Pertinent Text: Genesis 1:1

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. (KJV)

The answer to this question is a firm, resounding NO. The theories of creation and evolution in their modern form are contradictory in many ways. While these differences are numerous, the kinds of differences may be summarized into three categories:

• Chronological: the time lines of the two theories are of different duration and order.
• Philosophical: Evolution embraces the famous "survival of the fittest" philosophy, whereas creation theory emphasizes a fall from harmony into sin.
• Perspective: Evolution looks at the beginnings of man through clues to the past; the creation story is given from an observer's perspective, the observer being God Himself.

All of the reasons listed have been divided into their respective categories.

Chronological differences

• Day 1: Free space, the earth (covered with water), light
• Day 2: The firmament
• Day 3: Dry land, seas, plant life on land
• Day 4: The sun, the moon, the stars
• Day 5: Sea creatures, birds
• Day 6: Land creatures (including insects), man
• Day 7: Rest: creation is finished.

• Big Bang
• Stars and galaxies
• Earth, devoid of life and initially covered with magma
• Bacterial sea life
• More complex sea life (plants and simple animals)
• Land plants
• Land animals (amphibians)
• Reptiles
• Birds and early mammals
• Higher mammals, primates
• Man

Examine these two chronologies to see the vast inconsistencies between them. Here are a few of the most significant:

• Genesis teaches that the earth came before the sun, moon, and stars. No astronomer subscribing to the Big Bang Theory could ever agree with this, as it is vehement in saying that stellar gases form stars and planets almost simultaneously.
• Photosynthesis uses light, and evolution theory demands that the sun be present before plant life existed on earth. Creation theory, however, places the creation of the sun a day after that of the plants.
• Evolution theory requires that birds follow sea creatures, amphibians, and reptiles in chronology. However, Genesis tells us that birds were created synchronously with sea life and prior to other land-based life.

Philosophical differences

Evolution teaches that life as we know it came about by mere chance alone. Life has no real significance because it originated from random chemical reactions in the sea. According to evolution, we have random mutations to thank for our intellectual and physical condition.

The implications of creation, however, impute a purpose to the existence of human life. Genesis teaches that God created mankind and gave him dominion over the earth, asking only for man's dependence on Him.

NOTE: The above argument is mute with regard to the positions of theistic evolution and progressive creation, as those ideas include the administration of God throughout the process. However, it is a point worthy of consideration.

Evolution emphasizes the struggle for life and "survival of the fittest". Without removal of those with inferior traits, it teaches, there can be no improvement, no natural selection, no evolution, no higher forms of life. It is mandatory, if one follows evolutionary theory, to believe that life is in many ways the fruition of death.

Genesis clearly teaches that before the fall of Adam and Eve into sin, there was no death at all. According to Genesis 1:29-30, people and all animals were to eat only plants for food, eliminating the possibility of predation by man or beast. (This was changed shortly after the flood.) Much like the clothing and health of the Israelites were supernaturally preserved from decay in the wilderness (Deuteronomy 8:4), it is suggested that neither man nor beast died from old age. Genesis completely denies the philosophy that death and the struggle to survive result in better life. Genesis denies Darwinism.

Evolutionary theory is (ultimately) based on the assumption that all events conform to the laws of nature perfectly. The theory, along with every other theory you will find in your science textbook, is based on the central axiom of science, as discussed in The Supernatural Explained. Genesis teaches that God created the heavens, the earth, and all life in quite a supernatural manner, defying all notions of conformity to the laws of nature. This is quite a pill to swallow for someone who refuses to accept the possibility of the supernatural. We see then that Genesis defies the philosophy of modern science.

Differences in Perspective

The first difference in perspective has to do with the point of view from which the two human origin accounts are given. As for Genesis, it should be obvious that the only way people could know what to write about the part of the story occurring before man's formation would be if God (the only one there to see it all) had told someone what had happened. So then we see (by inference) that Genesis is a story related by an eyewitness: God Himself. Evolution, on the other hand, does not claim or imply that it is based on eyewitness accounts. Rather, what we call the modern theory of evolution is the summation of educated guesses that scientists have made aimed at incorporating observed biological processes with the beginnings of life. Evolution is the product of detective work.

The second difference in perspective deals with the esteem of the earliest people by the two theories. Evolution states that people started out grunting, figuring out how fire works, hunting and gathering food, etc. and rose through natural selection to the pinnacle of civilization we now enjoy. Creation, on the other hand, relates the following things about the first people:

• They could speak clearly and possessed great intelligence (Gen. 2:20)
• They possessed agricultural skills (Gen. 3:23)
• They had shepherding abilities (Gen. 4:2)

NOTE: It is not expressly said that either Adam or his near descendants knew how to read and/or write, but the notion is not foreign to the presentation of the first people in Genesis. Taking into account the superb craftsmanship of Cain's people (Gen. 4:19-22) and the fact that the fifth chapter of Genesis is a "book" (KJV) or a written record that had been passed down to the author of Genesis, it is suggested (or at least is entirely possible) that the first people did possess the use of written language as well as spoken language.

Conclusion

We have seen that vast differences in chronology, philosophy, and perspective (including estimation of the civility of early peoples) exist between the histories of human origin as told by Genesis and the modern theory of evolution. Let it therefore be concluded that:

• It is not Biblical to believe in both creation and evolution.
• It is not possible to hybridize the two together into a theory which does not logically contradict at least one of the two parent teachings.

(Top of this page) (Apologetics page)

Pertinent Text #1: Genesis 1:5

And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day. (KJV)

Pertinent text #2: Exodus 20:8-11

Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:
But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:
For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it. (KJV)

I shall answer this question on several fronts; that is, with respect to the language used, the problem of the sun, out-of-context uses of other scriptures, and the fact that creation is finished.

The Hebrew Word "Yome"

Many people believe that the Hebrew word translated 'day' (as in the first day of creation) allows for a figurative interpretation; they base this idea on the fact that the first three days of creation passed without the prescence of the sun. Therefore, we will first examine the definition of the Hebrew word, pronounced "yome". It is used several different ways throughout the Old Testament, and has the following allowable definitions:

• day in contrast to night
• day as a 24-hour lapse of time (beginning at dusk)
• a lifetime ("Back in my day...")
• a general period of time defined solely by context

The word "yome" is often said to represent "an indefinite period of time"; this is almost a proper use of the word. The problem with this is that the days of Genesis were definite periods of time, marked by "evening and morning". If the word "yome" has any contextual restrictions of any kind, then such a figurative interpretation is never allowable.

I quote Ham, "Without exception, in the Hebrew Old Testament the word 'yom' never means 'period' (i.e., it is never used to refer to a definite long period of time with specific beginning and end points). The word which means a long period of time in Hebrew is 'olam.' Furthermore, it is important to note that even when the word 'yom' is used in the indefinite sense, it is clearly indicated by the context that the literal meaning of the word 'day' is not intended." (p. 157)

However, even if the word "yome" were to be interpreted in terms of a general period of time defined solely by context, a literal meaning emerges because the context of day is "evening and morning". The words denote, quite literally, the fall and rise of the sun, or at the very least an alternation between light and darkness. The only way the phrase "evening and morning" could be interpreted as figurative is if they are context-dependent. However, this is possible only if the word "day" is taken literally, for if both are deemed context-dependent then the terms become circularly defined.

Similarly, to interpret "evening and morning" as figurative (and, thus, dependent on context for their meaning) implies that the context, the word "yome", is taken literally, for the word has no context other than "evening and morning". To consider both as context-dependent and figurative is to define them circularly and sacrifice any meaning, even that desired.

And so, even though the sun was created on the fourth day, it is impossible to interpret the days as figurative based on language because the word that would be expected to be written here is "olam" and not "yome" if a figurative meaning were the truth of the matter.

The Ten Commandments are certainly literal in nature, as they were part of the law of the ancient Jewish government. The second of those ten commandments quoted above clearly states that every seventh day is to be a day of rest. The word for "day" used here is, as would be expected, "yome" and not "olam", as is used in the part following: "In six days the LORD made heaven and earth...." And, remember, the Ten Commandments are recorded to have been "written with the finger of God" (Exodus 31:18). So then, it is suggested that just as the law of the sabbath day is literal, so are the creation days of Genesis.

After all, the six days of Creation followed by the seventh day of rest are the basis of the second commandment. If God's creation days are figurative, then does this not allow us the liberty to work for six figurative days (representing the amount of time it takes us to tire of work) and then rest for one period of time (until we regain our energy)? This is not what God intended; thus concludes my arguments for literal days based on language.

Abscence of the Sun

At one time, I held the days of Genesis to be figurative based on the idea that a day can only be figurative if there is no sun. (The sun was created on day four.) Ham does offer a viable solution to this puzzle.

First, one must realize that light was created on the first day, and was separated from darkness. Second, one must realize that day one is marked in the scriptures as the "evening and morning", suggesting that alternating periods of light and darkness are generated by a rotating earth. (p. 158) This allows for a literal interpretation of the day, removing a conflict of linguistic evidence. Also, every other part of the first chapter of Genesis is presented as literal (earth itself, heaven, sun, moon, stars, animals, humans), making it much more difficult and extraneous to claim that the length of the days is not literal.

Verses Out of Context

It is a common argument that since II Peter 3:8 says "that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day" (KJV), the days of creation must be figurative. Psalm 90:4 likewise tells us, "For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night."

Ham points out that these two verses emphasize the teaching that God is outside the domain of time, that time is meaningless to him. He points out that Peter is talking about the second coming of the Christ in the verse in question; neither directly refers to the creation days.

Ham concludes his discussion of II Peter 3:8 with this witty remark: "However, the point of II Peter 3:8 is that God is not limited by time, whereas evolution requires time (a very great deal of it!)." And after all, why else would one want to believe in figurative creation days except as an excuse to believe that evolution occurred on the earth while not rejecting the scriptures altogether?

God rested

If a day of creation was in reality a great many earth years, then it only makes sense to treat the seventh day (the day God rested) as a great deal of time as well. This presents several inconsistencies with other parts of the Holy Scriptures, two of which are pointed out by Ham.

Genesis 2:2 informs us that God "rested". Genesis 2:2 does not tell us that "God resteth on this the seventh day" as one would expect if the seventh day were a great, indefinite period of time. Also, we are told in Genesis 5:5 that "all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years, and he died." (KJV) Ham points out that Adam was created on the sixth day of creation. If the sixth and seventh days (along with the rest of them) were indefinite and great in length, then Adam's nine hundred and thirty years (using the same definition and grammatical structure for 'years' used to describe the ages of Noah, Abraham, Jacob, and Joseph) would lose the meaning that is suggested.

The third inconsistency of days and ages concerning the day of rest is found in the teachings of Jesus in John 5:17: "My Father worketh hitherto, and I work." If God rested on the seventh day, and the seventh day continues to the present, the statement that Jesus made would be a complete lie; and it is not consistent with the character of Jesus that he would lie.

Let it then be concluded that the six (or seven if you like) days of Creation may only be treated as literal in the interest of intellectual integrity.

Sources consulted:

Strong, James, LL.D., S.T.D. The New Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible. Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1990.

Ham, Ken. The Lie: Evolution. Colorado Springs: Master Books, 1987.

(Top of this page) (Apologetics page)

Response by: Will Berry

Pertinent text #1: Genesis 1:1

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. (KJV)

Pertinent text #2: Genesis 3:21

Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them. (KJV)

Pertinent text #3: Mark 10:2-9

And the Pharisees came to him, and asked him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife? tempting him.
And he answered and said unto them, What did Moses command you?
And they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away.
And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept.
But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.
For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife;
And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh.
What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. (KJV)

Pertinent text #4: I Timothy 2:12-14

But I suffer not a woman to teach, or to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. (KJV)

(Before I even begin, let me say that pertinent text #4 does not suggest that women are inferior to men. I will not discuss the reasons here; that is a topic irrelevant to the subject at hand. I also wish to say that this response is written especially for those who profess to be Christians.)

There are lots of reasons why we would do well to treat the first chapters of Genesis as a literally true historical document. Most of those reasons lie in convenience in interpreting scripture, and are not suitable for a persuasive argument. However, a handfull of reasons exist which fall out of the need for consistency in belief and intellectual integrity, and so I will discuss them first.

I conversed once with a liberal theologian (a theologian whose beliefs about God and Jesus lie more in the meaning behind what is written in the Bible more than the meaning in what is written), and asked him whether he believed that the first chapter of Genesis was literal or figurative. He said that it was figurative. I then asked him whether he believed the second chapter of Genesis was literal or figurative. His reply: "I am consistent in my thinking such that I must believe the second chapter is figurative."

Even the most liberal theologians will probably say that the first verse of the first chapter of Genesis is literal. This is perfectly reasonable; how could one not? However, if a liberal theologian were then asked whether they believed the second verse of the first chapter of Genesis is literal ("And the earth was without form and void..."), opinions would diverge.

It would seem that in order to be consistent, one must either also believe that the second verse of the first chapter of Genesis is literal, or reject the idea that the first verse is literal. (The two sentences are joined with a conjuntion, "and", implying the necessity of such consistency. Indeed, all the way through the tenth verse of chapter 2, there are only five verses that do not begin with that conjunction, implying a great need for consistency in this way.) Rejecting the idea that God literally created the heaven and the earth is something that most believers are not willing to do.

I asked this same theologian at another time during our conversation about Jesus' statement in the fourth quoted text above. He agreed with me that Jesus thought of Genesis 2:24 (which is what Jesus quoted in His answer to the Pharisees) as literal. I did not think to call his attention to the inconsistency in his thinking, but I wish to call the reader's attention to it. In order to be consistent, wouldn't Jesus have to regard the remainder of the second chapter of Genesis as literal? And likewise, provided that it is understood and accepted that the first and second chapters of Genesis are not contradictory (an issue not discussed here), wouldn't Jesus have to regard the first chapter of Genesis as literal as well? The same argument applies to the third and fourth chapters, due to the conjunctions between the verses of all of these chapters.

The fact that the days of creation are literal implies that the remainder of Genesis is literal. After all, what possible reason for interpreting the six days of creation as figurative would one have except as an excuse for believing in creation and evolution at the same time; and what reason would one possibly have for interpreting Genesis as anything but literal history except as an excuse to believe in it and another (probably evolution-based) system of beliefs about human origins at the same time?

Finally, Paul established as a church doctrine that women were not to be placed in a place of significant authority over men (including the position of teacher). For his reasoning behind this literal establishment in the church to be based on a figurative creation account is completely farcical. And so, as long as the reader accepts that Paul's epistles were written under divine inspiration, one must accept that the account of the fall of Adam and Eve was quite literal (and, following from the above argument, that the rest of the first chapters of Genesis are literal).

These are my best persuasive reasons for believing that the entirety of Genesis is a literal, historical document. Now I shall discuss the issues which are made much easier to deal with using a literal interpretation of Genesis.

In reference to the second quoted text above: this is the only Biblical basis for clothing there is. Apart from a literal acceptance that God clothed Adam and Eve, there is no real reason for us humans to wear clothing. With a figurative interpretation of Genesis, there is no basis for insisting that people wear clothes except in the consequential sense.

The institution of marriage breaks down with a figurative interpretation of Genesis. Every other Biblical discussion of marriage except for the Song of Solomon is directly founded on the second and third chapters of Genesis. And so, without a literal treatment of Genesis, the teachings about divorce by Jesus and the prophet Malachi and the forbiddance of homosexuality in the law remains completely unfounded and unreasonable.

My final "good reason to interpret Genesis literally" is quite complicated. I have written a theology article on the subject, entitled Good and Evil. It discusses the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil and its relationship to the moral and spiritual state of mankind. Without a literal interpretation of Genesis, none of the ideas discussed in this article has any foundation and is rendered worthless.

And so hopefully now the reader understands both why it is so important to interpret Genesis literally and why it is reasonable to do so.

(Top of this page) (Apologetics page)

Response by: Will Berry

This is a big question, and I hesitated responding to it without building a more extensive knowledge of what scholars on both sides of this debate have said. However, I have decided to forego the dissertation and simply display the understanding I have, and my words in response to my opposition.

I do not believe that the first and second chapters of Genesis are contradictory. They are different, as anyone can tell by reading them, but they are complimentary, not contradictory. Let me outline the common positions of those who purport contradiction and respond to those positions.

Some say the first two chapters are contradictory because they present two irreconcilably different timelines of the creation act. According to them, the first chapter says that man was the last thing to be created, and the second chapter says that the animals were the last things to be created. I find this particular argument to be the most problematic. However, I do not believe that contradiction is evident.

In the second chapter, we are told this about the relationship of man to the animals:

And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make an help meet for him.
And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.
Genesis 2:18-19, KJV

If we assume that all events in the second chapter are given in chronological order, then it follows that:

1. God created Adam, the first man, "from the dust of the ground" - Gen. 2:7
2. God created all land and air creatures and had Adam name each one
3. After all the creatures were named, God created a wife for Adam from a rib bone.

Assuming that all events in the second chapter are related in chronological order, we do have contradiction because the first chapter relates that air creatures were created a day before man and land creatures. However, I will point out to the reader that this assumption is not a very reliable one. According to McDowell and Stuart and their sources, there is no explicit Hebraic device to convey the pluperfect (past perfect) tense. Furthermore, McDowell and Stuart purport that the pluperfect tense best suits the creation of the animals as related by the second chapter (i.e. "God had formed", rather than "God formed", is most literally the meaning of the text).

Some people believe that the first and second chapters are contradictory because the first chapter teaches that man came after the plants, whereas the the second chapter tells of God creating man before creating plants. This is not the case, as is evident from reading the third and fourth verses of the second chapter:

These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,
And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.
Genesis 2:3-4, KJV

As we can see in these verses, God created plants before plants grew. If plants had been created only a few days before man, it is reasonable to believe that most of them had not visibly grown by the time man came along. Furthermore, man began to "till the ground" after his creation (obviously), and thus certain plants would not grow (at least, not well) without his care. There is no contradiction with the plants.

Some say the first two chapters are contradictory because they portray God as having characteristics or aspects of personality that are irreconcilably different. In the first chapter, they say, God is a removed Creator who orchestrates an ordered emergence of the universe we know; in the second chapter, God is a hands-on, personal, Creator who seeks intimacy with mankind. I personally find no contradiction there. I believe it is entirely possible to be organized, authoritative, and ordered while at the same time being loving and having a heart towards others.

Some say that the weight of many differences between the first and second chapters altogether makes both creation accounts unreliable. For example, in the first chapter the Creator is referred to by the word "Elohim", whereas in the second chapter the compound description "YHWH-Elohim" or "Yahweh-Elohim" is exclusively used. It is believed by some that these differences imply that the two chapters were authored by different people, have nothing to do with each other, and thus they cannot both be reliable as literal truth. It should be noted that, as we saw earlier, describing God in different ways does not imply contradiction between the two descriptions. Otherwise stated, it does not mean that both cannot be true.

In summary, most arguments for contradiction between Genesis 1 and 2 either involve assumptions of chronology in chapter 2 where no chronology exists, or improperly assume that different tones, descriptions, and emphases imply different authors and illegitimacy of the literal corporate meaning of the two chapters.

Let it be concluded that the first two chapters of Genesis are neither contradictory nor necessarily mythical.

Sources consulted:
McDowell, Josh and Stewart, Don. Answers to Tough Questions Skeptics Ask About the Christian Faith. Wheaton, Illinois: Tyndale House Publishers, 1980. pp 205-241.

(Top of this page) (Apologetics page)

And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make an help meet for him.
And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;
And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.
And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. (KJV)

This is the book (the written record, the history) of the generations of the offspring of Adam. When God created man, He made him in the likeness of God.
He created them male and female and blessed them and named them [both] Adam [Man] at the time they were created. (Amplified)

If we are to interpret Genesis with the premise that Adam was a race and not an individual, then all the events in Genesis that involve Adam would involve a race of people. This creates quite a puzzle in many ways, three of which are given below.

Assuming for the moment that Adam means a primitive race, it is a confusing thing to think about what the deep sleep might symbolize. Hibernation? Doubtful. I can't think of anyone that might follow the idea of a great species-wide cryosleep. The deep sleep of Adam is not consistent with the idea that Adam was a race.

The rib being made into a woman is also an issue. There is only one species of humans, yet Genesis says that the woman came out of the man (Adam). Biologists will be the first to agree that our species has never spawned off other species. With the "Adam = race" interpretation, the origin of Eve makes no sense whatsoever.

The third argument for Adam's singularity lies in the introduction to and nature of the fifth chapter of Genesis. Genesis 5:1 speaks of the chapter as being a book, written record, and history. In other words, it (and the rest of Genesis) is a document to be read literally. That means that the book of Genesis itself insists that we read it with the mindset that when it mentions a man, it means just that -- one man.

To illustrate, consider the text of the fifth chapter. It gives one man's lineage, down to Noah. Noah's lineage is given in chapter 10. His son Shem's lineage is given in chapter 11, all the way to Abram (who later became Abraham) and Lot. Abraham is certainly treated as one person, and is accepted as such everywhere. Why then would it be different for his great x 17 grandfather? (*) The answer is simple: it wouldn't be different. If it is accepted that Abraham was a person and not a race (and it is), it logically follows that Adam was a person and not a race.

If this final argument seems a little shaky to you, consider this one fact: the lifespans of Adam and all his descendents are written down. It would not make any sense at all to say that Adam the race lived 930 years, and Abraham his 17th-generation (singular) descendent lived 175 years (Gen 25:7), giving the ages of all in-between as well.

There are many more details of the early chapters of Genesis that suggest that treating Adam as a race is impossible. Let it then be concluded that Adam was a single person.

* -- When you see the word "begat" in an Old Testament genealogy, that does not necessarily mean that the subject and object of the verb are one generation apart. In Genesis, recordings of lineage usually include the ages of the people in the line. However, when ages are not included, there is no guarantee that the people mentioned are father and son. In fact, not even the words 'father' and 'son' necessarily denote this first-generation relationship. (See Exodus 3:6 and Luke 20:44)

(Top of this page) (Apologetics page)

And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die.... (KJV)

What we read about here is not the record of a talking snake. The word 'serpent' here comes from a Hebrew word meaning "serpent" in the literal sense; however, the word is used all over the Old Testament as a symbol of an enchanter, sorceror, or evil charmer. It is the deceptive nature of the being that tempted Eve that is being described in Genesis 3:1-5, not the physical appearance.

There is a follow-up question that deserves mention here. That question is, "If it can be said that the serpent is a symbol of an enchanter, why must it be that everything else in Genesis is literal?" This question is asked under the assumption that the Hebrew word translated "serpent" is always used to describe a literal snake unless explicitly said to have another meaning.

This is not the case in the Hebrew language any more than it is the case with the word "snake" in English. It is a perfectly literal thing to say that some person (usually a man) is a snake in English, because the word "snake" can mean a person having no scruples, someone who takes advantage of people in an uncaring manner. This is a perfectly literal meaning of the word "snake" in modern English. Likewise, a perfectly literal meaning of the word "serpent" in Hebrew is "an enchanter or deceiver". Perhaps an alternate translation for the Hebrew would be "incubus".

So we see then that the word "serpent" in the KJV means "enchanter", and that a literal meaning is not violated.

(Top of this page) (Apologetics page)

(Top of this page) (Apologetics page)

And all the days of Methuselah were nine hundred sixty and nine years: and he died. (KJV)

The answer to this question lies in many hours of experimental research carried out by many scientists whose work is devoted to showing that evidence in the fossil record and elsewhere is consistent with the first chapters of Genesis. The present "Creation Model" can explain the long life spans recorded through phenomena associated with radiation and the earth's magnetic field.

According to the Creation model, the "firmament" created on the second day consisted of a large volume of water as well as multiple, very thin layers of a particular metal. (*) This would have done two things of significance to the question. First, it would have absorbed essentially all ultra-violet light, a known carcinogen, keeping it from reaching the surface, and thus greatly reducing the occurences of genetic deviance in cells worldwide. Second, it would have stored the energy gained by absorption back into the earth's magnetic field, which is now decreasing slowly in magnitude, constantly replenishing it.

It has been observed (not merely in the creationist circles) that in order for optimal intercellular communication to occur, a magnetic field must be present. (**) If this magnetic field is not present, communication is inhibited, which would have an effect on longevity.

When the lifespans of people living in different time periods after the flood are considered, it makes sense to say that as the magnetic field began to shrink in magnitude, human life spans began to slowly taper off. Noah lived 19 years less than his grandfather Methuselah (Gen 9:28-29); his son Shem lived to be 600 years old (Gen 11:10-11). Arphaxad, Shem's son, lived a total of 438 years (Gen 11:12-13); his great-grandson Peleg lived 239 years (Gen 11:18-19). Abraham, great x 8 grandson of Noah, lived to be 175 years old (Gen 25:7), Isaac his son outliving him to a ripe 180 years (Gen 35:28). A steady, but slow, decline in longevity is observed following the flood and the changes in climate the accompanied it.

We see then that the Creation model adequately explains the longevity of the first people.

* -- Attributing this structure with the firmament is consistent with Genesis 1:6-7 (the Hebrew word translated "firmament" literally means "crystal") and Genesis 7:11. The firmament would have collapsed during the worldwide flood, being the source of the water from "the windows of heaven" (Gen 7:11, KJV).

** -- While strong magnetic fields can be dangerous for people, a field like that of the earth is beneficial.

*** -- Just a fun factoid: if you do the math, you will discover that the year in which Methuselah died is the exact same year as the flood. Could it be that Methuselah did not die of old age?? (Lamech, Noah's father and the son of Methuselah, died five years before the flood)

Sources consulted:
Copeland, Kenneth & Dr. Carl Baugh. Understanding Creation. This is a video made from several weeks' broadcasts of Copeland's TV show. (sorry, I don't remember any other bibliographical info for this video. I'll ask the guy I borrowed it from and update the page)

(Top of this page) (Apologetics page)

Response by: Will Berry

Pertinent text #1: Genesis 6:12-13

And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth.
And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth. (KJV)

Pertinent text #2: Genesis 7:4

For yet seven days, and I will cause it to rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights; and every living substance that I have made will I destory from off the face of the earth. (KJV)

Pertinent text #3: Genesis 7:17-24

And the flood was forty days upon the earth; and the waters increased, and bare up the ark, and it was lift up above the earth.
And the waters prevailed, and were increased greatly upon the earth; and the ark went upon the face of the waters.
And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered.
Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.
And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man:
All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died.
And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark.
And the waters prevailed upon the earth an hundred and fifty days. (KJV)

It is thought by some that the great flood of Genesis was only a severe flood within a certain (fairly large) locality. Those who think of it this way usually admit that the flood was extraordinary, but unwaveringly hold that a global flood could not have happened. One motive for believing this way is an effort to explain all the miracles of the Bible naturalistically without denying the truth of the scriptures. Another motive for holding this position is theistic evolution (or progressive creation); theistic evolutionists would never sponsor an idea, such as a worldwide flood, that would contradict the uniformitarian principles that evolution is based on. (*)

My response to this question is limited to the scope of Biblical consistency; that is, this response is only concerned with the question of whether it is Biblical to say that the flood was local instead of global. Keeping this in mind, the only way for the flood to be local and for the Bible to still be true would be if the flood account was limited to Noah's perspective of the events in question. That is, the written account would have to mean that all the high hills in Noah's locality were covered by fifteen cubits (thirty-something feet) of water, that all the land creatures in some region of the earth were destroyed, etc.

I have two objections to these implications of a local flood. First, I must ask why such a large ark was necessary if only a portion of the earth was flooded. The dimensions of that boat are quite large, and the ark had three levels! It is my unverified opinion that there are not as many species indigenous to the middle east as would require such a large ark. If my opinion is consistent with the truth of the matter, then a global flood would be implied by the scriptures in the size of the ark itself.

Second, I object to the supposition that the flood account was written entirely from Noah's perspective. I refer you back to Genesis 6:13 and 7:4 above, in which it is God who tells Noah that "every living substance ... will I destroy." Certainly, God's perspective on things is not limited to a region on the earth; God's perspective is more than global. So then, the fact that God specifies that all land creatures will be destroyed implies that the flood was indeed global according to the scriptures.

For these reasons, let it be concluded that according to the Bible, there was a global flood which killed all land-based life except for the people and animals on board the ark.

* -- Uniformitarianism is an axiomatic method of interpreting experimental and geologic evidence in such a way that is built on two premises:

• that processes such as the water cycle and the nitrogen cycle were the same long ago as they are today
• that there have been no extremely catastrophic events throughout history that would cause the evidence, when interpreted according to the first premise, to misrepresent the past.

(Top of this page) (Apologetics page)

Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female.
Of fowls also of the air by sevens, the male and the female; to keep seed alive upon the face of all the earth.
For yet seven days, and I will cause it to rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights; and every living substance that I have made will I destroy from off the face of the earth.
And Noah did according unto all that the LORD had commanded him. (KJV)

It is very true that many full-grown adult creatures may not have been able to board the ark. An obvious example is the giraffe; less obvious examples are Diplodicus, Tyrannosaurus Rex, and Baluchitherium. However, the large size of the adults does not matter. It would make much more sense in terms of food supply and "kennel" space to bring young onto the ark instead of adults. And so my answer to the question is that the needed space was drastically reduced by bringing young aboard rather than adults.

I have but one noted exception: the elephant. Young elephants would have a much smaller chance of surviving without their mothers. It would be possible to survive, seeing as there were people to receive food from, but the chance of surviving in the wild after the flood would be low. So I make an exception for the elephant.

(Top of this page) (Apologetics page)

Response by: Will Berry

Pertinent text #1: Genesis 2:4-6

These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,
And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.
But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground. (KJV)

Pertinent text #2: Genesis 7 (parts)

4 For yet seven days, and I will cause it to rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights; and every living substance that I have made will I destroy from off the face of the earth.

10 And it came to pass after seven days, that the waters of the flood were upon the earth.
11 In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.
12 And the rain was upon the earth forty days and forty nights.

17 And the flood was forty days upon the earth; and the waters increased, and bare up the ark, and it was lift up above the earth.
18 And the waters prevailed, and were increased greatly upon the earth; and the ark went upon the face of the waters.
19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered.
20 Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.

24 And the waters prevailed upon the earth an hundred and fifty days. (KJV)

Pertinent text #3: Genesis 8 (parts)

1 And God remembered Noah, and every living thing, and all the cattle that was with him in the ark: and God made a wind to pass over the earth, and the waters asswaged;
2 The fountains also of the deep and the windows of heaven were stopped, and the rain from heaven was restrained;
3 And the waters returned from off the earth continually: and after the end of the hundred and fifty days the waters were abated.
4 And the ark rested in the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the month, upon the mountains of Ararat.
5 And the waters decreased continually until the tenth month: in the tenth month, on the first day of the month, were the tops of the mountains seen.

13 And it came to pass in the six hundredth and first year, in the first month, the first day of the month, the waters were dried up from off the earth: and Noah removed the covering from the ark, and looked, and, behold, the face of the ground was dry.
14 And in the second month, on the seven and twentieth day of the month, was the earth dried. (KJV)

First, I would like the reader to consider the first quoted text. It states that originally (before the flood) there was no such thing as rain; the first rainfall was the Great Flood according to the Bible. Afterwards, the water cycle presumably changed to reflect that of the present day (as there is no other event described in the Bible that would account for this change).

Also consider the fact that the Bible says that living things on land received water by way of a "mist" that rose up from the ground. We are to infer from that that the ground was completely saturated with water from the beginning. Thus, we are led by the Bible to suspect a radically different water cycle existed before the flood, a water cycle which underwent dramatic changes during and after the flood.

The Creation Model describes the flood in this manner (my description of it is overly simplified, the actual model incorporates such things as air pressure and oxygen content of the air): the "fountains of the deep" spoken of in the Bible represent an extremely large volume of subterranian water, kept at high temperature and pressure at the base of the crust in compartments just above the hot mantle. This would serve as a way to uniformly circulate a cave-based water cycle closer to the surface (i.e. the cave system of the continents served as the earth's plumbing).

When the "fountains of the deep" were opened, this indicates a breakage of the earth's crust in a longitudinal circle around the entire planet, along what is now the quite noticable mid-Atlantic and mid-Pacific lines. The "windows of heaven" would correspond to the 'firmament' of Genesis 1, which many take to mean simply the blue of the sky, but which is described in the Creation Model as a great canopy of water vapor which served many functions (such as blockage of UV radiation from the sun and "recycling" of the now exponentially decaying magnetic field). The "windows of heaven" opening correspond to the collapse and end of this canopy. (perhaps explaining why the only day of the creation that God did not say that "it was good" was the day He created the firmament).

The Creation Model explains the recession of the waters with a traditional conservation of mass. Creation scientists do not claim (although I will not deny the possibility that this was supernaturally done) that the total mass of water on and near the earth has ever significantly varied. What the Creation Model says about it is that originally, there was not as much water in the seas as there is in the present. Also, the landscape of the earth was greatly altered by the flood, indeed generating a "new world", presumably with higher mountains and deeper sea floors.

(If you take a look at a topographical globe or world map, you will notice that every 90 longitudinal degrees you find a rise or high mountain range proceeding almost pole-to-pole. The Ural mountains proceeding to the Himalayas and the islands of Indonesia and down toward Sydney form a rise, and on the other side of the globe we find the Rockies, Central America, and the Andes. Ninety degrees away in both directions we find the mid-Atlantic rise with the Canary islands and the mid-Pacific range with the Hawaiian islands and Easter Island. It's quite fascinating.)

In short, the Creation Model says that much of the water from the flood evaporated into the air, which is why we have rain today and not before, the caves hollowed out somewhat, leaving the present-day water table and our river system, the seas grew dramatically in volume, and the polar ice caps formed, bringing the water level down somewhat.

(Large amounts of runoff from the continents and a worldwide flood account for marine fossils in Utah, the Grand Canyon, the Badlands of South Dakota, Devil's Tower in Wyoming, petrified wood and other natural marvels of our country. The structure of the water cycle before the flood explains rich fossil beds in the Gobi desert, where life has been scarce ever since the flood.

(Top of this page) (Apologetics page)

Response by: Will Berry

Pertinent text #1: Genesis 6:1-2

And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,
That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took unto them wives of all which they chose. (KJV)

Pertinent text #2: Job 38:4-7

Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? ...
When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy? (KJV)

Pertinent text #3: Jude 6

And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day. (KJV)

Ideas about the identity of the 'sons of God' are, it would seem, a dime a dozen. At one time I took "sons of God" to mean those who have a "Spirit of adoption" as in Romans 8:14-15. If that were true, then the great wrath of God kindled by the actions of his 'sons' would be well explained.

There are quite a few people out there who are convinced that these mysterious "sons of God" are an alien extra-terrestrial race of beings. There is, however, absolutely zero Biblical or other evidence to support this; if one believes this, he does so simply out of fancy and in the face of rather convincing Biblical evidence which denies such an idea.

I have reached the conclusion, after reading Genesis 6:2, Job 1:6, Job 2:1, Job 38:7, II Peter 2:4, and Jude 6, that the "sons of God" are in fact the angelic host. Revelation 12:4-9 suggests that fully one third of all the angelic host chose to leave Heaven and the worship of God. This must have happened before the temptation of Eve in the garden (Genesis 3:1-2), because Satan had already begun his evil mission by that time.

We know from Job 38:7 that the "sons of God" were around at the beginning of time, when God "laid the foundations of the earth." This seems to eliminate all beings except the angels.

How is it possible for angels, who are spirits, to take women as wives and have children by them? (Gen 6:4) My answer is that this phenomenon would be very similar in nature to the conception of Jesus, Mary's child, by the Holy Spirit, and that the angels can appear in physical manifestations. I once read a book by Rebecca Brown, M.D. entitled "He Came to Set the Captives Free", which was co-authored by a woman who once carried the title of Regional Bride of Satan (she was part of a Satanic society called The Brotherhood). This woman claimed that the title was quite literal, and that Satan would periodically appear in physical form and have brutal intercourse with her. Her story is very consistent with the descriptions of the "sons of God" in the scriptures, and I have no good reasons to doubt her.

Let it be concluded, then, that the best explanation of the identity of the "sons of God" in the Old Testament is that they are the host of angels, and the component of the host who married women and had children by them were the host of demons.

(Top of this page) (Apologetics page)

Response by: Will Berry

Pertinent text #1: Genesis 4:16-17

And Cain went out from the prescence of the LORD, and dwelt in the land of Nod, on the east of Eden.
And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Enoch: and he builded a city, after the name of his son, Enoch. (KJV)

Pertinent text #2: Genesis 5:3-5

And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth:
And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years: and he begat sons and daughters:
And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died. (KJV)

It is my conviction that either Cain or Seth or one of their other brothers married a sister. Assume, for the purpose of the argument, that Adam and Eve were the first two people on the earth, and the only two people at the time of their creation. Also assume, for the purposes of the argument, that all people are descended from Adam and Eve. We will see that to begin with these premises does not give rise to contradiction, and thus establish the believability of what I take to be the simplest explanation for Cain's wife.

We are told the names of three of Adam and Eve's sons: Cain, Abel, and Seth. Of those, two (Cain and Seth) are said to have had wives. And so, for all people to be descended from Adam and Eve, either Cain married a sister and Seth married a niece, Seth married a sister and Cain married a niece, or both married sisters, or at least one of their unnamed brothers married a sister. This in itself does not present a problem, because we know from Genesis 5:4 that Cain and Seth had at least two sisters and at least two brothers other than Abel who was slain.

There are two objections that frequently come to mind when we consider this scenario. The first is the issue of incest. Incest was forbidden in Moses' law, even in the case of first cousins being married. Thus, such obvious inbreeding would be against the law that God gave Moses. The second is the issue of chronology. One might gather from the fact that Seth's birth is told of in the writing after Cain's great great great grandson Lamech is mentioned, and from the fact that the writing seems to suggest that Adam's daughters were born after Seth, that there were no female children of Adam around when Cain's son Enoch was born. Both of these issues lead many to think that there were other people not descended from Adam and Eve present on the earth.

My answer to the first difficulty is the example of the dog. Many modern breeds of dog (the Great Dane, the Irish Wolfhound, etc.) were bred by way of considerable inbreeding. However, most Great Danes today are quite healthy dogs; our family owns two and can vouch for their stamina. While I am not comparing people to dogs in the strictest sense, genetics works much the same way between the two species. Relationships which we call incestuous today would not necessarily give rise to a doomed gene pool.

Moreover, Moses' law was given to Moses, not to Adam and Eve, not to Cain and Seth. Moses' law was given to people through Moses in order to show all the world that they were guilty before God (Rom. 3:19), and incest is forbidden in it for the same reasons that eating pork was forbidden. One of those reasons is to protect the physical health of the people; another is to set a standard against sexual abuse and a general disrespect for a marriage covenant in a family.

This response is not as much a plea of "ex post facto" as it is an observation that if there is an omniscient Creator of the world's people who commanded the first people to "multiply" (Genesis 1:28), then the consent of that Creator for their first-generation descendants to intermarry is implied.

My answer to the second difficulty is threefold. First, Adam gave his wife her name, Eve, because "she was the mother of all living" (Gen 3:20). This does not mean that every living organism on the earth is descended from Eve; it means that all people are descended from Eve (with the obvious exception, of course, of Adam and Eve themselves).

Second, it is not implied by the order in which the genealogies of Cain and of Adam are presented that the order in which people are mentioned parallels the chronology of their births. Both Cain and Seth had descendants named Enoch and Lamech. It may very well be that the author thought it less confusing to separate the genealogies of Cain and Seth. Nor, for that matter, is it implied that Adam's first daughter was born after Cain's son Enoch. (This becomes more evident when one considers the fact that the second chapter of Genesis as a whole is not presented in chronological order.)

Third, I would remind the reader of the simple fact that even if there were other people around, they remain in a strict sense unmentioned. It is as if someone claimed that there were extremely intelligent aliens waiting to attack us on the dark side of the moon, and that they hide whenever we send probes or manned craft to look. The prescence of other people is implied only if the Biblical account is assumed or known to be true and it is impossible for the account to be true otherwise. The second of those conditions, by my above arguments, has not been fulfilled.

In summary, it is adequate to say that of Cain, Seth, and their brothers, at least one married his sister. Of course, the fact that this explanation is consistent does not prove that the argument is true; it does, however, show that there is nothing ridiculous about all people being descended from an original patriarch and matriarch. Furthermore, I have given the reader fairly good objections to some popular alternative ideas as food for thought.

(Top of this page) (Apologetics page)