Genesis 1:1-20
"In the beginning, first of all, God created the universe, the galazies,
sun, moon and stars, all blazing with light. He also created the planet
earth. leaving it unfurnished, barren and empty, without life or dry
land. Nothing but ocean covered the entire planet and that ocean was
shrouded in darkness from a dense blanket of a watercloud that was above
it. The earth was not chaotic but only barren with a desert of ocean.
Then the Spirit of God continues hovering (like a brooding bird in the
dormancy of night) over the darkened ocean waters for an undefined time."
"Then God said, 'Let there be light,' and diffused ligt from the sun
appeared over the ocean for the first time. And God saw the light that
it was good, and God divided the light from the darkness. And God called
the light 'day' and the darkness He called 'night.' There was a literal,
normal evening, and there was a literal, normal morning. This was day
one: a solar day."
"Then God said, 'Let there be an expanse in between the waters and let it
divide the blanket of waters above the ocean from the oceanic waters
below,' And God made the expanse (the atmosphere) and divided the waters
that were under the expanse from the waters that were above the expanse,
and it was so. And God called the expanse 'air.' There was evening and
morning, day two."
"Then God said, 'Let the oceanic waters be gathered together in one place
and let the dry ground appear,' and it was so. And God called the dry
ground 'land,' and the gathering together of the oceanic waters He called
'seas.' The God said, 'let the land bring forth grass, herbs and
trees...' God saw that it was good--day three."
"Then God said, 'Let visible lamps in the expanse of sky be for dividing
the day from the night; and let them serve as signals for seasons and for
days and for years. And let them be lamps in the expanse of sky to give
light upon the earth,' and it was so. And God did two great lamp to
dominate the night. He did the stars also. And God gave them forth in
the atmosphere of heaven to give light upon the earth. It was all good
... day four."
"(Days five and six are not critical to the issue, so we move on to the
scripture most used as proof text.)"
Exodus 20:8-11
"Remember the rest day to keep it set apart. Six days you shall labor
and do all your work, but the seventh is the rest of Yahweh your God. In
it you shall not do any work, ... for six days Yahwah worked on the
atmospheric heaven, the continental earth, the oceanic sea and every
creature that is in them and rested the seventh day. So Yahweh blessed
the rest day and set it apart."
Certain planets and other associated satellites are compared with the Biblcal
record of the condition of planet earth during the Creation Week in
Chapter 5.
In "Needless Obstacles to Creation Science" (Chapter 6) the author states,
"All things considered, there is no Biblical basis and very little, as
well as only questionable scientific basis to prove a young universe.
Major scientific objections have been raised toward a young universe
concept. Plausible attempts have been made to counter some of the
objections, but none of these attempts produce explanations that influence
well-informed groups. Young-universe creationists have alienated
themselves and the creationist message from the mainstream sciences by
this flawed "Bible" concept, causing many sincere people to head for
liberal explanations." (p. 59)
He says that we sould consider that:
1. Scientific objections may be partly valid.
2. Young-Universe scenario gives an unsatisfactory picture.
3. Pre-encoded starlight involves illusion.
The Biblcal basis for Dr. Russell Humphreys' book, Starlight and Time, is
questioned in Chapter 7. The author does not attempt to critique the
cosmology, but rather the Biblical basis for that cosmology. The parallel
comparison of Humphreys' and Gray's views on Genesis 1 and Exodus 20 is
most instructive. Let the reader judge which view would Timothy [a
hypothetical Hebrew reader of long ago] most likely espouse.
In Chapter 8 the evidences for a young earth (and other points) are
discused. "Most of the young-earth evidence relates to post-flood
geology, so this writing does not disagree with young ages for the
universal flood and its consequences." (p. 89)
Also, "Commitment to certain theories can be destructive to scienctific
inquiry in the same way that evolutionary assumptions close the minds of
their supporters. When one's mind is liberated from a mandatory young-
universe mindset, there is greater potential for discovery." (p. 93)
"We are properly repelled by the theory of evolution, a concept which
requires an old universe WITH an old geology, but we ought not to react by
requiring a young universe if the Scriptures have not defined its youth."
(p. 94)
A cosmology imagined to meet objections finishes up the chapter.
The concern of Chapter 9 is the effect that the misinterpretation of Genesis
has made on sincere people to constrain a belief in theistic evolution or
progressive creation by reaction to young-universe creationism. Like so
many creationists, the author was once an evolutionist, and he notes:
"Evolution is science fiction. Millions of years of biology exist only in
the imaginations of men and thier books.... Spontaneous generation NEVER
occurs in any ordered system, whereas spontaneous dissolution of ordered
systems occurs constantly. Evidence is not the problem. Blindness is the
problem. Evolutions hitchikes on science. It contributes nothing, but
gets a free ride at science's expense,... With fake credibility in the
language of good science and groundless assumption of enormous geologic
time, evolution has gained a RELIGIOUS monopoly in academic life. It is a
preposterous hypothesis, carried along by good, established science, free
of charge. The "veil cast over all nations" has deluded even brilliant
minds to reject the obvious and embrace the ridiculous."
"This is not to say that evolutionists never provide any good
contributions to science. When they keep within their fields of research
(outside of mythological religion), they sometimes produce useful work.
But as soon as they assert claims about geological ages or evolutionary
mechanisms without providing factual proof (which, indeed, they cannot),
they work not as scientists, but as religionists. Evoluion is fact-free
'science.' Satan has long employed the device of using truth to peddle
falsehoods.... So does evolution, housed in a museum of science with a
cadre of lettered devotees; what better sales device with which to hawk a
religious fiction?" (p. 98, 99)
"Theistic evoluion attempts to marry a tiger to a lamb. To insist that
the entire cosmos was created during six days tends to promote the
marriage of tiger and lamb. That perverted marriage receives
encouragement because what we call the 'package principle.'... The
evidence for old heavens is quite convincing -- nearly incontrovertible.
But because many prominent creationists are deeply committed to a young
universe, many questioners are tempted to reject biblical creationism in
the package, as they reject the young-universe concept. From there it is
an easy step to accept theistic evolution. These potential believers
reject a young universe on very persuasive scientific grounds, and accept
evolution without good supporting evidence as a result." (p. 99)
"Augustine's centuries-old advice could help us here, 'If something in the
Scriptures seems to be absurd ... either the codex is faulty or the
translator erred or you have not understood it.' It is natural for the
average inquiring mind to regard a young universe as absurd,.... Let us
consider the probability that we have not understood Exodus 20:11 and
Genesis 1 correctly, lest we continue to lure those inquiring minds toward
theistic evolution." (p. 99)
In closing (Chapter 10) the author states, "A sound interpretation 1) must
be understandable to ordinary people, 2) must not force the original
language, 3) must answer problems experienced by other ideas, 4) must
maintain a coherent whole where everything fits, and 5) must interpret
each relevant Scripture without depending on collatral scriptures for its
interpretatin." (p. 102)
"Whenever our minds become fettered to any less-than-perfect translation,
whenever we are unwilling to examine the clear latitude and force of the
Hebrew text, we become like beached whales whom no amount of reason can
dislodge. We simply continue muttering whatever our preconception taught
us. We can go no further." (p. 103)
--------------------------
I hartily recommend this book. It says in one place what I've read in
paragraphs, chapters and articles in other sources. This book is long
overdue.
Allen Roy