Page 3:
That the natural world came into being through an act of
creation is a truth that is known only by the revelation
of God. Aristotle denied that it was created; Plato did
not understand this. Man can be confident that the cosmos
originated through "creation" only through a revelation,
for this understanding requires we rise above our natures.
Page 4:
Asking difficult questions is easy; men have asked many
about creation:
Why at a certain point of time and not continuing?
Scripture speaks of it in the past tense.
Creation implies an exertion of God's power
Creation implies a personal being as creator
That is, someone with a will
To create when, how, and as much as He pleases.
Creation is the action of sovereign will to call into
being whatever seemed to fit His wisdom.
"Time" in this respect must be taken in a broad sense, not
the sense in which men experience time.
Page 5:
Ancient Jewish philosophers had difficulty applying measures
of time to concepts of creation;
Current Gentile philosophers, with precisely the opposite
difficulty, demand enormous tracts of time.
Our disputes are not about observations or attested facts;
our debates are about the conclusions drawn and their use of
facts.
They debate and judge their conclusions; we have better
grounds to judge, as we have confidence in the word of God,
which they do not.
But we must take care lest our haste or unskilfulness bring
undeserved blame on God's word.
Scripture is infinitely larger than men's hypotheses.
I hope to prove two assertions:
- That after "the beginning" there is room for the longest
successive lapses of time.
- And that ordinary divisions of time are expressly introduced
precisely when it suits God's character and His dealings with
men.
I hope to prove two assertions:
- That after "the beginning" there is room for the longest
successive lapses of time
- And that ordinary divisions of time are expressly introduced
precisely when it suits God's character and His dealings with
men.
Consequently, the word of God leaves ample space for all the truth in the systems of both ancient and modern men. Only ignorance of and inattention to scripture have created intellectual difficulty.
Genesis 1-2 offers two great facts:
1: Creation is presented independent of current measures of
time
2: Scripture introduces common time when God is preparing an
abode on earth for man.
Philo, of Alexandrian theory, thought it derogated God to
suppose the creation involved literal time. He thought that
Moses meant to leave the time undefined, excluding the idea
that the universe came into being in six days.
Moderns have reduced God to a being like themselves
Page 7:
God is Absolute, is not bound by any conditions, including
conditions of time.
Genesis 1:1 carefully avoids any measure of time known to man.
If there is anything certain in Geology, it is that there were immense tracts of time when man did not exist.
Page 8:
"In the beginning" permits eras indefinitely long.
God has not seen fit to include in Scripture any knowledge of the denizens or conditions prior to his dealings with man.
Scripture was not meant to be a book of human science
When science attains reliable knowledge, this always pays homage to Scripture.
Science is usually a welter of fragile hypotheses.
Page 9:
Isaac Newton, a christian, is offered as an example of the
best and the most fragile of science and of theology.
He was a great scientist
- He did not deny God or dishonor scripture;
- He did not understand scripture well;
- He proposed that God in the beginning formed matter in
variegated hard particles -- an idea probably taken from
Ovid, a pagan philosopher, not from scripture or from
scientific observation.
Page 10:
Let Geology be patient and docile, avoiding humiliating
mistakes. When she discovers laws that carry universal
conviction like the law of gravity, then her obeisance
to the Bible will be more complete than now.
The common idea of putting the creation of the world
six thousand years ago is just a blunder.
Scripture is not responsible for this; the annotator of the
Authorised Version is who has labelled Genesis 1:1 with
BC 4004.
The Bible blessedly corrects the best of men, who have
labored over it with the best of intents and techniques.
This is not a loss.
An example of a wrong idea is Bishop Worsley, who writes that
the world was created in six successive literal days.
Page 12:
The Bible does not connect creation with man, or animals or
plants.
It does say what man cannot know without being told:
In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
1:2 offers another great fact:
- the earth was without form, and void
This is a condition clearly different from the 1:1 - not a word about the heaven being without form or void, only the earth.
The conjunction "and" between 1:1 and 1:2 does not link
them in time; it is a signal that the first verse is not a
summary of the rest of the chapter.
- But hasty readers and preachers and commentators have been
all too willing to treat 1:1 as a summary, who imagine that
God's beginning creation is detailed under the days below.
- Not so... "and" precludes this interpretation. Compare 5:1,
where "and" is absent and the first verse is a summary of
the chapter following, the generations of Adam.
Page 13:
Hasty readers, preachers and commentators have been
all too willing to treat 1:1 as a summary, who then imagine that
God's creation is detailed under the days below.
- Not so... "and" precludes this interpretation. Compare 5:1,
where "and" is absent and the first verse is a summary of
the chapter following, the generations of Adam.
- 5:1 is an abstract of that chapter.
Two types of persons have misunderstood scripture:
- Upright christians who have attached their own wrong
notions to the scripture
- Men of science who have mis-read scripture to malign it.
Both are at fault; God's word is not.
The Hebrew grammar of 1:1-1:2 expressly connects the facts
of the two verses and expressly separates the times:
In the beginning, however long ago, was the creation.
Subsequently, however long after, was chaos.
To say, "And the earth was without form, and void" does not limit the space between the creation and the ruin.
Page 14:
Scripture does not say on what grounds this chaos was brought
about.
The creation as chaos, or chaos as a primeval state, is
derived from heathen traditions, not from scripture.
"Heaven and earth" implies an ordered state.
What use God made of the young earth is not revealed in
scripture. The fact that the young earth existed is
important and interesting. Geology has discovered facts
about that young earth.
- They point to a time when life had no existence here.
- This is not a difficulty for scripture interpretation.
Man can imagine a First Cause;
- Man can't explain the nature of the First Cause; we can feel
there must be a First Cause but can't explain it; because we are
caused beings, hence we can't imagine anything, such as God
that is uncaused.
We are told, however, by Scripture, that all things had a First Cause, and this First Cause was God, who by the absolute act of His own will, created.
Page 15:
We are told, by Scripture, that all things had
a First Cause, and this First Cause was God, who by the
absolute act of His own will, created.
Then we are told that the earth only became empty and chaotic. Scripture refers to this elsewhere:
Isaiah 34:11 describes the judgment to come upon the land of Edom: "The cormorant and the bittern shall possess it; the owl also and the raven shall dwell in it; and he shall stretch out upon it the line of confusion (tohu) and the stones of emptiness (bohu)." No one would say this is the original condition of Edom; it is what God has brought it to.
Jeremiah 4:23 alludes to impending judgments on Israel by saying, "I beheld the earth, and lo, it was without form (tohu) and void (bohu); and the heavens, and they had no light...there was no man, and all the birds of the heavens were fled." This is not a primeval condition, but a future desolation, the terms pointedly alluding to Genesis 1:1.
The use of these terms to describe God's future acts toward Edom and Israel suggest their use in 1:2 also implies God's action.
Page 16:
The use of tohu and bohu to describe God's future acts
toward Edom and Israel suggest their use in 1:2 also implies
God's action.
If God made desolate what He created, is He then capricious? Not at all. Wasn't, isn't.
Geology and Paleontology have discovered that God has
convulsed and broken the earth many times before the advent
of man, and man benefits. Was this arbitrary?
- I won't bind my faith or yours to even a grave and ripe
judgment of a human expert.
Page 17:
Geology's discoveries show that God was pleased to form
deposits and to break up the surface that He formed.
Whatever other hidden purposes God may have had in doing this, it at least prepared the strata for man's access, revealing coal, minerals, limestone, marble, and so on.
And God was kind to have done this while man was not around to be distressed.
God laid down strata with an ascending scale of organic being, before the Adamic earth.
Page 18:
God is silent in scripture about these geologic eras, leaving it
to man, to whom God has granted mind and means, to discover
natural facts by his own observation of the details of the
conditions in the world of which he has been given lordship.
The desire to understand this world has been set in man's heart, according to Ecclesiastes 3:11.
The "days" of Genesis 1 occur after the geologic eras which preceded the emptiness of verse 2.
It is a mistake to consider the days long periods.
- They are most likely simple cycles of 24 hours
- If long periods had been meant, would God have said, "Morning
and evening?"
- There is ample room for long periods before or after the
emptiness of verse 2; suites of long periods, for all anyone
knows.
Page 19:
There is room in Genesis 1:1-2 for the geologic ages.
Nowhere does scripture contradict this possibility.
Why reject as factual the phenomena that indicate different states of the earth and of living creatures before the Six Days?
The alternative is to believe that God was pleased to create
by fiat vast quantities of fossilized object, giving the false
appearance of having lived, that which never did.
- Are you prepared to accept that God studiously created a
semblance of the untrue?
- There is no grounds to doubt the fossil record as being factual;
a christian denying this shows neither wisdom nor faith.
The fossil record is not a matter of christian faith, as it is not a part of scriptural revelation; it is a thing for man to ascertain and prove naturally, a matter of fact or ignorance.
Page 20:
One cannot talk correctly about faith in science; Faith is not
science, nor Science faith. Scientists must collect facts;
others may judge their conclusions. Anyone who masters
scientific fact may form conclusions. Yet it does not follow
that the most diligent collectors of fact are the best at
understanding them.
The wise man has nothing to say against known facts or against science itself.
I do complain of the haste and animus with which many men have used unformed and crude science to contradict the word of God. This is not wisdom or reverence.
To summarize, we have two grand facts opening Genesis 1:
- The original creation;
- The wasteland it became, presumably (by analogy of other use of
the same words in scripture) by an act of God's judgment.
There is more evidence: A passage in Isaiah (45:18) seems
formally to contradict the notion that God created the earth in
a state of waste and emptiness.
[Ed. "chaos" is an unfortunate word that had become a traditional
theological term for tohu/bohu, but it implies disorder, which
the Hebrew words do not; furthermore, the use of tohu/bohu
elsewhere clearly refer to the absence of humans and their
influence, not to absolute emptiness or useless waste.]
No one pretends heaven was ever chaos; we debate only whether the earth began in "chaos."
Page 21:
Isaiah 45:18 states, "For thus saith Jehovah that created the
heavens, God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath
established it; he created it not in vain [tohu]; he formed it to
be inhabited."
This use of tohu is much more forcible when read with Gen 1:2. The only conclusion is that Isaiah describes the primary state; Moses an after state.
The traditional view that God created the earth waste sets
the legislator (Moses) at variance with the prophet must be
abandoned, and they must be allowed to exist in harmony:
God did not create the earth a waste; it became so subsequently.
Precision of Hebrew terms on creation:
Hebrew does not have a rich vocabulary, with many shades of synonym. Yet we have rather precise terms for "create," "make," and "form."
Hebrew does not have a rich vocabulary, with many shades of synonym. Yet we have rather precise terms for "create," "make," "form" and "fashion."
To be clearer, consider Exodus 20:11 - "For in six days Jehovah made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day...."
This is different from Genesis 1:1; it does not say that
Jehovah created heaven and earth in six days, nor does scripture
say this anywhere. The creation was in the beginning; in the
six days the earth was made.
Create - bara - refers to the efficient cause
Make - asah - points to the formal cause
Form - yatsar - brings in the material.
Hebrew is exquisitely precise on these particulars; the obvious reason is that it was God's pleasure to reveal His mind about these things in the Hebrew language; strikingly, Greek, though otherwise expressive, fails to express these shades of meaning.
Page 23:
Compare Greek and Hebrew reference to creation:
John 1:1 - "In [the] beginning was the Word" Clearly this ascends before Genesis 1:1. In one beginning, God acted; in the other the Word was, before His power was put forth.
1:2-3 - "The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him." The Greek "Egeneto" is not quite the same as either the Hebrew "asah" or the English "made" but means "caused to be."
But the Hebrew "create" refers to an absolute act of God, never to an act of man. It is the word used for the creation of the cosmos in 1:1, and for the first production of animal life for the Adamic world, and to the sixth day's creation of man.
Page 24:
Thus we understand that "bara," create, is used to describe God's
act of originating being where there was none before, or a
particular act of God's will with pre-existing materials. (It does
not always mean a creation out of nothing.) [Ed note: It may be
that the idea of creation ex nihilo might pertain to the creation
of the animal soul and to the creation of the human spirit.]
Is it a defect that one word - bara - is used with such subtle shades of difference? No, to insist that it not be would put a burden on Hebrew that is not met by any other language. All words express varieties of meaning, some modification in use of its terms. One cannot use a new term for every new thought!
Page 25:
When God describes constituting the earth for man's abode, the plain
fact is that in six days Jehovah, the God of Israel, is said to
have made all things.
To recapitulate the process:
- "And God said, Let there be light."
There is a scientific dispute whether light is corpuscular or is a vibration.
Page 26:
The expression, "Let there be light" is more consistent with the
wave theory than the corpuscular theory.
This is remarkable because the theory cannot have been known by Moses.
Scholars have permitted themselves to look down on the Jews. To Tacitus and Gibbons they were the most contemptible of mankind; they cannot conceal their bitter scorn. Yet how is it that among the heaps of philosophers, poets, and historians since Moses, the only account of creation that survives are his own simple, sublime words?
Of those who wrote of the universe since Moses, where do you put them? Where Ptolemy?
If you seek to degrade the Hebrews, you only exalt unwittingly the God who spoke through them the things no one else knew.
What other document stands its ground like Genesis 1?
What other theory, up to now, gives such a graphic, comprehensive, or exact statement? And yet this is in a book meant for men, women, and children; a book designed to cast the light of God onto a world in moral darkness; a book capable of being understood from the first day it was written, yet at the same time so written that nothing shall be able to contradict it to the last day.
What other document stands its ground like Genesis 1?
What other theory, up to now, gives such a graphic, comprehensive, or exact statement? And yet this is in a book so written that nothing shall be able to contradict it to the last day.
I have yet to learn of anything that will contradict the Bible on grounds that will bear investigation, and this not for want of effort or sincerity, learning or science. I have looked into what men have written against the Bible in ancient and in modern times. I have not seen an account of creation that compares: A statement of facts that ancient men could profit by and understand, that survives mankind's changing thoughts, and that gathers fresh understanding of its truth from the advance of science.
That a man living as early as did Moses has written in one brief sentence, one admired by the finest critics for its simple sublimity, that at the same time surpasses Newton in exactness, is gratifying, especially coming from the remote history of a very tiny people in an obscure corner of the earth.
Page 28:
Don't credit Moses with having used the wisdom of the Egyptians; this would
only have misled him. Show me something from their hieroglyphics
that shows they understood creation as Moses did.
The common points were common to many besides the Egyptians, were relics of current tradition. The Egyptians believed in eternal matter, primeval night; their gods originated from earth and heaven; not the God who in beginning created.
The scorn of incredulity toward Moses is misplaced: his deep intellect has not penetrated nature's secrets. These are not so easily rifled: the facts of creation are inconceivable to the human mind. The One above all geniuses, scholars and scientists was the One who wrote by His servant Moses.
Page 29:
Why is it that light is introduced here, on the first day?
Moses would not have done this if he were simply recording his own observations. Today's base philosophy makes experience everything; Hume's scepticism is today's empiricism, now called "positivism."
It is a degrading system that drags down minds and corrupts hearts, as were the early positivists in heathen times, more deadly now than then.
Regardless, this is a fact not knowable by experience. Who that gathered his thoughts from observation would record light before the luminaries?
Why would Moses burden his account with a statement that seems incongruous?
Why do fossils, even the trilobites, have eyes? Light must have existed before. Ocular organs indicate this must be so.
The state of chaos might cause totally different conditions than existed before, even darkness. We are not told about this. What we are told about, under the six days, is about the earth as it was to be placed under man.
Page 30:
The state of chaos might cause totally different conditions than
existed before, even darkness. We are not told about this. What
we are told about, under the six days, is about the earth as it was
to be placed under man.
Are the great geologic periods analogous to the six days? Are the six days vast successive eras? No, they are not, even though seemingly analogous.
In vast periods God built up this globe gradually in successive exertions of His power, and in Six Days went over His work again after a last great catastrophe, before man, on a circumscribed and brief scale, to prepare it for his habitation.
Page 31:
The newest speculations of philosophers are more daring than the
old heathen, asserting that everything has come from a nebula [ed.
- or the big bang]; but from whence is the nebula none can say, not
even these experts.
They are sure, however, that they owe their origin not to God but to a nebula -- unless this be their god.
I hope to show that this scheme is as false as the facts of science are true. God's word makes everything clear and actually corresponds to thorough and comprehensive observation of nature as well as with one's own conscience... For conscience has much to do with these philosophical matters, though this isn't obvious at first glance. For there is a purpose to all this restless philosophical speculation; a willing ignorance of whatever doesn't suit them.
They wish to get rid of God; hence they wish to be rid of creation.
What about the idea of progressive evolutionary development?
God has taken pains to make clear that this is false, for first, God made angels, a superior class of beings, before He made man. How do we know this? Job says, (38:1-7) ...Jehovah answered Job out of the whirlwind and said, Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge? ....Where wast thou when I founded the earth? Declare, if thou hast understanding.... who laid its corner-stone, When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?
Page 32:
God has arranged the Bible not as a geometry text, in which each
proposition's truth depends on the preceding one and together is
formed a chain.
The Bible must be read as a whole; it is abused even by those who believe it because they cherish one part of it and neglect the rest. When teachers have favorite texts, they spread the ill.
Though God does bless the partial use of His book, the christian who reads the whole will be amply repaid.
Seek to understand the Bible: it is only possible by faith. There is no other way. Not by understanding do we believe, but by faith we understand and are sure that God is true.
Regarding evolutionary development, consider the superiority of the early remains of the Saurian order above existing ones. They know this is true; the inferior members of this family have followed in time while the theory requires improvement. A single instance disproves the theory.
Do our critics say we should bow to facts?
I agree; whether they be facts of scripture textual criticism or facts of science. Facts are valid, but the hypotheses built upon facts should not be accepted too readily.
Page 33:
Our critics say we should bow to facts, and I agree; whether they be facts of scripture textual criticism or facts of science. Facts are valid, but the hypotheses built upon facts should not be accepted too readily.
The second day: Genesis 1:6-8 - the heaven made
- This seems like another difficulty. Heaven has already been created. Why another heaven?
Because man was about to be made. The circumambient atmosphere, the lower heaven, essential to man's life, is provided.
This is the lower heaven. That there is another heaven is clear from the New Testament, for we read there how Paul was caught up into the third heaven. There is the heaven of His presence; the heaven of the cosmos; the heaven of the clouds and rain.
Page 34:
Paul was caught up into the third heaven. There is the heaven of His presence; the heaven of the cosmos; the heaven of the clouds and rain.
The third day. Dry land appears.
The theory of Evolutionary development denies genera and species.
[Ed. note: This is correct; this essay and Darwin's writings preceded the discovery of genetics by decades. Darwin thought that over time, under survival pressure, species gradually changed, slowly acquiring characteristics that would adapt them to their habitat, and in this process whole new types of plants and animals would develop.
Early opponents of Evolutionism saw this clearly, and so carefully defended distinct speciation.
Evolutionary theory has been completely overhauled since the discovery of genetics and of cell biology; one of its greatest challenges is attempting to hypothesize how, with discrete genes and complex intact systems within and between cells, any beneficial change might have occurred. Currently there is not even a ghost of an explanatory hypothesis, only a blind confidence that God cannot be underneath it all.]
Here we are told that the different herbs had their kinds.
Page 35:
The fourth day: Luminaries. vv 14-19
It is not said that God created them, but "Let there be lights in the firmament." God does not say that the stars were created at this time. [Ed. The chapter progresses from darkness to light to luminaries.]
Page 36:
The stars are ancient; there is room and time for their light to
reach the earth by what is said, and left unsaid, in verses 1, 14,
and 16.
Compare Moses' writings with any other ancient. Whose writings have failed to contradict the findings of science?
Whose caution preserved Moses from saying what many theologians have been eager to say for him?
Scripture needs no apology; those who would assail its accuracy need to pay more exact attention to it; at least to read it first.
Page 37:
God did not create the heavens empty. He made them for the use of
man on earth, and for what other uses we are not informed. They
were made for use, not for worship.
There is considerate goodness in what God says and what he refrains from saying....
The fifth day. The waters bring forth. vv 21-23
A mistake in translation has made it appear to some that it says that fowl were brought forth out of the waters.
Before we draw conclusions, we must be sure of the word of God and its meaning as accurately as possible.
Page 38:
The sixth day. Animals and man are made vv 24-31.
It is only when man is about to be made that God says, "Let us."
This divine contemplation before fashioning man is the antithesis of evolutionary development.
Page 39:
Chapter 2
The sabbath day is introduced; the first three verses of Ch 2 belong with Ch 1.
German theologians have insisted that Moses compiled Genesis from two different and contradictory accounts.
Page 40:
It seems to me to be a sin to claim anything to be doubtful that
is clearly stated in God's word.
I dare not simply express what is merely my opinion on matters of God's truth. If God's word depends on your judgment of one fact or another, or your estimation of the person speaking, or your view of passing circumstances, then it is only an opinion, and of what spiritual value can that possibly be? You are the measure of your own opinion: your experience, opportunities, your ability.
But when we consider the word of God we should pass beyond human opinions. In it God speaks: every soul must hear.
I am convinced that God has written His word intelligibly, in the plainest possible language. It may be unfathomable, even though understandable within our faith and enjoyable, for its depth is beyond man's capacity, though it as clear as it is profound.
The erudite German critics have not gone beneath the surface of
this wonderful introduction to Genesis; their speculations are
ignorant. They claim that
- The author of Genesis 1 was a man who only knew Elohim
- Beyond Genesis 2:3 is a mingled document mentioning Jehovah-Elohim -- the "Jehovistic" portion.
Page 41:
The idea that there were two writers is false and without evidence.
Why is there a difference, and Elohim (God) used up to 2:3 and Jehovah-Elohim (Lord God) thereafter?
When God presents Himself, throughout scripture, in contrast to man, Elohim is invariably used.
When God presents Himself in relationship with man, the term is Jehovah.
Before man fell, there was something special in the relationship, so in Genesis 2 and 3 Jehovah-Elohim is used. The God of creation entered immediately into a special relationship with man, until the Fall.
Page 42:
After the Fall He simply calls Himself Jehovah.
The true key to these terms is to realize that Moses, wise and learned, was guided by God in all he wrote.
Page 43:
Chaper 2: Relationships.
This chapter seems to repeat the creation story, but to give a
different point of view, a different line of truth.
- Chapter 1 aims to show God as the head of creation
- Chapter 2 designs to show not merely that God made man, but that
he had the breath of life, which came directly from God, in a way
that no other animal had.
God created man with a special and full relationship with Himself: an intimate relationship, and a special creation on which depends the immortality of the soul.
Page 44:
Of all the creatures of Earth, only man stands in immediate
relationship with God. The soul that sins against Him may be lost
forever, into misery.
The God-breathed living soul is man's capacity for blessedness through belief in the truth, and his capacity for misery from the rejection of Christ.
To recapitulate the differences in the names of God:
- When we hear simply of creation, Elohim;
- When we hear of moral relationship, Jehovah-Elohim.
- After the fall, throughout the OT, Jehovah.
Page 45:
In the New Testament, we see a God who is Father to a family.
In the Old Testament, we see a God who has a people.
In Genesis 2 there is a progression of moral accountability:
- Relationship to God: the garden is to be kept.
- Relationship to God: a moral test: not to eat of fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
- Relationship of dominion: the animals are brought for Adam to name.
Page 46:
The incredulity of the "higher critics" has rendered them incapable of comprehending the truth.
Relationships, recapitulated and extended:
- Relationship to God: to till and keep the garden.
- Relationship to God: to obey a single restriction.
- Relationship to creatures: dominion, naming.
- Fresh relationship: creation of woman.
God formed a portion of the man into a woman, to remind him of what she was and should be, a part of himself. Men have a duty toward the woman and a special relationship.
Page 47:
May the Lord give us sincere confidence in all He has written; may we always be learners.
May the teacher ever be a disciple.
Anything we know is only "in part." we need to forbear with the ignorance of others.
May the explanation of God's truth expose foolish speculation that masquerades as wisdom, a wisdom as hollow as man is without God.