Microsoft Word - A Relevant Gospel in a Scientific Age

7/27/2019 Microsoft Word - A Relevant Gospel in a Scientific Age

1/42

Civilizations and more. A must for everyone's library.Includes CD rom sampler.Interest level: High School-Adult7130-4 $34.99, Hardcover, 240 pages

A Relevant Gospel In A

Scientific Age

by Paul A. Bartz

Can the Word of God be relevant in our scientific age?Atheists and skeptics maintain that the Biblical world viewcan now be considered an outdated mythology because of theconclusions of modern science which have ruled out theinvolvement of God in our real world, Religious liberals

have taken a very similar position, following the lead of theliberal German theologian, Rudolph Bultmann, As a result,those who would accept the Bible's teachings as the revealed

Word of God, living their lives based on a view of the worldthat God is personally and individually involved in humanlives, are portrayed, even in liberal churches, as a dyingbreed who will soon be replaced.

The contrast is so sharp that there are truly two religionsoperating under the name "Christian" whose beliefs onnearly every point are nearly opposite. The Christian faithfulthroughout the ages have accepted that God is the Author of

the Bible. As the revealed Word of God, though actually

written down by human writers, (2 Peter 1:20, 21), the Bibleis always true in everything that it touches because it comesfrom God Who is Truth. In Mark 13:31 Jesus says that eventhough heaven and earth shall pass away, His Word willnever pass away - It cannot be broken (John 10:35). Here wehave God's own claim that the Bible is relevant for everyage. It cannot ever be outdated.


2/42

Yet in a recent letter to Lutheran Church in America pastors,presiding Bishop (President) Herbert Chilstrom called theBible an impediment to the Gospel. He said that the Bible is

an impediment because people tend to understand it in a

literalistic way - the Bible should not be "the center of allthings." Seminaries of this church body use Bultmann'smaterials, as well as those of his followers, in their trainingof pastors.

Bultmann and his followers taught, contrary to the claims ofScripture, that modern man could not identify with theworldview of Scripture. In a day and age when electricityperforms such miracles - albeit according to well-understoodlaws - the Biblical miracles pale, and even become

unrealistic. In a world where we know that naturalism reigns,the church loses credibility by talking about miracles. Bishopof Durham, David Jenkins, recently typified the Bulmanianattitude when he called the Resurrection of Christ a"conjuring trick with bones" saying, "I am not clear that Godmaneuvers physical things."

It is easy to show (and has been shown many times) that thefaith of Bultmann and his followers is a radical departurefrom the teachings of the Apostles and the faith of believers

through the ages. But here we want to explore anotherquestion. Is the Bultmanian assumption about science andmodern man actually realistic - or is it good old-fashioned

unbelief, masquerading as a new savior for the church?

At the International Conference on Biblical Inerrancy held inMinneapolis in the fall of 1984, J.I. Packer related how, afterone presentation of his views, Bultmann was confronted

12. Close with a prayerful reading of Psalm 119:8.

Enlightening resources on this topic:

For Time and ForeverDr. Henry MorrisBible authority Henry Morris explores the breadth of what itmeans to have purpose in God's creation. Besides debunking

evolutionary myths, Dr. Morris also answers the heart cry ofman: where do I fit? Does God have a purpose for me?Morris recognizes that since our time is short in terms of lifespan, we must all work to fulfill the Great Commission; wemust recognize the biblical truth that there is an overall planof salvation and we must work to implement it. Answeringage-old questions like why do bad things happen? and isthere a heaven and a hell? Morris provides a framework forlaymen and scholars alike to see their true purposes.1427-5 $12.99, Paperback,222 pages

Unlocking the Mysteries of CreationDennis PetersenThe World's First Creation Encyclopedia! This awesome,beautifully illustrated book covers Unlocking the Mysteriesof the Early Earth, Evolution, Original Man, Ancient


3/42

Micah's story. What evolutionary principle does Judges18:25 remind you of?

How is the sociologist's use of "peer pressure" asjustification for an action just another application of"survival of the fittest"?

10. How is the world's claim that creationism is not goodChristianity because "most Christians" don't accept a literal

reading of Genesis really another form of the "survival of thefittest" principle?

In what other ways is this same argument used to promoterelativism in spiritual things?

11. What can we do to combat relativism in our lives -

including our churches? See Job 28:28, Hosea 14:9, and 2Timothy 3:15-17.

during the question and answer period by a physicist. Thephysicist pointed out to Bultmann that his major premise wasvery wrong. Scientists had not, he said, pinned down realityso neatly that miracles could be excluded. In fact, he said, as

the frontiers of physics were being expanded, it was

becoming more and more clear that miracles could not beruled out of reality. It appears that Bultmann never took thisevaluation from the viewpoint he claimed to represent veryseriously - and neither do those who follow his tradition.

John Warwick Montgomery, who has long defended thedoctrine of Scripture against liberal skepticism, made thesame point in the citation in this month's FIVE MINUTEStext: "For us, unlike the people of the Newtonian epoch, theuniverse is no longer a tight, safe, predictable playing field in

which we know all the rules." The problem is not that thereare no rules on the playing field, but rather that we are notnearly so smart as we pretend to be.

David Ben-Gurion put it this way, "Anyone who doesn'tbelieve in miracles isn't a realist."

Religious liberals as well as atheists are, in fact, attemptingto live in a fictional world of their own making - one inwhich a supposed naturalism which does not exist reigns as

dictator. And it is a curse of God upon the visible church thatHe has allowed it to be taken captive by unbelievingtheologians into this strange and unreal land of naturalism.

And His chastisement extends to the man in the pew becausethe average Christian has left Bible study to others.

In every deception there is a kernel of truth. The kernel oftruth in the deception of religious liberalism is that the


4/42

traditional message of the Church is not having the impactthat it should on people. The erroneous conclusion from thisis that therefore the message needs to be re-interpreted.However, the real problem is that Christians have not

followed the Apostolic example in witnessing the Gospel.

The Apostles began with a preaching of sin and repentance,both of which assume a God Who is involved in His creationand holds men accountable, with the Jews, who alreadyaccepted this God. They looked for His promised salvation.But they did not begin with the message of sin andrepentance with the Greeks and the Romans, who weresteeped in the naturalism of Aristotle and Lucretius. Thedistinction is expressed in1 Corinthians 1:23, and the actual practice of this distinctioncan be seen in Acts 17:22-34 and Acts 14:15-18.

Although some of these people believed in gods of somesort, these were not real gods who were our powerfulcreators and who held us responsible for our lives (sin).These gods, in fact, were nearly as subject to impersonalnaturalism as we are. To such as these the Apostles began byaddressing their hearers where they were in their beliefs,showing how there is a true, powerful, wise God who isintimately involved with His creation. It was for this reasonthat He became so involved with us in Christ Jesus - it is for

this reason that He wants a restored relationship withindividuals through the forgiveness of sins.

As long as the visible church speaks its message only to the"Jews" (those who at least believe that there is a personalGod Who cares about individual lives), it will be frustratedin communicating the Gospel to the larger population of theWest which is "Greek" (who believe that there might be a

religion or denomination is to be considered any better thanany other get translated into doctrinal relativism withinchurches?

Isn't this relativistic attitude what allowed Micah, as well asthe Levite, to worship God as well as idols? In such asituation as this, is God really worshiped?

8. Compare the conclusion of this story with today's church

scene. In Judges 18:14-26 we read about what happened toMicah and his Levite. What motivation do we see in Judges18:19-20? How was that motivation also seen in Judges 17?

Compare this with Isaiah 56:10-12, Philippians 3:18-19, andRomans 16:17-18. What additional things do we learn aboutthose who promote relativism within the church from these

New Testament passages?

9. It is startling to make the full circle of relationshipsbetween doing away with the Creator and the evolutionaryethos in a Scriptural story, but we can find that full circle in


5/42

pragmatic. What ultimate good did he see in the arrangementwith the Levite? Do people treat religion in the same waytoday?

5. Identify the elements at work in this story. How areMicah's good intentions indicated in this chapter? How is hisreligion evident? Were all agreed on the shrine and service toit? In what ways did this situation reflect the religion ofIsrael?

In what ways did the situation fit right in to the societyalready living in this area? How many parallels with today'schurch can you find in this story?

6. Despite offering every detail that people use today tobuffer the absolute force of God's Law, which verse in

Judges 17 most harshly condemns this action? Does thatverse also apply to our own day? Yet, how does today's callto an "authentic morality" turn this virtue into a vice?

7. How does the recognition of our pluralistic society that no

God, but if there is He is not personally involved with Hiscreatures on a regular basis). The answer to the church'seffectiveness lies not in redefining our message, but inknowing our audience and our message. And the Great

Commission, which defines God's desire for man, leaves

each Christian no choice but to become an expert in thisparticular field! Truly the fields are white unto harvest!


6/42

Compromise and the Faith

by Ian Taylor

1. The discovery of the colored peoples by the CaucasianChristian West in the 16th century caused some to doubt thatthe Genesis Flood had been universal since there was onlyone family on the Ark who must surely have been Caucasian.Later, at the time of the Industrial Revolution and during thesearch for coal and minerals, it was realized that rocksappeared in layers or strata, each of different chemical

composition from those layers above and below it. It wascorrectly concluded that these strata had originally beensediment in water and they were thus called "sedimentary

rocks." However, it was difficult to believe that one flood,the Genesis Flood, had been responsible for all thesedifferent strata. It seemed more reasonable to believe thateach strata was the result of a local flood, thus multiplelayers indicated multiple local floods. These conclusions hadbeen drawn by Nicolas Steno in 1667 but were developed inthe early 19th century. The evidence for multiple floodsseemed to be the fact that fossil remains of once-livingthings could be found almost specifically to each strata. The

Greeks had proposed that life had begun on earth in very

simple form and had gradually become more complex withtime but they had no mechanism that could explain this up-ward progression. The fossils in the strata seemed to showthis progression, very simple sea creatures in the loweststrata and mammals and occasionally man in the upperstrata. Thus each local flood had preserved within itssediments the remains of those creatures living at the time. If

What light does verse 6 shed on this situation? It helps toknow that household shrines filled with idols like thoseMicah built were common among the peoples of the MiddleEast. The idols were usually a personal selection of the

popular local gods, and many of these have been found in

ancient ruins.

2. It is into this situation that a Levite from Bethlehemcomes, looking for a place to live and work. What was thework of the Levite? (See Numbers 1:47-54.)

How do verses 8 and 9 indicate that this Levite might havebeen desperate for work? What bargain does Micah strikewith the Levite in verse 10?

3. Was the Levite faithful in his service to the Lord in

serving Micah in this way? What words in verse 11 indicatethat the Levite had no conscience problems with this kind ofservice?

4. Micah himself was not only religious, he was also


7/42

A Biblical Look At Spiritual

Relativism

by Paul A. Bartz

Note: Creation Moments exists to provide Biblically soundmaterials to the Church in the area of Bible and sciencerelationships. This Bible study may be reproduced for groupuse.

Due largely to man's natural rebellion from God, mostpeople today, including far too many Christians, accept some

degree of relativism in spiritual things. There is a disdain forabsolute morality and truth. Many Christians read Scripture'sclaim that in Christ we have been set free from thecondemnation of the law of God as saying that Christians nolonger need to consider God's law in their lives or that"Christian love" demands that we not insist that there isabsolute truth.

1. Read the story recorded in Judges 17. Was Micah

religious? Was he faithful to the Word of God? In what wayswas he unfaithful?

How about Micah's intentions - were they good intentions?

the Genesis Flood could have provided this distribution ofstrata and fossils, the time frame for earth's history could beaccommodated within the few thousand years indicated byBiblical genealogies. However the evidence seemed to

indicate multiple local floods and these required that the land

itself sink and rise a multiple number of times beneath thesurface of the ocean for flooding to occur. This was said totake vast spans of time since there was no evidence thatcontinents had actually risen and fallen. Obviously, the sealevel could not rise and fall or there would have been auniversal flood. Theologians confronted with this kind ofdata began to compromise with various theories so that bothScripture and geology could both be true. They did not knowthen that sediments do in fact drop out of flowing water in avery specific order giving rise to the strata precisely as we

find them.

2. The Gap or Ruin and Reconstruction Theory. Dr. ThomasChalmers (1780-1847) was evangelical professor of theologyat Edinburgh. In 1812 he proposed a gap between Genesis1:2 and 1:3 of as many millions of years as the geologist maywant and for which the Bible was essentially silent. Heargued that initially there had been a Pre-Adamic world thathad been destroyed by a flood. The strata and fossils foundtoday were the remains of this former world. The earth

remained "unformed and unfilled" for millions of years thenthe Biblical account continues with the restored earth. Oftennot stated the Genesis Flood was local. The Gap Theory

partly depends upon the KJV word "replenish" in Genesis1:28 but this meant "fill" in 1769 and is correctly given as"fill" in modern translations. The key to the theory is theargument that the use of the Hebrew BARA (to create ex inhilo) and ASA (make from re-existing material) means a re-


8/42

creation took place. But Gesenius and other scholars pointout that the two words are interchangeable in their context.Another proof text was Jeremiah 4:32-25 that uses theHebrew words, TOHU WO BOHU, translated "without form

and void" but the context is the destruction of Jerusalem, not

the destruction of the early earth! The Gap Theory waspromoted by G. H. Pember, the notes to the Scofield editionof the Bible (from 1909) and more recently by Dr. ArthurCustance and evangelists, Jimmy Swaggart and Benny Hinn.

3. The Day-Age Theory. The Scottish geologist and writer,Hugh Miller (1802-1856), was familiar with the fossils, therocks and with Scripture. He believed that Moses wrote thePentateuch by revelation when he was on the mountainrather than simply being the editor who had received the

carefully preserved documents. In Miller's theory, the daysof creation were actually days that Moses spent on themountain. The theory appealed to Numbers 14:34 and 2Peter 3:8 but he became confused and in a fit of depression,shot himself on Christmas eve, 1856. His book, Testimonyof the Rocks, appeared posthumously the following year.

4. Theistic Evolution. This is the most popular belief amongChristians and non-Christians today and essentially says thatGod used the process of evolution to bring about all living

things. Sometimes referred to as the "God of the GapsTheory" because the gaps in the fossil record are where Godis supposed to have stepped in, there is a whole spectrum of

beliefs within this category. However throughout, themeaning of Scripture is changed to accommodate theparticular version while belief in evolution remains inviolate.Professor of botany, Asa Gray (1810-1888), was aCongregationalist and correspondent of Darwin and openly

scientific creed can be trusted. If it can be shown that there isa sovereign, mighty ruler, transcendent over space, matterand time, who has brought this all to pass and continues tocontrol it for His own good purpose. Then, and then only, is

science possible!

But the only way we can know this is if He hascommunicated it to us. We cannot reach Him; He must speakto us. Such a communication comes to us through the Bible.The authority of Christ hangs upon a fact of natural science,the resurrection; and the resurrection of Jesus Christ is thefoundation of all Christian faith.

Thus it is that without the Christian faith the scientificmethod is meaningless and no true science is possible. Man

may "learn" much that is useful, but he can never learnanything that is truly true or truly false, truly right or trulywrong.

It is time that Christians challenged a groping world with thisgreat fact.


9/42

The Answer is Yes

Does the Christian faith depend upon scientific fact? Theanswer is a resounding "YES!" That is precisely what makes

it indestructible the scientific fact of the resurrection of Jesus

Christ.

An equally cogent question for our time is, "Does scientificfact depend upon the Christian Faith?" To the reigning highpriests of atheistic humanism the question is beneathcontempt. But to the thoughtful scientist who ponders hisscientific method the question is important, and the answer isnot far to seek.

Every scientist operates on an epistemology of faith. His

faith has five articles:

(1) I am alive, (2) I am real, (3) I am awake, (4) What I seeand measure is really there, and (5) When I turn my back itwill not vanish away or change into something else, exceptaccording to certain trustworthy laws of nature!

These articles are sacrosanct, because to question any one ofthem in a scientific investigation would destroy the whole.Yet if the whole realm of reality is but the chance

combination of blind, purposeless, flying particles, call themwhat you will, not a single one of these articles can betrusted. The probability that all I see and feel is just a trick

being played on me is far greater than the probability of thesimplest form of life "evolving" from non-life by sheerchance!

There is only one way by which these five articles of the

advised him to advocate theistic evolution because it wouldbe more acceptable to Christians whereas naturalisticevolution would be rejected outrightly. Darwin refusedbecause if God had any kind of guiding hand his theory of

Natural Selection that depended upon random chance, would

be nullified. Scottish Liberal evangelist Henry Drummond(1851-1897) and evangelists Henry Ward Beecher (1813-1887) and Harry Emerson Fosdick (1878-1969) in the US,vigorously promoted theistic evolution. We are reminded ofPaul's warning about the "grievous wolves" entering theChurch in Acts 20:29.

5. The Fourth Day Theory. Howard Van Till (1938- ),professor at Calvin College, recognizes that Genesis statesthat the earth was created on the first day while the sun,

moon and stars were created on the fourth day. He claimsthat the first three days of creation each consisted of billionsof years and only became 24-hour days after creation of thesun. His book, The Fourth Day, appeared in 1986. Here hestates a universe of 15 billion years, denies a literalinterpretation of the first chapter of Genesis (thus denies thewords of Jesus in Matthew 4:11 and John 10:35) and rejectsfiat creation; he argues that it would be deceptive on God'spart to create Adam with an apparent age. This type ofargument is simply the rejection of miracle by naturalism

and, to be consistent, he must also reject the Virgin Birth andthe Resurrection. Not until the reader is two-thirds throughthe book does Van Till confess to evolution as his belief

system. Of course, this means that he can have no realunderstanding of the Fall of Man since he has millions ofyears of death and struggle before Adam, denies Romans5:14, 17-19, and places the responsibility of death on Godand thus is not a consequence of Adam's sin. This theory and


10/42

the others, deny Exodus 20:11.

6. Progressive Creation. This is the brain-child of Hugh Rosswho has a Ph.D. in astronomy. His ministry, Reasons to

Believe, is very active among university students and his

entire teaching is based upon evolution although hevigorously denies this and rather cunningly avoids using theunwholesome word "evolution" by use of his term"Progressive Creation." His book The Finger of God,appeared in 1989 and he has appeared on most Christian TVtalk shows. Ross's message perfectly fits Paul's "grievouswolves" warning and probably represents one of the greatestdangers to the North American Church today. His teaching isbased upon the "blind-`em-with-science" and "hide-behind-the-Hebrew-words" technique - he shamelessly bends

Hebrew words to his own meaning confident that not one ina thousand will challenge him. When cornered with a reallanguage expert he will pour out scientific data well lardedwith specialist words from the more arcane avenues ofnuclear physics or cosmology. Or, when cornered by a realspecialist in cosmology, he resorts to arguments from theHebrew. Undoubtedly clever, Ross may even be Christianbut like others before him is doing harm to the Church ofJesus Christ. His main points of teaching are:

6a. Ross solidly subscribes to the Big Bang Theory andstates that the Universe is 15 billion years old. This deniesthe instant creation described in Psalm 33:6-9. The Big Bang

Theory is currently under a cloud of suspicion.

6b. Ross teaches that the sun was created before the earthand argues that the Genesis account is from God'sperspective on the surface of the earth under a heavy cloud

Moses, Abraham, Noah, as historical people; and thecreation of Adam and Eve as the first human pair, thedestruction of the entire earth at the Flood, and the cataclysmupon Sodom and Gomorrah, as historical events.

If he knew that these were but picture-people and picture-

stories (as the new system would have us believe), and yetencouraged His hearers in believing they were historical,then He became party to deceit and ceased being a sinlessSavior.

(2) No matter how skillful man may be in measuring andobserving his world, wherever his conclusions have ethicalimplications, i.e. wherever they touch upon God'ssovereignty, man's corruption and bondage to Satan, andGod's plan of salvation, fallen man always comes to false

conclusions, his understanding is darkened, and professinghimself wise he makes himself a fool. (Rom. 1, I Cor. 1-3,Eph. 4, etc.)

(3) Any man who is both a scientist and a Christian mustapply to any new finding or theory in the realm of sciencethe following tests:(a) Does it bear upon any clearly identified events or personsor times in the Biblical record?If so, it must conform to what Scripture teaches or be

rejected.(b) Does it have ethical implications as to God's sovereignty,man's sinfulness, Christ's Deity. or God's plan of salvation

and final judgement?If it does, and it denies Scripture on such points, then it maybe expected to reach false conclusions in the natural realm aswell!


11/42

Before such naked, consistent nihilism many still shudder.They would gloss it over with the forms and semblance ofChristianity while still believing in the ultimate infallibilityof human wisdom and progress through evolution. Thus have

been constructed the now-fashionable ideas examined above:

- fashionable because they retain much of the language ofChristianity yet are careful never to challenge the great God"science" at any modern point. And being both plausible,respectable and "giving offense to none" many genuinebelievers are easily ensnared.

It is important then to recapitulate the elements of thisstrange system of doctrine so as to recognize it wherever itappears. Our Christian faith, it says, pertains only to things inthe realm of the spirit, whereas science operates only in the

realm of the senses. Hence we can be totally indifferent tothe truth or falsehood of natural events described in the Bibleand we can go along with the "science" of any particular day,no matter how it appears to contradict Scripture, so long as itis supported by human reason and lies in the natural realm.

Such a system is by no means new. It has philosophical rootsthroughout paganism, and it takes little insight to perceivethat it leads straight to total relativism, existentialism, andNietche's "whatever is, is right!"

The Christian's Answer

The Christian answer is at least three-fold:(1) The denial of an event plainly described in the Bible isnot merely contradicting an obscure Bible writer; it is achallenge to the resurrection authority of Christ Himself, asGod manifest in human form. He unequivocally endorsed

layer that obscured the sun, moon and stars until day 4.

6c. Ross claims the "days" of creation were really millions ofyears. What was God doing under the heavy cloud cover all

this time? Days of millions of years makes nonsense of the

fourth commandment (Exodus 20:8-11), God's example to usto work six days and rest on the seventh.

6d. Ross teaches that life has increased in complexity overthe long history of the earth. However, by wordy argumentand equivocation he leaves the reader with the impressionthat this is not evolution.

6e. Ross acknowledges the special creation of man but noton the sixth day and has man-like creatures without souls

roaming the earth before Adam. In Ross's view these becamethe fossil ape-men. Interestingly, Michaelangelo's SistineChapel ceiling "Creation" scene depicts the moment whenthe soul of man was implanted into some "higher ape."

6f. Ross has millions of years of death and struggle beforethe Creation and Fall of man thus making God responsiblefor death and not Adam. This denies Genesis 3:19, Romans5:14, 17-19 and Romans 8:20-21.

6g. A local Flood is always found with any kind of theisticevolution. Ross speaks about the Flood as "universal" butupon close questioning, he says it was "only universal in the

minds of the local people, the Israelites," he then admits itwas geographically local. This not only makes Noah a fool tohave built the Ark, but Jesus and Peter equally as foolish tobelieve the story and it makes God a liar according to Hispromise given in Genesis 9:11.


12/42

6h. According to Ross, Scripture and Nature have equalauthority. This idea runs throughout his teaching and he feelsperfectly at ease to change the obvious meaning of Scripture

to fit the latest cosmological theory. According to Jesus in

John 3:12, the heavenly realm has the greater authority.

Conclusion: The Greek pagan philosophers living beforeChrist suggested various naturalistic explanations for theorigin of the earth and every one required a very long time.Today, in the light of the Gospel and the good science thatsupports the creation account, Christians who adopt anaturalistic explanation are more accountable than thoseearly Greeks.

that God even exists and has spoken such precious promises- hinges entirely, as we have seen, upon the scientific fact ofthe resurrection of Jesus Christ. Furthermore, if anindisputably correct determination should ever be able to

prove that the bones in a certain grave anywhere on earth are

those of the man Jesus Christ, then the Bible lies, God isunknown, we are yet in our sins, and the Christian faithbecomes faith in a myth.

The Christian answer to such a question is that, though theevent may be a miracle inexplicable by any natural law, thetotal body of evidence before us is incontrovertible scientificproof that the resurrection literally occurred. And to dispelthe least vestige of doubt, the Christian rightly observes thata resurrection that was anything less than a miracle would be

out of character with the God of creation and providence.

Rejected by Modern Man

But the modern mind, untouched by the saving grace of God,rejects such an answer for it implies a sovereign creator, freeand able to enter supernaturally into history as He pleases.Above all, it implies a God who is righteous and holy, towhom we must finally give account. Surely a better answeris to believe that the amazing achievements of the human

intellect, by which most of the former mysteries of naturehave now been fathomed, will soon fathom the mystery ofJesus' resurrection also. It will be found to have a perfectly

natural explanation; Jesus is dead, as we might have known;and the race will press on to new heights of achievement,guided by the only "God" there ever was, the blindimpersonal trinity: nature, time and evolution!


13/42

theorize, speculate or pile assumption upon airy assumption,as do our modern evolutionists. Instead we find, "By manyinfallible proofs" (Acts 1:3), "whereof we all are witness"(Acts 2:32), "eyewitnesses of His majesty" (11 Peter 1: 16),

and the magnificent passage of I John 1-3 quoted at the

beginning.

Scripture thus comes to us, where it touches the naturalrealm, in the language of true science, whereas evolution andskepticism must forever fall back upon the language ofmake-believe and mythology.

Christ's Resurrection - A Scientific Fact

We look next at the amazing statement: "The faith which the

Christian has cannot be destroyed by the results of scientificstudy, either, since that faith doesn't depend on science."Again we have a clever combination of truth and error, thefirst half being true but the second half error.

The faith of a son that he will inherit the wealth of his fatherdepends upon the scientific fact of his sonship. If scientificstudy should prove that he is but a waif, switched in thehospital nursery, his faith would clearly be destroyed. Thefaith of the winning presidential candidate next November 7

that he will succeed to the White House depends entirelyupon the scientific determination, say on November 8, thathe has a sure majority of electoral votes. But clearly, if

further scientific study should make him the loser, his faithwould go up in smoke.

Likewise the faith of the Christian that God will indeedresurrect him and accept him at the last day - in fact, the faith

Genesis Stands!

by Richard Niessen, Bernard Northrup & David

Watson

Is the Gap Theory a Biblical Option?

by Richard Niessen

The Gap Theory Scenario

Briefly, the scenario in the Gap Theory goes something likethis: Genesis 1:1 records the special creation of the originalheavens and earth, billions of years ago. Upon that earth

lived the various species of prehistoric animals andprehistoric man. During that time Lucifer's rebellion inheaven took place (Isa. 14:12-17; Ezk. 28:1-6; Rev. 12:7-9).

Lucifer and his fallen angels (currently called Satan, anddemons, respectively) were cast down to earth, corrupted theoriginal inhabitants of the earth, and provoked a worldwidejudgement known as "Lucifer's Flood," from which therewere no survivors. Thus the earth became without form andvoid (Gen. 1:2) and remained in this desolate condition forbillions of years. Genesis 1:3 and following then records the

re-creation of the earth, the biosphere, and man as we knowthem today. Thus it is also called the Ruin-ReconstructionTheory.

The Gap Theory received its initial impetus in 1814 by

Thomas Chalmers of Scotland, whose primary motivationwas to allow the Bible to conform to the vast ages of time


14/42

and the so-called "geologic column," both of which are socentral to uniformitarian geology. It was enormouslypopularized by the notes of the 1917 Scofield ReferenceBible, and has been promoted by various scholars up to the

present.

The Gap Theory appeals to Bible-believing Christians fortwo reasons. First, it is a way of dealing with the majorproblems associated with the evolutionary scenario - thealleged antiquity of the earth, the geologic column, fossils,dinosaurs, cavemen, etc. The claims and unanswerableproblems of "science" are merely shoveled into the "gap"between Genesis 1:1-3 or are relegated to the pre-creationearth. Whereas Day-Age people are generally thoroughgoingevolutionists calling themselves "theistic evolutionists" or

"progressive creationists." Gap Theory people are basicallycreationists who have not yet been informed of the modernscientific evidence for a Young earth, the rapid formation ofthe geologic column and the fossils it contains, the invalidityof radiometric dating systems, etc. Most Cap Theory peoplein practice might be called "irrelevant creationists": since thecreation took place so long ago, as "science" claims, there islittle point in discussing it.

Second, it gives the appearance of profound and deep Bible

study as it is discovered for the first time that billions ofyears were ingeniously hidden between two verses ofScripture and this remarkable fact is now revealed for all to

use in their battle against the raging forces of evolution.

The Alleged Basis for the Gap Theory

There are seven main points generally proposed as the basis

was nailed to the cross did not walk out of the tomb threedays later, if all this was some monstrous illusion or hoaxand therefore unscientific, then either Christ was a fraud, orthe Bible is untrustworthy, or both.

Conversely, if the resurrection was a historical fact, amplywitnessed and faithfully recorded, it follows that Christ is allthat the Bible claims Him to be, and more. By that one greatact He is proven to be eternal Lord and able Redeemer in thespiritual realm. Equally important, it proves Him to be bothMaster Witness and Final Authority in every branch anddiscipline of the natural realm.

This means that if Christ were to walk into any classroom,no matter how eminent the professor or how profound the

subject, He would be the superior authority. It means thatwherever He put His stamp of approval upon events recordedin the Old Testament, His testimony is the scientifictestimony of an unimpeachable witness to such events. Andit means that where He testifies to the truth of events beyondour ken, such as creation, His testimony is the only scientificevidence; and all human speculations on origins of matter orof life thus become worthless unless they agree with Christ.All this because of the resurrection!

Christian faith, then, is faith based upon facts rather thanfaith based upon fiction. It is an engineer crossing a bridgewhose steel he has seen tested, as against a man who jumps

from a skyscraper on the strength of a dream that he is a bird- or of a learned calculation that once-in-a-billion his armswill act like wings! The Scripture writers themselvesconstantly emphasized their testimony as scientific evidenceconfirmed by the natural senses. Never once do they


15/42

nations.

Such was the God the apostle Paul introduced to thephilosophies of Athens in Acts 17, in scientific terms; and

they were not slow to perceive, as men today are, that the

whole force of his argument hinged upon not some etherealidea in the spirit realm, but a scientifically determinableevent in the natural realm, the bodily resurrection of JesusChrist.

Here we must deal with the statement cited earlier: "Thisfaith does not depend on scientific knowledge or theory - onecan be a Christian regardless of whether he thinks the earth isround or flat." It is a clever combination of truth and error.Of course, Christian faith does not depend upon "scientific

theory" if the two words simply mean the unproven anduninformed idea of one classed as a "scientist." But let anidea, a theory, be substantiated by experiment, observabledata and sound correlation, so that it becomes "scientificknowledge." Then the man who says it has no bearing uponChristian faith is dead wrong.

When the man born blind silenced the Pharisees with thoseelectric words, "One thing I know, that whereas I was blind,now I see," what else was it than scientific knowledge? And

the Christian faith is grounded in an event just as certain andelectrifying, the resurrection of Jesus Christ!

Here was a great event in time and place, manifest to thesenses and reported by witnesses, and therefore an event inthe realm of scientific knowledge. On this event hangs allour Christian faith, and the Bible as well. For if theresurrection of Jesus Christ is false, if the same Jesus who

for the Gap Theory:

1. Science and the geologic column speak of an old (4.5-billion- year-old) earth and universe.

2. Hayah could be translated as "became" in Gen. 1:2 insteadof "was." The result is that the earth became waste and voidand was re-created after an initial creation and destruction.

3. The Hebrew words translated "without form and void"(tohu vabohu) in Gen. 1:2 refer to judgment elsewhere (Isa.34:11 and Jer. 4:23); therefore this expression refers to thejudgment of Lucifer and the inhabitants of the original earth.

4. The word tohu itself is occasionally used in an evil sense

elsewhere in the Old Testament (Isaiah 44:9; 59:4).

5. "Darkness" is used elsewhere as representative of evil(John 3:19, Jude 13, etc.); therefore the darkness in Gen. 1:2refers to the crushing of Lucifer's rebellion.

6. There is a sharp distinction between the Hebrew words for"create" (bara) and "make" ('asah). Bara refers to the originalcreation ex nihilo in Gen. 1:1, and 'asah refers to thesubsequent refashioning of items from already-existing

materials.

7. Genesis 1:28 speaks of "replenishing" or "refilling" the

earth. That means it was originally "filled" and emptied, andis now being "re-filled."

A Refutation of the Gap Theory


16/42

1. The geologic column (which is the backbone of theevolutionary scenario) shows every evidence of having beendeposited quickly, by Noah's Flood, and not over longperiods of time. In fact both the earth and the universe give

every indication of having been created only 6-10,000 years

ago. Once it is recognized that the earth is not very old, andthat many of the evidences appealed to as a part of theevolutionary scenario are actually phenomena produced bythe Genesis Flood, the Gap Theory will soon he recognizedas superfluous. Once there is no more need to have an oldearth, one becomes less vehement about the alleged biblicalbases for the theory. It is evident then that the above-mentioned points are really biblical "baggage" - theaccretions necessary to lend theological respectability towhat is essentially an accommodation to science falsely-so-

called.

2. In 258 out of 264 occurrences of the word hayah in thePentateuch, it is unquestionably translated as "was." A directparallel to Gen. 1:2 is Jonah 3:3 - "Nineveh was (hayah) agreat city." Obviously it did not become a great city afterJonah set foot in it. Other grammatical parallels include Gen.31:5; 41:56; Ex. 1:5, and judges 9:51. The normal way ofexpressing a change of condition involving hayah wouldhave the next word preceded by a prefix le, "into," so that it

should literally have been constructed, "the earth becameinto formlessness and emptiness..." Such a construction doesnot appear in Gen. 1:2, therefore the overwhelming weight of

passages (98%) affirm the traditional translation of "was,"i.e. that the earth was in this condition at the time Godcreated it, mainly because He wasn't finished with the workof creation yet.

western world being the unquestioning faith of a gulliblepublic in the mountainous pretensions of evolutionary theorywithout a shred of scientific proof, simply because theexperts say it is so.

Christian Faith

Christian faith, on the other hand, is vastly andfundamentally different. It is confidence in specific promisesof future action by God, such as resurrection, forgiveness,retribution, based upon and rooted in specific actions by thesame God in time past. Furthermore, these actions in timepast invariably satisfied five scientific criteria:(1) They were actions which only a sovereign, omnipotentGod could perform

(2) They were consistent with His holiness andrighteousness, unlike blind chance(3) They occurred at specific times and places in the naturalworld(4) They were manifest to human senses and so reported bycredible witnesses(5) The report has been transmitted to us in a documentundeniably authentic.

In short, Christian faith is rooted in actions by an Almighty

God in the realm of natural science that are reported in aBiblical record that satisfies all the canons of scientificevidence. Nor is it faith in just any god, nor even an exalted

idea of God, but none less and none else than the LORD Godof the Old Testament, Maker of heaven and earth, Father ofour living Lord Jesus Christ, actively controlling the universeand ordering all things to bring about the redemption of Hispeople and the sure and certain final judgment of men and


17/42

are told, we accept the Bible as God's Word, His message tous. This faith does not depend on scientific knowledge ortheory, we are assured, since one can be a Christian whetherhe thinks the earth is round or flat. This faith doesn't need

crutches, since it stands without the need for proof from

scientific data, and to cap the argument the author concludes:"The faith which the Christian has cannot be destroyed bythe results of scientific study either, since that faith doesn'tdepend on science. To base our faith on the proposition thata particular scientific theory is true or false is to build it onthe wrong foundation. God exists whether the earth is roundor flat. Christ alone is an adequate foundation for our faith.This faith also gives the Christian the opportunity to pursuescientific study unafraid. We don't have to choose betweenthe Bible and science because we can use both."

The argument is ever-so-plausible because ever-so-subtle. Itis absolutely correct if one puts the right definition of"science" at the right places, but it is dead wrong if "science"means what the man in the street accepts. God certainlyexists whether the earth is round or flat; but is it so certain ifthe universe is but the chance combination of matter, energy,space and time; or if the Christ-story is but a historical fraudand Jesus is dead in His grave. So let us examine thingsfurther by starting where the above writer started, at

Hebrews 11:1.

First of all, does the text mean that Christian faith is the

assurance of anything hoped for, or the conviction ofanything not seen? If so, then there is no difference betweenthis kind of faith and that of the jungle savage in his witch-doctor, or of a child in Santa Claus! This latter kind of "faithin fiction" the world is fun of, the classical example in the

3. The expression tohu vabohu as a couplet occurs only twicein the Old Testament and is used of divine judgment uponboth Gentiles and Israel (Isa. 34:11, Jer. 4:23). Remember,however, that we are not dealing with a data base of

hundreds or even dozens of references. Two passages, that

have nothing whatsoever to do with the creation week, canhardly be used as a solid basis for such a radicalinterpretation.

4. If tohu always referred to something evil wherever it wasused in the Old Testament, this might be an impressiveargument for applying that idea in Gen. 1:2. However, acareful study of the usage of the word does not support thatmeaning. For example, in job 26:7 it states that God"stretches out the north over empty space (tohu), and hangs

the earth upon nothing." Here, as in most of the passages inwhich the word appears in Isaiah, the word is in a position ofHebrew parallelism with "nothing"; there is nothing in thepassage to suggest that outer space is evil. Nor is that ideacontained in the, passages in which the word refers to theemptiness of the wilderness or desert, where the primary ideais the absence of life (Deut. 32:101; Job 6:18, 12:24, Ps.107:40). It has the primary idea of "nothing," "emptiness," or"uselessness," and is therefore a morally neutral term.

The words tohu vabohu, in the context of Gen. 1:2, are besttranslated as "unformed and unfilled" or "shapeless andempty." There is no judgment in this context; it is imported

only because of outside assumptions.

5. When "darkness" is used as a symbol of evil and "light" isused as a symbol for righteousness, it is clear from thecontext that these metaphorical interpretations are intended.


18/42

In Gen. 1:5 it states that the light was called "day" and thedarkness was called "night," the expanse is called "heaven"(v. 8), the dry land is called "earth," and the waters are called"seas" (v. 10). These are not the mystical terms of allegorical

interpretation, but are mundane terms pertaining to physical

objects in the created order. Notice the morally neutral use ofthe idea of physical darkness in Psalm 104:19-24 and Psalm139:12. It is best, therefore, to understand "light" in Genesis1:2-5 as being symbolic of light and "darkness" as symbolicof darkness.

6. The absolute distinction between bara (to create) and 'asah(to form) cannot be maintained, as they are essentiallysynonymous in Genesis 1. Notice the following:

a) In Gen. 1:16 God made ('asah) the sun, moon, and stars.Obviously they were not made from preexisting matter.

b) In Gen. 1:21 it states that God created (bara) great seamonsters, while v. 25 states that God made ('asah) the beastsof the earth.

c) In Gen. 1:20 the waters swarm with swarms of livingcreatures while in v. 21 it is explained to mean that "Godcreated (bara) every living creature that moved, with which

the waters swarmed."

d) Gen. 2:7 tells us that God formed (yatzar) man, while 1:26

says he was made ('asah) and 1:27 says he was created(bara).

e) Genesis 1:1 and 2:4 say that God created (bara), theheavens and the earth, while Exodus 20:11 says that "in six

upward from amoeba to superman! The believer, implantedwith a new nature, clings with his heart to his Bible, but tohis head keeps coming the question, how could such smartmen be so wrong? He forgets, for the moment, to let down

the great anchor, "Let God be true and every man a liar!" and

instead, soon he hears a soothing voice "Fret not yourself;both sides are right; you can have your Bible and yourevolution too!"

The argument comes, not from the Bible's enemies, but frommen of eminence in both religion and science; and therationale is very sophisticated. The Bible speaks in the"spiritual" realm, whereas science speaks in the natural, andman lives in both. Since the two realms never intersect, thetwo can never contradict each other no matter how they may

seem to.

Thus by a simple bit of mental gymnastics - an "escape fromreason" if you like - one can keep God in heaven, carry hisBible, "share" Christ, and keep peace with the reigning kingupon earth, human reason! Or so we are being told.

If this be so, the Christian is surely under sentence ofschizophrenia and either perpetual misery or perpetualidiocy! If it is not so, it is important that he knows why and

how.

Fashionable Argument

Let us examine a typical form of this fashionable argumentin a recent publication:* The Christian faith, we are told, isdefined in Hebrews 11:1 as "the assurance of things hopedfor, and the conviction of things not seen." By this faith, we


19/42

Does Christian Faith

Depend Upon Scientific

Fact?by Robert L. Whitelaw

(By Robert L. Whitelaw, Department of MechanicalEngineering, Virginia Polytechnic Institute at Blacksburg.)

"That which was from the beginning, which we have heard,which we have seen with our eyes, which we have lookedupon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of Life; that

which we have seen and heard declare we unto you." (I John1:1-3)

A fashionable notion of our time is that it is possible, at oneand the same time, for a Christian to keep his "faith" andaccept without question whatever "science" says. A manremembers a Bible that speaks of a personal, holy God, ofHis supernatural works of creation, providence andjudgment, and of a supernatural, risen Christ who testifies to

the truth of that record. He also sees a world of

unprecedented scientific knowledge and achievement whosehigh priests assure him there is no such God, and that allthings came about over billions or trillions of years by thechance combination of matter and energy.

The unbeliever sees no dilemma. The Bible is simply anamusing relic of one tribe long vanished in the struggle

days the Lord made ('asah), the heavens and the earth."Furthermore, Genesis 2:4 itself uses the two words in aparallelism: "when they were created (bara), in the day oftheir making ('asah)".

Whitcomb rightly observes, "'These examples should sufficeto show the absurdities to which we are driven by makingdistinctions which God never intended to make. For the sakeof variety and fullness of expression (a basic and extremelyhelpful characteristic of Hebrew literature), different verbsare used to convey the concept of supernatural creation. It isparticularly clear that whatever shade of meaning the ratherflexible verb 'made' ('asah) may bear in other contexts of theOld Testament, in the context of Genesis 1 it stands as asynonym for 'created' (bara)."

7. The idea of "refilling" the earth is based upon a KingJames mistranslation of the Hebrew word male' in Gen. 1:28.It is a broad term which includes either the idea of filling, asin 1:22 and 1:28, or of refilling, as in 9:1. It is thereforeinconclusive and cannot be used as a proof one way or theother.

8. The Hebrew letter "w," translated "and," appears ninetimes in the first five verses in what is known as a "waw

conjunctive." Without getting bogged down in the intricaciesof Hebrew grammar, suffice it to say here that this meansthat each statement is chronologically connected to the

statements before and after. Each action follows immediatelyafter the action described in the phrase preceding it. Gen.1:1-5 therefore refers to one single 24-hour day: thebeginning is the first day and the first day is the beginning.


20/42

9. In the Cap Theory there is a serious theological problemwith sin and death before the fall of Adam in Genesis 3.Fossils contain the idea of death, as a fossil by definition is adead organism. The idea of a rebellion led by Lucifer

automatically contains the idea of sin extending to pre-

Adamic man. Yet Romans 5:12 declares that "through oneman (i.e. Adam) sin entered into the world, and deaththrough sin," while Gen. 3:14 and Romans 8: 19-22 state thatthe effects of Adam's sin extended to the entire created order.There is nothing ambiguous about the verses and they meanexactly what they say: Adam was the first man, and therewas neither sin nor death on the earth prior to the Garden ofEden incident recorded in Genesis 3.

10. Exodus 20:11 was mentioned before as a verse which

shows the essential interchangeability between bara and'asah, but there is more. The Gap Theory states that in thebeginning (i.e., 5 billion years ago) God created the heavens,the earth, the sea, and a whole biosphere. Billions of yearslater He reconstructed the earth, using already-existentmatter. Ex. 20:11, however, states that "in six days (clearlythe six days of the creation week of Gen. 1:1-31) the Lordmade heaven and earth, the sea and all that is in them." Inother words, everything that is in space, on the surface of theearth, indeed the surface of the earth itself, the oceans, and

everything they contain were created within the six days ofthe creation week. Again, the beginning is the first day andthe first day is the beginning.

11. Related to the above is Colossians 1:16: "For by Him(i.e., Christ) were all things created that are in heaven andthat are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they bethrones or dominions or principalities or powers - all things

6h. According to Ross, Scripture and Nature have equalauthority. This idea runs throughout his teaching and he feelsperfectly at ease to change the obvious meaning of Scripture

to fit the latest cosmological theory. According to Jesus in

John 3:12, the heavenly realm has the greater authority.

Conclusion: The Greek pagan philosophers living beforeChrist suggested various naturalistic explanations for theorigin of the earth and every one required a very long time.Today, in the light of the Gospel and the good science thatsupports the creation account, Christians who adopt anaturalistic explanation are more accountable than thoseearly Greeks.


21/42

layer that obscured the sun, moon and stars until day 4.

6c. Ross claims the "days" of creation were really millions ofyears. What was God doing under the heavy cloud cover all

this time? Days of millions of years makes nonsense of the

fourth commandment (Exodus 20:8-11), God's example to usto work six days and rest on the seventh.

6d. Ross teaches that life has increased in complexity overthe long history of the earth. However, by wordy argumentand equivocation he leaves the reader with the impressionthat this is not evolution.

6e. Ross acknowledges the special creation of man but noton the sixth day and has man-like creatures without souls

roaming the earth before Adam. In Ross's view these becamethe fossil ape-men. Interestingly, Michaelangelo's SistineChapel ceiling "Creation" scene depicts the moment whenthe soul of man was implanted into some "higher ape."

6f. Ross has millions of years of death and struggle beforethe Creation and Fall of man thus making God responsiblefor death and not Adam. This denies Genesis 3:19, Romans5:14, 17-19 and Romans 8:20-21.

6g. A local Flood is always found with any kind of theisticevolution. Ross speaks about the Flood as "universal" butupon close questioning, he says it was "only universal in the

minds of the local people, the Israelites," he then admits itwas geographically local. This not only makes Noah a fool tohave built the Ark, but Jesus and Peter equally as foolish tobelieve the story and it makes God a liar according to Hispromise given in Genesis 9:11.

were created by Him and for Him." Colossians 1:16-17 is acommentary on Genesis 1 and tells us that every conceivablething - material or immaterial - was created during the six-day creation week. That includes angels of all kinds and yes,

that includes Lucifer also. This is not the place to quibble

over whether they were created on the first, the fourth, or thesixth days - and a case could be made for each of the three -the point is that angels did not exist from all eternity: theyare created beings like you and me, and as such they havetheir origin within the creation week of Genesis 1.

There is a six-fold repetition of the phrase "God saw that itwas good" which appears at the conclusion of each majorcreative act, climaxed with a summation verse in Gen. 1:31:"And God saw everything that He had made, and behold it

was very good." The following verse (2:1) notes that thatincludes heaven, earth, and all the host of them. NoticePsalm 148:2 where "host" is set in Hebrew parallelism with"angels." That would have to mean, therefore, that the fall ofLucifer and his demons had not yet taken place. Thiseliminates one of the major elements in the Gap Theoryscenario - the pre-creation creation and fall of the fallenangels. Exactly when they did fall is not precisely identified,but it would have been sometime between Genesis chapterstwo and three, a period of decades rather than billions of

years.

12. There is a remarkable silence in other Scriptures

regarding this alleged original destruction of the earth, eventhough there are several places in which it would beappropriate to the argument. Second Peter 2:4-6 refers to thecertainty of God's judgment on three occasions, as does Jude5-7. Other passages stress the certainty of God's judgment on


22/42

pre-Flood people as an illustration of His future judgmentupon the world (Matt. 24:37-39), and yet not one ever usesthis alleged pre-creation destruction as an example of God'sjudgment, even though it was more total in its effects and

duration than Noah's Flood. The reason they do not refer to

it, of course, is because it never happened.

13. Because the geologic column is accepted as a record of(he geologic ages of the pre-creation earth, or of the so-called "Lucifer's Flood," and the fossils are remnants of thepre-Genesis creation, there is a tendency among many gaptheorists to diminish the significance, extent, and geologicaleffects of Noah's Flood in Genesis 6-8. Any flood violentenough to completely inundate the earth and cover its highestmountains in 40-150 days, and which lasted a total of 371

days, would have had enough destructive force to break upthe earth's crust and thus it would have destroyed thegeologic column which, after all, is one of the main reasonsfor holding to the Gap Theory in the first place. This is whysome of the most vociferous advocates of the Gap Theoryalso argue for a local or tranquil flood in Genesis 6-8. Here isa case where error begets additional error.

14. If there was really a pre-Genesis world that was cursedand destroyed because of sin, it would not be enough to

merely destroy it by water or fire. The curse of sin sopenetrates and permeates the very fabric of our universe(Rom. 8:21-22) that when God creates the new heavens and

earth, He finds it necessary to cancel the nuclear forcesholding together every atom of our universe, allow matter torevert back into pure energy, and then re-create an entire newuniverse of matter as a repetition of Genesis 1:1 (2 Peter3:10-13; Rev. 21:1). Sin is to the created order as ink is to a

the others, deny Exodus 20:11.

6. Progressive Creation. This is the brain-child of Hugh Rosswho has a Ph.D. in astronomy. His ministry, Reasons to

Believe, is very active among university students and his

entire teaching is based upon evolution although hevigorously denies this and rather cunningly avoids using theunwholesome word "evolution" by use of his term"Progressive Creation." His book The Finger of God,appeared in 1989 and he has appeared on most Christian TVtalk shows. Ross's message perfectly fits Paul's "grievouswolves" warning and probably represents one of the greatestdangers to the North American Church today. His teaching isbased upon the "blind-`em-with-science" and "hide-behind-the-Hebrew-words" technique - he shamelessly bends

Hebrew words to his own meaning confident that not one ina thousand will challenge him. When cornered with a reallanguage expert he will pour out scientific data well lardedwith specialist words from the more arcane avenues ofnuclear physics or cosmology. Or, when cornered by a realspecialist in cosmology, he resorts to arguments from theHebrew. Undoubtedly clever, Ross may even be Christianbut like others before him is doing harm to the Church ofJesus Christ. His main points of teaching are:

6a. Ross solidly subscribes to the Big Bang Theory andstates that the Universe is 15 billion years old. This deniesthe instant creation described in Psalm 33:6-9. The Big Bang

Theory is currently under a cloud of suspicion.

6b. Ross teaches that the sun was created before the earthand argues that the Genesis account is from God'sperspective on the surface of the earth under a heavy cloud


23/42

advised him to advocate theistic evolution because it wouldbe more acceptable to Christians whereas naturalisticevolution would be rejected outrightly. Darwin refusedbecause if God had any kind of guiding hand his theory of

Natural Selection that depended upon random chance, would

be nullified. Scottish Liberal evangelist Henry Drummond(1851-1897) and evangelists Henry Ward Beecher (1813-1887) and Harry Emerson Fosdick (1878-1969) in the US,vigorously promoted theistic evolution. We are reminded ofPaul's warning about the "grievous wolves" entering theChurch in Acts 20:29.

5. The Fourth Day Theory. Howard Van Till (1938- ),professor at Calvin College, recognizes that Genesis statesthat the earth was created on the first day while the sun,

moon and stars were created on the fourth day. He claimsthat the first three days of creation each consisted of billionsof years and only became 24-hour days after creation of thesun. His book, The Fourth Day, appeared in 1986. Here hestates a universe of 15 billion years, denies a literalinterpretation of the first chapter of Genesis (thus denies thewords of Jesus in Matthew 4:11 and John 10:35) and rejectsfiat creation; he argues that it would be deceptive on God'spart to create Adam with an apparent age. This type ofargument is simply the rejection of miracle by naturalism

and, to be consistent, he must also reject the Virgin Birth andthe Resurrection. Not until the reader is two-thirds throughthe book does Van Till confess to evolution as his belief

system. Of course, this means that he can have no realunderstanding of the Fall of Man since he has millions ofyears of death and struggle before Adam, denies Romans5:14, 17-19, and places the responsibility of death on Godand thus is not a consequence of Adam's sin. This theory and

stick of chalk: it cannot be scrubbed from the surface, it mustbe transformed atomically.

15. If the geologic column contains fossils of a pre-Genesis

world, and God recreated all life forms de novo, it seems

strange that there is a basic continuity between the fossilrecord and the spectrum of plants and animals currently aliveon the earth. Many fossils are of animals no longer alive(which proves nothing more than that they are no longeralive today for one reason or another), and while they are insome cases larger than their modern counterparts, they areobviously of the same species. If God performed a brandnew creation in Genesis 1:2 and following, why did He notstart over again with an entirely different set of prototypes?The best explanation for the essential continuity between the

current biosphere and the fossil record is that they bothcontain descendants of the spectrum of life created in Gen.1:11-31, and that the fossils are actually preserved specimensof plants and animals killed and encapsulated by Noah'sFlood of Genesis 6-8.

Conclusion

The Biblical verses used to support the Gap Theory, asimpressive as they may initially appear, are forced, taken out

of their contexts, and are actually merely the biblicalbaggage attached to a theory that was invented primarily toaccommodate (i.e., compromise) the Bible to several facets

of the evolutionary scenario: the alleged antiquity of theearth and the universe, the geologic column, fossils, etc. TheGap Theory does less violence to the Scriptures as a wholethan the Day-Age Theory, and the sincerity of its adherentsmust be commended in that their motivation is to attempt to


24/42

confirm the scientific accuracy of the Bible. But sincerity isnot a determinant of truth, as one can be sincerely wrong.The bottom line of this article is that "the beginning" is a partof the first day and the first day is the beginning (Gen. 1:1).

Since there is no gap permissible between Gen. 1:1, 2, or 3

either grammatically or contextually, the Gap Theory isunscriptural and is therefore false.

____________________________________Richard Niessen has taught Bible and apologetics at MoodyBible Institute and Christian Heritage College and is apopular lecturer in creationism and Bible-Science topics. Histwo Bachelor's degrees are from Northeastern Bible College,his Master's is from Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, andhe has done doctoral studies at St. Louis University.

____________________________________

Creation Contradictions?

by Dr. Bernard E. Northrup

Man Before Plants?

Many have been troubled about the apparent contradictionconcerning the order of creation in the accounts of Genesis

creation took place. But Gesenius and other scholars pointout that the two words are interchangeable in their context.Another proof text was Jeremiah 4:32-25 that uses theHebrew words, TOHU WO BOHU, translated "without form

and void" but the context is the destruction of Jerusalem, not

the destruction of the early earth! The Gap Theory waspromoted by G. H. Pember, the notes to the Scofield editionof the Bible (from 1909) and more recently by Dr. ArthurCustance and evangelists, Jimmy Swaggart and Benny Hinn.

3. The Day-Age Theory. The Scottish geologist and writer,Hugh Miller (1802-1856), was familiar with the fossils, therocks and with Scripture. He believed that Moses wrote thePentateuch by revelation when he was on the mountainrather than simply being the editor who had received the

carefully preserved documents. In Miller's theory, the daysof creation were actually days that Moses spent on themountain. The theory appealed to Numbers 14:34 and 2Peter 3:8 but he became confused and in a fit of depression,shot himself on Christmas eve, 1856. His book, Testimonyof the Rocks, appeared posthumously the following year.

4. Theistic Evolution. This is the most popular belief amongChristians and non-Christians today and essentially says thatGod used the process of evolution to bring about all living

things. Sometimes referred to as the "God of the GapsTheory" because the gaps in the fossil record are where Godis supposed to have stepped in, there is a whole spectrum of

beliefs within this category. However throughout, themeaning of Scripture is changed to accommodate theparticular version while belief in evolution remains inviolate.Professor of botany, Asa Gray (1810-1888), was aCongregationalist and correspondent of Darwin and openly


25/42

the Genesis Flood could have provided this distribution ofstrata and fossils, the time frame for earth's history could beaccommodated within the few thousand years indicated byBiblical genealogies. However the evidence seemed to

indicate multiple local floods and these required that the land

itself sink and rise a multiple number of times beneath thesurface of the ocean for flooding to occur. This was said totake vast spans of time since there was no evidence thatcontinents had actually risen and fallen. Obviously, the sealevel could not rise and fall or there would have been auniversal flood. Theologians confronted with this kind ofdata began to compromise with various theories so that bothScripture and geology could both be true. They did not knowthen that sediments do in fact drop out of flowing water in avery specific order giving rise to the strata precisely as we

find them.

2. The Gap or Ruin and Reconstruction Theory. Dr. ThomasChalmers (1780-1847) was evangelical professor of theologyat Edinburgh. In 1812 he proposed a gap between Genesis1:2 and 1:3 of as many millions of years as the geologist maywant and for which the Bible was essentially silent. Heargued that initially there had been a Pre-Adamic world thathad been destroyed by a flood. The strata and fossils foundtoday were the remains of this former world. The earth

remained "unformed and unfilled" for millions of years thenthe Biblical account continues with the restored earth. Oftennot stated the Genesis Flood was local. The Gap Theory

partly depends upon the KJV word "replenish" in Genesis1:28 but this meant "fill" in 1769 and is correctly given as"fill" in modern translations. The key to the theory is theargument that the use of the Hebrew BARA (to create ex inhilo) and ASA (make from re-existing material) means a re-

one and two. There are two texts in chapter two which, intranslation, appear to teach contrary to that revealed inchapter one. In both cases, the problem lies in the manner inwhich the Hebrew text was translated. In Genesis 2:5 a

negative particle is twice translated as if it were a

preposition. The verse reads in the common translation:"And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, andevery herb of the field before it grew; for the Lord God hadnot caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a manto till the ground." The negative in question is underlined.The Hebrew particle terem found here means "not yet." Onereadily can see that "before" conveys that sense of time withonly a slight shade of change of thought.

When is the time which is referred to in this way? When had

not the shrubs of the field come to be? When had not thefield herbs come to sprout forth? The reference clearly is tothat time just before the creation of man, "...For the LordGod had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there wasnot a man to till the ground." It can only refer to the timebetween the fourth and the sixth days, according to thecontext of the first chapter.

Regrettably, some have used verses 5 and 6 to prove that itnever rained between the creation and the Noahic flood.

While that may be, it should not be proven by these verses.Their time frame specifically is delineated as preceding theDivine activity which is found in verse 7.

Why then does the verse discuss the fact that plant life hadnot yet sprouted forth (the meaning of the verb translated"grew")? A possible solution follows: In the creation of theplant life which is described as happening on the third day,


26/42

the creative act of planting vegetation did not take place allover the world but specifically in the garden. The landmasshad just risen out of the sea in that same day (Gen. 1:9-10).

The process of draining and drying continued over many

days. The moist state of "the field" and of the rest of "theearth" clearly is implied in Genesis 2:5-6. It was still so wetoutside of the garden over "the whole face of the ground"that "a mist went up from the earth." Psalm 104 describesthis process of the uplift and drainage of the landmass afterdescribing the Lord's initial covering of it "with the deep aswith a garment" when "the waters stood above themountains" (Ps. 104:6) of the newly-created earth (Ps.104:5).

The Psalmist says: "At thy rebuke they (the waters) fled; atthe voice of thy thunder they hasted away. The mountainswent up; the valleys went down unto the place which thouhadst founded for them" (Ps. 104:7-8, literal). Now thewater-soaked hills drained. Springs began to flow. "Hesendeth the springs into the valleys, which run among thehills" (Ps. 104:1 0), providing for the needs of the animals asthey are created (Ps. 104:1 1-18). Thus the suggestion is thatthe creative activity of the third day resulted in the placing ofplant life in the Garden of Eden in preparation for the

habitation of the air with birds, the sea with its swarmingcreatures, and the land with the animals and man. Genesis2:5-6 would then be describing the condition of the earth

outside of the garden in those days before the creation ofman.

But does not the text of Genesis 2:8-9 specifically say thatthe garden was planted after man is formed out of the dust of

Compromise and the Faith

by Ian Taylor

1. The discovery of the colored peoples by the CaucasianChristian West in the 16th century caused some to doubt thatthe Genesis Flood had been universal since there was onlyone family on the Ark who must surely have been Caucasian.Later, at the time of the Industrial Revolution and during thesearch for coal and minerals, it was realized that rocksappeared in layers or strata, each of different chemical

composition from those layers above and below it. It wascorrectly concluded that these strata had originally beensediment in water and they were thus called "sedimentary

rocks." However, it was difficult to believe that one flood,the Genesis Flood, had been responsible for all thesedifferent strata. It seemed more reasonable to believe thateach strata was the result of a local flood, thus multiplelayers indicated multiple local floods. These conclusions hadbeen drawn by Nicolas Steno in 1667 but were developed inthe early 19th century. The evidence for multiple floodsseemed to be the fact that fossil remains of once-livingthings could be found almost specifically to each strata. The

Greeks had proposed that life had begun on earth in very

simple form and had gradually become more complex withtime but they had no mechanism that could explain this up-ward progression. The fossils in the strata seemed to showthis progression, very simple sea creatures in the loweststrata and mammals and occasionally man in the upperstrata. Thus each local flood had preserved within itssediments the remains of those creatures living at the time. If


27/42

God, but if there is He is not personally involved with Hiscreatures on a regular basis). The answer to the church'seffectiveness lies not in redefining our message, but inknowing our audience and our message. And the Great

Commission, which defines God's desire for man, leaves

each Christian no choice but to become an expert in thisparticular field! Truly the fields are white unto harvest!

the earth? The problem of interpretation which allows one toconceive the idea that man was created before plant life(which contradicts Genesis 1:9-31) arises out of the real timerelationship of verses 8-9 to verses 6-7. The entire text reads

in the King James Version:

"And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, andevery herb of the field before it grew: for the Lord God hadnot caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a manto till the ground. But there went up a mist from the earth,and watered the whole face of the ground. And the Lord Godformed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into hisnostrils the breath of life, and man became a living soul. Andthe Lord God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and therehe put the man whom he had formed. And out of the ground

made the Lord God to grow every tree that is pleasant to thesight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst ofthe garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil."

To the English reader it appears obvious that there is no wayof harmonizing this statement that vegetation was createdafter man with these statements in Genesis one. "And Godsaid, Let the earth bring forth vegetation, the herb yieldingseed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit, after its kind, whoseseed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so. And the earth

brought forth vegetation, and herb yielding seed after itskind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself,after its kind: and God saw that it was good. And the evening

and the morning were the third day" (Gen. 1:11-13). Man'screation is described as taking place later in the sixth day."And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creatureafter his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of theearth after his kind: and it was so. And God made the beast


28/42

of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, andevery thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: andGod saw that it was good. And God said, Let us make man inour image, after our likeness, and let them have dominion

over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over

the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creepingthing that creepeth upon the earth. So God created man in hisown image, in the image of God created he him; male andfemale created he them...And the evening and the morningwere the sixth day" (Gen. 1:24-27, 31).

Man Before Animals?

This passage in Genesis one is also important in consideringthe second apparent contradiction which some have thought

to find in chapter two: that Adam was created before theanimals. The text causing the confusion is Genesis 2:19.After the Lord's comment on Adam's unsat isfactory state inhaving no mate (v. 18), the Lord God now provided him amate. "And out of the ground the Lord God formed everybeast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and broughtthem unto Adam to see what he would call them: andwhatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was thename thereof. And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to thefowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam

there was not found an helpmeet for him. And the Lord Godcaused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and hetook one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;

and the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, madehe a woman, and brought her unto the man" (Gen. 2:19-22).Thus it sounds as if the animals are created after Adam andbefore Eve. What is the solution? Is this proof that the Bibleis untrustworthy? Or does the answer lie somewhere in the

traditional message of the Church is not having the impactthat it should on people. The erroneous conclusion from thisis that therefore the message needs to be re-interpreted.However, the real problem is that Christians have not

followed the Apostolic example in witnessing the Gospel.

The Apostles began with a preaching of sin and repentance,both of which assume a God Who is involved in His creationand holds men accountable, with the Jews, who alreadyaccepted this God. They looked for His promised salvation.But they did not begin with the message of sin andrepentance with the Greeks and the Romans, who weresteeped in the naturalism of Aristotle and Lucretius. Thedistinction is expressed in1 Corinthians 1:23, and the actual practice of this distinctioncan be seen in Acts 17:22-34 and Acts 14:15-18.

Although some of these people believed in gods of somesort, these were not real gods who were our powerfulcreators and who held us responsible for our lives (sin).These gods, in fact, were nearly as subject to impersonalnaturalism as we are. To such as these the Apostles began byaddressing their hearers where they were in their beliefs,showing how there is a true, powerful, wise God who isintimately involved with His creation. It was for this reasonthat He became so involved with us in Christ Jesus - it is for

this reason that He wants a restored relationship withindividuals through the forgiveness of sins.

As long as the visible church speaks its message only to the"Jews" (those who at least believe that there is a personalGod Who cares about individual lives), it will be frustratedin communicating the Gospel to the larger population of theWest which is "Greek" (who believe that there might be a


29/42

during the question and answer period by a physicist. Thephysicist pointed out to Bultmann that his major premise wasvery wrong. Scientists had not, he said, pinned down realityso neatly that miracles could be excluded. In fact, he said, as

the frontiers of physics were being expanded, it was

becoming more and more clear that miracles could not beruled out of reality. It appears that Bultmann never took thisevaluation from the viewpoint he claimed to represent veryseriously - and neither do those who follow his tradition.

John Warwick Montgomery, who has long defended thedoctrine of Scripture against liberal skepticism, made thesame point in the citation in this month's FIVE MINUTEStext: "For us, unlike the people of the Newtonian epoch, theuniverse is no longer a tight, safe, predictable playing field in

which we know all the rules." The problem is not that thereare no rules on the playing field, but rather that we are notnearly so smart as we pretend to be.

David Ben-Gurion put it this way, "Anyone who doesn'tbelieve in miracles isn't a realist."

Religious liberals as well as atheists are, in fact, attemptingto live in a fictional world of their own making - one inwhich a supposed naturalism which does not exist reigns as

dictator. And it is a curse of God upon the visible church thatHe has allowed it to be taken captive by unbelievingtheologians into this strange and unreal land of naturalism.

And His chastisement extends to the man in the pew becausethe average Christian has left Bible study to others.

In every deception there is a kernel of truth. The kernel oftruth in the deception of religious liberalism is that the

transition made when the Hebrew original was rendered intothe English language?

The Linguistic Problem

The solution is one which will not satisfy some who willthink that any suggestion concerning the original language isan attack upon the integrity of the Word of God. But thewriter is one who has diligently studied in and then taughtthe three original languages of the Bible, Hebrew, Aramaicand Greek, for nearly 40 years with one goal. That goal is tobetter understand the intended meaning behind the numerousdifficult statements found in our King James translation.These apparent contradictions which appear to beinescapable in our translation simply are examples of a

translation problem caused by an inadequate grasp on thepart of the translators of certain very important facts aboutthe Hebrew language.

Most English readers do not recognize the nature of the taskof translating from one language into another with a verydifferent grammatical structure. It could be likened to thedifficulty which our American astronauts would have met onattempting to dock with the Russian cosmonauts had therenot been some very careful cooperative planning and

engineering on the locking ports of both vehicles beforehand.

English is a language that conveys a rather precise

announcement of the time values which are involved inevery statement of its sentences. Hebrew, to the uninitiatedEnglish student, is remarkable in that it does not usephonemes in its verb system which signal to the reader suchconcepts as present, past, future, previous present, previous


30/42

past and previous future, subsequent past and subsequentfuture. These elements are not at all conveyed by the verbsystem. Rather the writer (and speaker) depended uponcontext and occasionally an adverb to convey such ideas. It

was impossible unequivocably to say with English precision:

"I had fallen from the tree before I hit the ground." AHebrew student would have said: "I fell from the tree beforeI hit the ground." He would marvel that the English languagestudent would find it beneficial for the speaker to explainany further that the one action preceded the other!Nonetheless, to the English mind, such an explanation isexpected since the reader is used to finding these precisetime relationships defined in his language. Thus heinstinctively places one action before another in his mindwhen he reads: "Now the Lord had said unto Abram, Get

thee out of thy country..." (Gen. 12:1). The Hebrew readersees no such grammatical structure, yet, if alert, immediatelyrecognizes the same time relationship.

The Apparent Contradictions Resolved

It is this disparity in time structure between the twolanguages which causes the translation problem and theapparent contradiction to appear on the surface of ourEnglish translation of Genesis 2. Oddly enough, the

translators of the King James recognized the grammaticalprinciple above by supplying "had" in Genesis 12:1. It isregrettable that "had" was not placed in italics to indicate that

there actually is no comparable form in the original text, thenormal mode of these translators in supplying an element forthe reader's understanding. These men knew from the contextthat the revelation from God which required Abram'sdeparture from Ur of the Chaldees was given before his

Yet in a recent letter to Lutheran Church in America pastors,presiding Bishop (President) Herbert Chilstrom called theBible an impediment to the Gospel. He said that the Bible is

an impediment because people tend to understand it in a

literalistic way - the Bible should not be "the center of allthings." Seminaries of this church body use Bultmann'smaterials, as well as those of his followers, in their trainingof pastors.

Bultmann and his followers taught, contrary to the claims ofScripture, that modern man could not identify with theworldview of Scripture. In a day and age when electricityperforms such miracles - albeit according to well-understoodlaws - the Biblical miracles pale, and even become

unrealistic. In a world where we know that naturalism reigns,the church loses credibility by talking about miracles. Bishopof Durham, David Jenkins, recently typified the Bulmanianattitude when he called the Resurrection of Christ a"conjuring trick w

Documents

Microsoft Word - A Relevant Gospel in a Scientific Age