggle to see the Trinitarian support in Gen. 1:26, in part because of the grammatical construction of the verse (it’s in the future tense), and in larger part because in the following verse (V.27) all the pronouns pointing to the creator become singular (again)…which is pretty much what they were in all the like verses (God creating with singular pronoun references) leading up to verse 26. So what’s up with that?

    Don’t get me wrong, I believe in the trinity, I just don’t see the support for the trinity in this passage. And even if I did it still doesn’t answer for me why the Jews never viewed God as anything but a singular God. I won’t lose sleep over this one, regardless, but I do find the topic interesting.

  • admin

    > in part because of the grammatical construction of the verse (it’s in the future tense)

    But shouldn’t it be? He hadn’t yet made man, and He was going to. Therefore it should be future tense.

    > all the pronouns pointing to the creator become singular (again)

    Consistent with Trinitarian. (Don’t confuse it with Tri-theism. It’s One God, not 3 gods).

    > why the Jews never viewed God as anything but a singular God.

    One could easily argue that many Rabbis did, but even among the Rabbis, there were some who did not. I don’t have sources, but it seems to me that there was one commentator, writing about 250BC who mentioned the idea of a “Son of God” – a phrase not mentioned anywhere in the OT.
    I hold the position that the Prophets (and Job) were aware of some kind of mult-yet-one God. Many of their statements don’t make sense (and personally, I don’t care for the [very popular] idea of them blabbing and having no idea what they were blabbing about). I think they knew what they were saying. So when Moses is looking at the burning bush and talking to “the Lord” and simultaneously “the Angel of the Lord”, I think he knows full well he’s not dealing with a “one person” god.

  • I appreciate your work in putting together this website and I am thankful for people like you that study , learn, and share their ideas in an heartfelt effort to follow Jesus Christ. I do the same.
    I am not a young earth advocate. And I am sorry you added the following statements:

    “People who hold to an Old Earth view simply do not want to believe that God did what He said in the way that He said it.

    In the final analysis, Old Earthers reject a six-day creation simply because they care more about the word and opinions of men than the word and opinions of God.”

    The above is simply not true. I have looked at both side for years and will continue to do so. At present I am studying to learn basic Hebrew to have a better picture of what it actually says and does not say. Also, my scientific background throws up red flags when people start talking about creating the universe in a day, or even six days. There was no day as we know it, till we have a solar system and earth and people to measure that day. Anywhere else will be very different. Einstein helped us to understand that.
    What I do see as amazing proof of God’s creation is verse 3, God said, “Light be” and light was. I won’t quote it in Hebrew, though I could. This statement gets to the heart and soul of Physics, Chemistry and Mathematics. All of which can be studied and verified, in addition to the Bible, and God created them in one statement, “Light Be”. At that instant time was not a fixed commodity. True science is the study of God thoughts and wisdom. I don’t want young passionate Christians to reject Physics, Chemistry and Mathematics as being irrelevant to spiritual truth.
    I forgive your rude comment toward Christians like myself. And let’s dig deeper to reach a world in deception with the truth of Jesus Christ.

    • admin

      Warren – thanks so much for the response!

      That article was written when I was younger and a bit more snarky in my demeanor. The tone is not intended to to insult, but to wake up. It could probably stand to be toned down a bit …but I do stand by the basic thrust of the comment: Hebrew textual scholars (Jewish, Christian, Catholic and secular) are pretty much unanimous in their affirmation that Moses wrote in such a way that he clearly believed God created the universe in 6 literal, consecutive, 24-hour days. Whether they believe he was correct or not is another question entirely. Only a handful of modern Christian Hebrew scholars believe that Moses believed the universe was very old. ..and I find their explanations defy both wisdom and a plain reading of the text.
      I ask myself: The Egyptians believed and wrote that the universe was very old, and Moses grew up in their courts. So why didn’t Moses believe and write like they did? If the ancient Egyptians could write plainly on the issue, why couldn’t Moses?
      Why would God mislead Moses, compelling him to write in such a way as to sound as if the earth was Young when really it wasn’t? Was God incapable of communicating truth to Moses?
      Those are not trivial questions, yet they rarely come up in OE/YEC debates. I find that to be problematic.

      So I take Jesus’ instructions to heart: “Foolish men, dull and slow of hearts, slow to believe all that the prophets have spoken…” (Luke24:25). If Moses believed and wrote in such a way as to claim the universe was constructed in a YEC fashion, then I think it’s incumbent upon me to figure out why, and believe what he wrote. It may contravene contemporary scientific opinion ..but this is hardly the first time science got something wrong, right? (As you are a student of the sciences, I trust I don’t need to furnish examples of where “scientific consensus” was wrong for a very long time.)

      I’d like to explore a line from your comments:

      > There was no day as we know it, till we have a solar system and earth and people to measure that day. Anywhere else will be very different.

      That’s something worth chewing on. You’re making a statement of fact, and I’d be curious to know how you might back that up.

      Let’s start with this question: What span of time was John referring to in Rev8:1 :
      [+] When He opened the seventh seal, there was silence in heaven for about half an hour. (Rev 8:1)

      “Half an hour”?? Clearly, the occupants of heaven are subject to time (There are other philosophical reasons for affirming this, but Rev8:1 should suffice for our purposes). What, exactly, is “half an hour” in heaven? Or to be more precise, how do the occupants of heaven measure time? (If you’re going to sing songs, you need to measure time, right?)

      Two options come to mind:

      A) Did they observe one earth revolution and subdivide it by 24 units and call it an “hour”? Is that how the occupants of heaven came up with the basic beat of their “metronome” by which they measure time? observing earth? (If so, why earth? Why not base time measurements on some other celestial body or celestial event?)


      B) Does God -the creator of time- have His own “metronome” consisting of a basic unit of time He calls “day”, and in order to communicate that unit of time to man, He ordained that our planet make one complete revolution on its axis each of those units of time? Calibrating the rotation of the earth to match this unit of time would be childishly trivial for Him to accomplish. When He created the universe and set the planets in motion, I hardly think He was indifferent to their rotational velocities.
      If the time unit of “day” pre-existed the formation of the planet, and then He deliberately set our planet’s rotational velocity to match 1 “day”, then that would explain how a “day” can exist before the creation of the sun, moon and earth. It would also shed light on what He meant in v14:
      [+]And God said, “Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night. And let them be for signs and for seasons, and for days and years, and let them be lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light upon the earth.” And it was so. (Gen 1:14-15)
      In other words, the primary function of these celestial bodies is for measuring times and seasons, days and years ..and also for light.

      Both options are logically acceptable – but only the latter is more consistent with a plain reading of all that Scripture has to say both on the subject and on tangential subjects that are related. The former option – which for some strange reason is the only one many people can conjure up in their minds – presents all kinds of subsequent challenges with many other parts of Scripture, both in literal interpretation and in theological application.

      The only question that remains: can God create a universe to look like ours and do it in 6 days? Well.. He could do it in one second if He was so inclined. Doing it in 6 days would be child’s play.

      And that takes us back to the article in question: If you truly believe God can do it in one instant, you have removed “scientific evidence” from the equation. You no longer have any logical basis to insist that He had to do it across millions or billions of years. If you insist He did it in billions of years, then you really believe He’s omnipotent enough to do it in one instant? Apparently not.

      To your way of thinking, does this approach constitute “digging deeper”?

      Please don’t take my comments as rejecting science, but rather, an attempt to constrain the sciences to their proper domains. Science can only tell you how things operate under natural conditions. It is powerless to tell you how things operate under supernatural conditions.
      If Creation was a supernatural event, science can offer no insight whatsoever. None. Ever. By definition.


  • carolyn crawford

    Just discovered this site and it’s the best ever.
    I am old farm lady pushin’ 80 who flunked her way all through high school, educated only by CBC (Canada) radio documentaries an The WORD. I do love science written for people like me in decipherable language.

  • Jones

    But do not overlook this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
    2 Peter 3:8

    Just thought I’d come in on the time argument. 🙂

    • admin

      In context, Peter is saying “don’t worry, folks. You think you’re waiting a long time for God to step out and do His thing and judge the wicked, but hang in there: a day is like a thousand years to God, and a thousand years is like a day. He’s not going to forget it. He WILL be true to His promise and destroy the wicked. In fact, “the Day of the Lord will come like a thief; on that day the heavens will pass away with a loud noise, the elements will burn and be dissolved, and the earth and the works on it will be disclosed. Since all these things are to be destroyed in this way, it is clear what sort of people you should be in holy conduct and godliness as you wait for and earnestly desire the coming of the day of God. The heavens will be on fire and be dissolved because of it, and the elements will melt with the heat. But based on His promise, we wait for the new heavens and a new earth, where righteousness will dwell. (2Pet 3:10-13)

      At least, that’s how I read it.
      I don’t think Peter is trying to say that one CreationDay is like 1,000 years. That approach causes more problems than it attempts to solve. (eg, “modern science” wants us to believe the earth is 4B years old, not 12,000 years. And what did the plants do for 1,000 years while waiting for God to create insects, send the sun, etc? Seems to me it has to all be literal or all be figurative. And going with “a day is like 1,000 years” tries to go 1/2 figurative.)


Leave a Reply

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>




Let\'s see if you\'re really a human: *

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