Every Blade Declares His Glory: Turretin Takes on Evolution

I am slowly working my way through Francis Turretin's Institutes of Elenctic Theology. Turretin was a professor in Geneva in the mid-1600s. He died in 1687.  His Institutes are divided up into twenty topics, which he then works through by asking and answering various questions. I am currently on his third topic, which is "The One and Triune God."  The first question in this third topic is:

Can the existence of God be irrefutably demonstrated against the atheists? We affirm

Turretin then gives four demonstrations that God exists.
1. The voice of universal nature
2. The contemplation of man himself
3. The testimony of conscience
4. The consent of all mankind.

In the midst of arguing his first point about the "voice of universal nature" he has a wonderful section about how the order of universe proves God. All the bold and brackets are mine.

The wonderful beauty and order of the universe is another proof. For if order requires wisdom and intelligence, the most perfect supposes the most perfectly necessary and infinite wisdom which we call God. Now he is blind who does not see the most beautiful order everywhere and most wicked who does not acknowledge it. There is so suitable disposition of parts, so constant a concord of things so discordant, so harmonious an agreement and consent of creatures the most diverse, so swift and at the same time equable motion of the heavenly bodies and so immutable a stability and constancy of the order once established. So not only do the heavens declare the glory of God, but every blade of grass and every flower of the field, every pebble on the shore and every shell in the ocean proclaim not only his power and goodness, but also his manifold wisdom, so near each one that even by feeling, God can be found. Augustine says, "The prophetic voices excepted, the world itself by its own most regular mutability and mobility and the exquisitely beautiful appearance of all visible things, silently as it were proclaims both that it was made and could be made only by a God unspeakably and invisibly great, and unspeakably and invisibly beautiful."  

But what about chance? Could chance plus time plus matter bring this all into existence?  This may sound like a 21st century question, but Turretin answers it almost four hundred years ago.

You may say perhaps that these things were so arranged by chance and by a fortuitous concourse of atoms. But I know not whether such an impious and absurd opinion is worthy of refutation, since these things denote not chance, but the highest art.  For things which come by chance are uncertain and ill-arranged and have nothing constant and similar; but nothing can be conceived more regular and composed  than this universal frame. To say, then, that this beautiful and highly decorated universe was produced by a fortuitous concourse of atoms is the same as to say that, "if innumerable forms of the one and twenty letters were thrown together, the annals of Ennius [An epic Roman poem] could be produced from them when shaken upon the earth and could afterwards be read" [Cicero]. 

In the same place he [Cicero] quotes from Aristotle: "If there were persons who had always lived under the earth in good and splendid habitation and yet had never come out upon its surface, but had heard that there was a deity and a power of the gods; then upon some occasion the jaws of the earth being opened they could come out and walk abroad in these places where we now live; when suddenly they would see the earth, and the sea and the heavens, and behold the sun, and know both its admirable magnitude and virtue, and contemplate the whole sky bespangled with stars, their rising and setting, their regulated and immutable eternal motion; when they saw these things they would assuredly think both that there were gods, and that these so magnificent works were theirs. 

Finally, Turretin turns to the human body as proof of God's existence.

Man himself has in his own breast a familiar teacher of this very truth. If he would withdraw his attention from all things and reflect upon himself, he would recognize no less wisdom in the little world [the human body] than in the great, and admire in his body a visible (and in his mind scintillating) divinity. For whence is the body constructed with such wonderful and stupendous skill? Whence so many different members created together by a mutual interweaving and so fitly disposed to their peculiar offices, unless from an immense spirit? When the mind, a particle of the divine breath, possessed of so many faculties, furnished with so many gifts, unless from a supreme intelligence? This image clearly bespeaks its prototype, and everyone who pays attention will not only hear and see God present in himself, but also in a manner touch and feel him. 

The questions we often hear about chance, matter, the existence of God, etc. are not new ones. The context might be different, but the questions are the same. And the answers have not changed either. Heaven declares God's glory (Psalm 19:1). Man is fearfully and wonderfully made (Psalm 139:14). All men have God's image stamped on them (James 3:9) All men have a conscience that reflects God's law (Romans 1:18-21, 2:14-15).  Man knows that God is and that this world was created by his power and wisdom. He always has.

Can We Love Things Too Much?

Joe Rigney's book The Things of Earth has been a great joy to read. He takes John Piper's idea of Christian Hedonism and expands upon it and fills it out. The book produces a deep love for God and his gifts. He shows how we can love God with all our heart, soul, mind, and strength and love all the gifts that he gives to us. He does this by encouraging us to put Christ first. But then we are able to cheerfully love all the gifts God has given to us. Our love for God does not diminish, but rather strengthens, our love for things.

He uses the illustration of a cake his wife makes. The more I love my wife the more I will enjoy the cake she has given to me. If my love for my wife is weak, I might eat the cake, but I will not enjoy it as I ought to. It certainly isn't loving my wife to not eat the cake.

Throughout the book he answers questions such as: What about idolatry? If I embrace God's gifts will that lead me to be selfish? How can I enjoy God's gifts when they come from a sinful culture? What about self-denial? Should I give up good gifts and if so why? What about when God takes away gifts, when I suffer involuntarily? His answers to these questions are biblical, practical, and balanced.

He focuses on gratitude and joy. He reminds us that God loves pleasure. He made us good and he made us creatures with eyes to see, noses to smell, hands to touch, ears to hear, and hearts to feel. He wants us to enjoy cake, ice cream, hikes, sunsets, our spouses, fireworks, and basketball. And he wants to enjoy these things guilt free.

So how would he answer the question, Can we love things too much? Here is a portion of a letter he wrote to a friend whose infant son was dying. All italics are his.

You cannot love your son too much. This is because, as you've said to me over and over again, he is a gift to you. God has given him to you, as a gift, and you are receiving him as a gift. Your son is a work of God, as expression of God's glory and grace and love, and one that is customized for you and your family. You can only love him wrongly if you love him in place of God. But if you receive him as a gift from God, in all his wonder and beauty and sweetness and fragility, then you cannot love him too much or prize him too highly, and you should feel no shred of guilt because you love him as you do and long for his health and desperately want to cling to him and know him and spend time with him for as long as you can. 

So I just want to encourage you and your wife to plunge headlong into the gift. Savor every moment with that baby. Touch him, hold him, caress him, let the love that you feel for him surge through you. Let it provoke you to tears and sadness and gut wrenching feeling that you would do absolutely anything to make your son whole. Let your love for your little boy take you beyond pain and sorrow to the indestructible joy of the God who gives good gifts and is not threatened by them. 

Rigney's answer is no you cannot love things too much. You can only love them wrongly. A drunkard does not love beer too much. He hates beer.  A man addicted to porn does not love sex too much. He he hates it. As our love for God increases our love for the gifts he has given increases as well. We should "plunge headlong into the gifts" God has given to us. In this example, Rigney uses a child. But throughout the book he makes clear that all things are gifts from God, including our cars, houses, food, toys, books, movies, grass, trees, etc. We cannot properly honor God or follow him until we see things as gifts from his hand.

I am sure you have more questions. I would encourage you to get the book. The second half is particularly valuable in helping free up Christians to love God and His gifts, to live free of guilt and full of gratitude for those gifts, and to use those gifts in service of God and neighbor.

The Weapon of Technology

One of the more fascinating aspects of the Planned Parenthood sting has been the use of technology. Christians for years have been uneasy about technology, especially as it progressed at breakneck speed in the late 20th century. Movies, the Internet, and then social media were of great concern for Christians. Would these things become portals of sin? But now an amazing thing has happened. Christians have begun to harvest the fruit of technology for good.  Abortion is one of the great evils. One of the heads on this snake is Planned Parenthood. God has put at our disposal various technological means to help us cut off the head.

Ultrasounds
We should assume that technology over time will bear out the truth of God's Word.  God's Word says babies from the moment of conception are humans. We do not need technology to tell us this. But we can use technology to back up what the Scriptures say. Ultrasounds have been one of those advances in technology that has slowly eroded the abortion narrative. One group takes a mobile ultrasound unit around and parks it in front of abortion clinics. This article from 2013 says that 56% of women who have decided to have an abortion don't when they see the ultrasound. 87% of those who were considering abortion don't have one when they see the ultrasound.  How many babies have been saved by ultrasounds? Planned Parenthood does not want mothers see their babies on the screen. "Nothing to see here," they say.  I wonder why?

Movies & Youtube
Christians have for years been using a visual medium to fight against abortion. In 1984 a 28 minute video called The Silent Scream was produced, which depicted an abortion and caused many to take up the pro-life cause. Francis Schaeffer, around that same time, produced a book and film with Dr. C. Everett Koop about abortion called Whatever Happened to the Human Race? Over time documentaries and films, such as October Baby, have been made that depict either the horrors of abortion or the glories of life. Youtube has been a boon. Of course, there is a ton of trash on there. But you can also watch videos from Abby Johnson former Planned Parenthood worker expose the lies of the "pro-choice" crowd.  You can also find speeches from pro-life and pro-choice politicians and leaders, testimonials from abortion survivors and unplanned children that were not aborted, etc. We should not be afraid of this. The truth is powerful. These things are not a substitute for God's Word, but they can buttress the truth in God's Word.

Spy Equipment
When I was young my dad had one of those huge cell phones like this:

Cameras used to be the same way, big and bulky. They took hours to set  and hours for the film to develop.  Advances in technology however have brought us to a place where hours and hours of video can be recorded by a hidden camera and published in seconds. Anti-abortion activists can use technology that Bond or Bourne would use. This is a good thing because murderers like to hide. Doctors who chop up babies do not want to be filmed. They like the dark.  The fact that mini-cameras were used to tape doctors who promote the killing of babies and sell their body parts should bring us satisfaction. Imagine what the French Resistance could have done with button cameras? What about the laws? If the man who made the videos goes to prison, it will be worth it. He has already saved the lives of many, many babies.

Social Media & Blogging
But there is no technological phenomenon quite like social media. Even if the videos from the Center for Medical Progress had been uploaded to Youtube without social media the impact would have been much smaller. Planned Parenthood is trending for all the wrong reasons. It is fascinating to watch things turn around so quickly. Several weeks ago the Christian world was reeling from the decision by the Supreme Court to force states to allow same-sex marriage. Facebook was covered with rainbows. Now Facebook and Twitter have become a war zone over abortion with the pro-life side, for now, having the upper hand. We should use all these things to save the unborn. Social media allows us to plan rallies in a few days or even a few hours. I can follow a good friend of mine who marches in front of an abortion clinic every week and pray for him. I can connect with anti-abortion folks all over the world.  I can read blogs from top Christian thinkers on these topics. Facebook, Twitter, blogs, and any other means should be used to destroy Planned Parenthood and the abortion complex. Keep the pressure on. Pursue them until they at least lose their funding, though the goal would be they go out of business. Al Mohler in his book Conviction to Lead argues that if you are not leading on social media you are not leading. Christian leaders should be grateful for these tools God has given to us. And we should use them.

There were many reasons the Reformation happened. But one of the key factors was the advent of the printing press and the ability for books to printed easier and cheaper. Luther used writing to spread his thoughts throughout the world. Calvin did the same thing. The technology available to us as Christians is enormous. What would Augustine have done with a laptop and Twitter? What would Spurgeon have done if he could rally people through Facebook? Would John Wesley have written a blog chronicling his travels as he preached? Who knows? But we have a wealth of technological gifts at our disposal. Are we using them to advance the Kingdom and tear down strongholds or are we sitting around watching the tools rust?

One Warning
Technology can help and we should use it. But it is not at the center of the battle. The center is raising our children in the Lord, loving our wives, worshiping, baptism, preaching, prayer, the Lord's Supper, loving our neighbors, and evangelizing our communities. With all good things there is a temptation to allow them to consume us. I love Facebook, Twitter, blogging, and other avenues of growth and outreach on the Internet. But none of these compare to the value of hearing God's Word, spending time in prayer, or reading to my children at the end of the day. As long as the center holds, we can use technology in way that honors God, loves our neighbor, and defeats His enemies. But if the center disintegrates then all the Facebooking, Twittering, and blogging will be end up being a curse instead of a blessing.

No Adam, No Sin, No Guilt, No Redemption, No Christ

Here are some quotes from J.P. Versteeg's book Adam in the New Testament. If you would like to read my review of the book, click on the Goodreads link on the right. 

In this first quote the author is addressing the argument that Paul thought Adam was historical, but now we know he was not.  He shows that despite claims to the contrary this idea unravels Christ's work as a historical event. 

"Therefore, if in the case of Adam the intention of Paul in his own time is divorced from its significance for us today, that must also have consequences with respect to Christ. For the redemptive-historical correlation between Adam and Christ entails that if what Paul says about Adam no longer holds for us [i.e. that Adam was a historical figure standing at the beginning of the human race], it is impossible to see why what he says about Christ in the same context must still hold for us. What is the sense of an antitype, if there is no type? What is the sense of fulfillment, if there is nothing to fulfill? The redemptive-historical correlation that Paul sees between Adam and Christ means that no longer honoring Paul's intention when he speaks about Adam must entail no longer honoring Paul's intention when he speaks about Christ...To no longer honor Paul's intention when he speaks about Adam entails that the framework in which Paul places Christ and his work, collapses. 

And again, here he is quoting another author:

And suppose that Paul... did indeed believe in the historicity of the first Adam but that is this is no longer relevant for us..., because we are only interested in the function of Adam as a 'teaching model' why should we...not take the same view regarding the last Adam?

Versteeg brings up an interesting point regarding the guilt of man if we deny a historical Adam. Christians have held that sin entered the world because our representative head, Adam, chose to eat of the fruit in the garden. In Adam, we all sinned. There has been debate about how this works itself out, but the basic structure is essential to Christian orthodoxy. What happens when there is no historical Adam (and Eve) to sin? Here is what Versteeg says:

If Adam only lets us see what is characteristic of everyone because Adam is man in general so that the sin of Adam is also the sin of man in general, and if on the the other hand Adam may no longer be regarded as the one man through whom sin has come into the world, it is apparent that in a certain sense sin belongs to man as such. Sin thus has become a given "next to" creation...In Romans 5 Paul intends to say how how sin has invaded the good creation of God. The concept "teaching model" cannot do justice to [Romans 5]. If Adam were only a teaching model, he would only be an illustration of man in whom sin is inherent. The concept "teaching model" eliminates the "one after the other" of creation and fall, and leaves only room for the "next to each other" of creation and sin. In essence, then, one may no longer speak of the guilt of sin...Where evil thus becomes a "practically unavoidable" matter, sin loses its character of guilt. (All emphasis and punctuation is Versteeg's).

I had not thought of the historicity of Adam from this angle before. Normally I think of Adam in reference to Christ and salvation, not man and sin. But of course, these cannot be separated. If we mess with Adam, we mess with Christ, sin, redemption, man, and as Richard Gaffin argues in his foreword, the resurrection, in the process. Where does sin and guilt come from if there was no Adam? Has it always been? Is sin inherent in man? Did God create man sinful? How can man be guilty if sin has always been? If sin has not always been, when did it enter? Who/what brought it in? 

I am convinced that a denial of a historical Adam leads naturally and logically to heresy.    As Versteeg says, 

To be occupied with the question of how Scripture speaks about Adam is thus anything but an insignificant problem of detail. As the first historical man and head of humanity, Adam is not mentioned merely in passing in the New Testament. The redemptive historical correlation between Adam and Christ determines the framework in which-particularly for Paul- the redemptive work of Christ has its place. That work of redemption can no longer be confessed according to the meaning of Scripture, if it is divorced form the framework in which it stands there.

Not all men who deny the historical Adam become heretics, but given their framework they should. Like human sexuality, the historicity of Adam is a truth worth fighting for.  To capitulate here is to begin unraveling the basics of Christian orthodoxy and most importantly to strip away the glory of Christ's work in redeeming fallen man. 

No Quarter Given

Recently I went through Genesis 3-50, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy and looked at all the uses of the Hebrew word "yom," which means "day." You can see those passages in the above links. My goal was to evaluate the flexibility of the word. Can the word "yom"  mean a long period of time? The motive for my research was the oft-cited idea that "yom" can mean long periods of time, therefore in Genesis 1 "day" can mean billions of years.  I have heard this cited by many good Christians whom I respect. However, I questioned whether the data backed up their claims. So I decided to look into myself. Here are some basic findings from the study.

First, "day" is used several hundred times in the Pentateuch. In the ESV the word "day" is used 345 times in the Pentateuch. This does not include the places where "yom" is translated "today," which would push the count over 400. We are not dealing with a small sample size.

Second, there are no examples in the Pentateuch where day with the numeral (first, second, etc.) means anything other than a literal, 24 hour day or a part of a literal, 24 hour day. There are no exceptions to this that I could find.

Third, day almost always means a specific 24 hour day in the past, present, or future. It can refer to the day God made a covenant with Abraham (Genesis 15:18), when a father tells his son about the Exodus out of Egypt (Exodus 13:8), when Israel gathered to have the law given (Deuteronomy 18:16) or when the Lord struck down the first born in Egypt (Numbers 3:13).

Fourth, there are occasions where "day" could mean a time longer than 24 hours. However, these are limited to only a handful, by my count less than ten.  In these few situations, day usually means a period of judgment most notably in Deuteronomy 31:17-18 and 32:35. It is possible to interpret these as future 24 hour days. But even if one sees "day" as not a literal 24 hours, it does not mean hundreds or even thousands of years.

In the five books of Moses "day" usually means a literal, 24 hour day. There is nothing in these books to give us any reason to change the normal meaning of "day" in Genesis 1-2. I will admit this study is narrow in its focus. But the most common reasons cited for putting billions of years into Genesis 1 is that "day" is flexible. A close study of the word in the first five books of the Bible however gives no quarter to this idea.

In the future I am going to look at the following:

Other places in the Old Testament where creation is mentioned to see if those places indicate that God took a long period of time to create the world.

Other uses of the word "day" in the Old Testament to see how frequent a non-24 hour usage of "day" actually is.

Is the idea of non-human death before Adam's sin plausible based on the Biblical data?

Day in Deuteronomy

This is the continuation of a study on the word "day" in the Pentateuch. For introductory remarks please refer to the initial post on Genesis.

I have divided these up into four (there is an extra one for Deuteronomy) categories: All the uses of day with a number, all the uses of "this day," all the uses of day which in context mean a typical day, and any uses of day which could mean a long period of time.  

One additional note on Deuteronomy. The ESV translates the word “yom” as “today” 58 times in Deuteronomy. So you can add to this list 58 other places in Deuteronomy where the word “yom” means a typical, 24 hour day.  Where the ESV has “today” the KJV often has “this day” or “that day” or just “day.”

Uses of Day with the Number (1^st, 2^nd, 3^rd, etc.)

(Deu 1:3)  In the fortieth year, on the first day of the eleventh month, Moses spoke to the people of Israel according to all that the LORD had given him in commandment to them,

(Deu 5:14)  but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work, you or your son or your daughter or your male servant or your female servant, or your ox or your donkey or any of your livestock, or the sojourner who is within your gates, that your male servant and your female servant may rest as well as you.

(Deu 16:3)  You shall eat no leavened bread with it. Seven days you shall eat it with unleavened bread, the bread of affliction—for you came out of the land of Egypt in haste—that all the days of your life you may remember the day when you came out of the land of Egypt.

(Deu 16:4)  No leaven shall be seen with you in all your territory for seven days, nor shall any of the flesh that you sacrifice on the evening of the first day remain all night until morning.

(Deu 16:8)  For six days you shall eat unleavened bread, and on the seventh day there shall be a solemn assembly to the LORD your God. You shall do no work on it.

Use of “This Day” in Deuteronomy

I have decided to create a category I did not have for the other books of Moses. The frequent use of this phrase stuck out to me as I studied.  “This day” in Deuteronomy can refer to different days, but it always refers to a specific point in time, not to a long period of time.

(Deu 2:22)  as he did for the people of Esau, who live in Seir, when he destroyed the Horites before them and they dispossessed them and settled in their place even to this day.

(Deu 2:25)  This day I will begin to put the dread and fear of you on the peoples who are under the whole heaven, who shall hear the report of you and shall tremble and be in anguish because of you.'

(Deu 2:30)  But Sihon the king of Heshbon would not let us pass by him, for the LORD your God hardened his spirit and made his heart obstinate, that he might give him into your hand, as he is this day.

(Deu 3:14)  Jair the Manassite took all the region of Argob, that is, Bashan, as far as the border of the Geshurites and the Maacathites, and called the villages after his own name, Havvoth-jair, as it is to this day.)

(Deu 4:20)  But the LORD has taken you and brought you out of the iron furnace, out of Egypt, to be a people of his own inheritance, as you are this day.

(Deu 4:38)  driving out before you nations greater and mightier than you, to bring you in, to give you their land for an inheritance, as it is this day,

(Deu 5:24)  And you said, 'Behold, the LORD our God has shown us his glory and greatness, and we have heard his voice out of the midst of the fire. This day we have seen God speak with man, and man still live.

Day in Numbers

This is the continuation of a study on the word "day" in the Pentateuch. For introductory remarks please refer to the initial post on Genesis.

I have divided these up into three categories: All the uses of day with a number, all the uses of day which in context mean a typical day, and any uses of day which could mean a long period of time.  

Uses of Day with the Number (1^st, 2^nd, 3^rd, etc.)

(Num 1:1)  The LORD spoke to Moses in the wilderness of Sinai, in the tent of meeting, on the first day of the second month, in the second year after they had come out of the land of Egypt, saying,

(Num 1:18)  and on the first day of the second month, they assembled the whole congregation together, who registered themselves by clans, by fathers' houses, according to the number of names from twenty years old and upward, head by head,

(Num 6:9)  "And if any man dies very suddenly beside him and he defiles his consecrated head, then he shall shave his head on the day of his cleansing; on the seventh day he shall shave it.

(Num 6:10)  On the eighth day he shall bring two turtledoves or two pigeons to the priest to the entrance of the tent of meeting,

(Num 7:12)  He who offered his offering the first day was Nahshon the son of Amminadab, of the tribe of Judah.

(Num 7:18)  On the second day Nethanel the son of Zuar, the chief of Issachar, made an offering.

(Num 7:24)  On the third day Eliab the son of Helon, the chief of the people of Zebulun:

(Num 7:30)  On the fourth day Elizur the son of Shedeur, the chief of the people of Reuben:

(Num 7:36)  On the fifth day Shelumiel the son of Zurishaddai, the chief of the people of Simeon:

(Num 7:42)  On the sixth day Eliasaph the son of Deuel, the chief of the people of Gad:

(Num 7:48)  On the seventh day Elishama the son of Ammihud, the chief of the people of Ephraim:

(Num 7:54)  On the eighth day Gamaliel the son of Pedahzur, the chief of the people of Manasseh:

(Num 7:60)  On the ninth day Abidan the son of Gideoni, the chief of the people of Benjamin:

(Num 7:66)  On the tenth day Ahiezer the son of Ammishaddai, the chief of the people of Dan:

(Num 7:72)  On the eleventh day Pagiel the son of Ochran, the chief of the people of Asher:

(Num 7:78)  On the twelfth day Ahira the son of Enan, the chief of the people of Naphtali:

Day in Leviticus

This is the continuation of a study on the word "day" in the Pentateuch. For introductory remarks please refer to the initial post on Genesis.

I have divided these up into three categories: All the uses of day with a number, all the uses of day which in context mean a typical day, and any uses of day which could mean a long period of time.   

Uses of Day with the Number (1^st, 2^nd, 3^rd, etc.)
(Lev 7:17)  But what remains of the flesh of the sacrifice on the third day shall be burned up with fire.

(Lev 7:18)  If any of the flesh of the sacrifice of his peace offering is eaten on the third day, he who offers it shall not be accepted, neither shall it be credited to him. It is tainted, and he who eats of it shall bear his iniquity.

(Lev 8:35)  At the entrance of the tent of meeting you shall remain day and night for seven days, performing what the LORD has charged, so that you do not die, for so I have been commanded."

(Lev 9:1)  On the eighth day Moses called Aaron and his sons and the elders of Israel,

(Lev 12:3)  And on the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised.

(Lev 13:5)  And the priest shall examine him on the seventh day, and if in his eyes the disease is checked and the disease has not spread in the skin, then the priest shall shut him up for another seven days.

(Lev 13:6)  And the priest shall examine him again on the seventh day, and if the diseased area has faded and the disease has not spread in the skin, then the priest shall pronounce him clean; it is only an eruption. And he shall wash his clothes and be clean.

(Lev 13:27)  and the priest shall examine him the seventh day. If it is spreading in the skin, then the priest shall pronounce him unclean; it is a case of leprous disease.

(Lev 13:32)  and on the seventh day the priest shall examine the disease. If the itch has not spread, and there is in it no yellow hair, and the itch appears to be no deeper than the skin,

(Lev 13:34)  And on the seventh day the priest shall examine the itch, and if the itch has not spread in the skin and it appears to be no deeper than the skin, then the priest shall pronounce him clean. And he shall wash his clothes and be clean.

(Lev 13:51)  Then he shall examine the disease on the seventh day. If the disease has spread in the garment, in the warp or the woof, or in the skin, whatever be the use of the skin, the disease is a persistent leprous disease; it is unclean.

(Lev 14:9)  And on the seventh day he shall shave off all his hair from his head, his beard, and his eyebrows. He shall shave off all his hair, and then he shall wash his clothes and bathe his body in water, and he shall be clean.

Day in Exodus

This is the continuation of a study on the word "day" in the Pentateuch. For introductory remarks please refer to the initial post on Genesis.

I have divided these up into three categories: All the uses of day with a number, all the uses of day which in context mean a typical day, and any uses of day which could mean a long period of time.  

Uses of Day with the Number (1^st, 2^nd, 3^rd, etc.)

(Exo 2:11)  One day, when Moses had grown up, he went out to his people and looked on their burdens, and he saw an Egyptian beating a Hebrew, one of his people.

(Exo 12:3)  Tell all the congregation of Israel that on the tenth day of this month every man shall take a lamb according to their fathers' houses, a lamb for a household.

(Exo 12:6)  and you shall keep it until the fourteenth day of this month, when the whole assembly of the congregation of Israel shall kill their lambs at twilight.

(Exo 12:15)  Seven days you shall eat unleavened bread. On the first day you shall remove leaven out of your houses, for if anyone eats what is leavened, from the first day until the seventh day, that person shall be cut off from Israel.

(Exo 12:16)  On the first day you shall hold a holy assembly, and on the seventh day a holy assembly. No work shall be done on those days. But what everyone needs to eat, that alone may be prepared by you.

(Exo 12:18)  In the first month, from the fourteenth day of the month at evening, you shall eat unleavened bread until the twenty-first day of the month at evening.

(Exo 13:6)  Seven days you shall eat unleavened bread, and on the seventh day there shall be a feast to the LORD.

(Exo 16:1)  They set out from Elim, and all the congregation of the people of Israel came to the wilderness of Sin, which is between Elim and Sinai, on the fifteenth day of the second month after they had departed from the land of Egypt.

(Exo 16:5)  On the sixth day, when they prepare what they bring in, it will be twice as much as they gather daily."

(Exo 16:22)  On the sixth day they gathered twice as much bread, two omers each. And when all the leaders of the congregation came and told Moses,

(Exo 16:23)  he said to them, "This is what the LORD has commanded: 'Tomorrow is a day of solemn rest, a holy Sabbath to the LORD; bake what you will bake and boil what you will boil, and all that is left over lay aside to be kept till the morning.'" ( I included this here even though it does not have the ordinal because it goes with the text.)

Day in Genesis

Recently, Kevin DeYoung said that the most important thing for Christians in debate is to actually open up the Bible and work through the text. Don't settle for vague impressions or general ideas. What does the Bible actually say? I put this idea to work by looking at the use of the word "day" in the Pentateuch (Genesis-Deuteronomy). 

The impression is often given by Old Earth Creationists that the Hebrew word for "day" (yom) is a flexible word that has a broad range of meaning. This idea has been used over and over again by men to create enough elasticity in Genesis 1 so that one can put billions of years in the creation account. But is it true that this word is as flexible as OEC would like it to be? I decided to open up the text and see for myself. . I went through and looked at all the uses of the word day in Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy to determine if what the OEC men claim to be true is actually true. This was tedious and it makes for tedious reading. But the point I want to make is that when one reads the word "day" in the Bible it almost always means a typical 24 hour day. 

This study is based on the ESV translation. I do not have the ability to search in Hebrew, but I can read Hebrew and I have several Hebrew word study helps as well as a Hebrew Old Testament. I checked the words to see if they were really “yom.” They almost always were. Occasionally you will find the word “day” supplied where it is not in the Hebrew (i.e. Leviticus 23:5, 27). It is clear in those places that “day” is implied though not specifically written. Also sometimes instead of the word being “yom” it is the word “yomam,” which means “daily/daytime” (i.e. Numbers 14:14). Often the ESV translates “yomam” as “day.” The words are clearly connected. I have not purposely included the plural use of “yom” though if it showed up in my search I kept it.

I have divided these up into three categories: All the uses of day with a number, all the uses of day which in context mean a typical 24 hour day, and any uses of day which could mean a long period of time. 

All uses of Day with a Number (1^st, 2^nd, 3^rd, etc.)

(Gen 7:11)  In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month, on that day all the fountains of the great deep burst forth, and the windows of the heavens were opened.

(Gen 8:4)  and in the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the month, the ark came to rest on the mountains of Ararat.

(Gen 8:5)  And the waters continued to abate until the tenth month; in the tenth month, on the first day of the month, the tops of the mountains were seen.

(Gen 8:13)  In the six hundred and first year, in the first month, the first day of the month, the waters were dried from off the earth. And Noah removed the covering of the ark and looked, and behold, the face of the ground was dry.

(Gen 8:14)  In the second month, on the twenty-seventh day of the month, the earth had dried out.

(Gen 22:4)  On the third day Abraham lifted up his eyes and saw the place from afar.

(Gen 27:45)  until your brother's anger turns away from you, and he forgets what you have done to him. Then I will send and bring you from there. Why should I be bereft of you both in one day?"

(Gen 31:22)  When it was told Laban on the third day that Jacob had fled,

(Gen 33:13)  But Jacob said to him, "My lord knows that the children are frail, and that the nursing flocks and herds are a care to me. If they are driven hard for one day, all the flocks will die.

All Three Genealogy Posts

I did some work on the Biblical genealogies. There are three total posts.

Here is the first, and most important one, on the Bible's genealogical record from Adam to Abraham.

Here is the second on the lines of Japeth and Ham.

Here is the third on genealogical record from Abraham to David and then David to the exile. This includes a discussion of Matthew's genealogy.

Genealogies Post-Abraham

I spent a bit of time on the genealogies from Adam to Abraham. I think these prove the point that the Bible leaves no room for gaps of any substance between Adam and Abraham. I wanted to take a little more time and look at the genealogies from Abraham onwards. Do these genealogies show that there are large gaps between the men listed? The text will answer that question for us.

Here are the main dates in the Biblical timeline from Abraham onward. These are accepted by most, if not all orthodox, Bible-believing Christians, as the approximate dates of key events. All dates are general and can be flexed a few years in either direction.

2100 B.C. Abraham Leaving Ur
1450 B.C. The Exodus
1010 B.C. David Become King
931 B.C. The Kingdom Splits
586 B.C. Southern Kingdom Falls to Babylon

The entire time from Abraham to the exile was only about 1500 years. Let's look at the data and see if there is proof of gaps in the genealogies. This would not be a strong argument for those who believe there are thousands of years of gaps in the genealogies, but it could at least prove there were gaps.

We know that the chronology from Genesis is Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and then his twelve sons. Without this exact chronology the narrative of Genesis falls flat. Then you have a c. 400 year gap between Joseph and Moses. After Moses you have Joshua entering the promise land and then the time of the Judges. It is clear from Judges 2:10 that generation of Judges immediately follows Joshua's generation. So there is no huge gap between Joshua and Judges. Then we enter the time of the Kings. So there are no gaps in the genealogical record from Abraham to David in the narratives.  Now let's look at various genealogical records of that time period and compare them with Matthew 1.

The Lines of Japheth and Ham

Earlier I pointed out how the Bible supports the idea that Adam was created around 6,000 years by looking at the genealogy from Adam to Noah and then from Shem to Abram.

I wanted to bring in two more genealogies. These are not as important biblically because the Bible is focused on the line that leads to Christ, that is Shem's line. But they still prove my point that the genealogical records in the Bible do not support thousand year gaps in the genealogical record. 

The Line of Japheth
Noah had three sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth. From these three sons and their wives the entire earth was repopulated following the flood. Here are the places where we see Japheth's line mentioned in the Scripture

Genesis 10:2-4 (Japheth’s line) (2)  The sons of Japheth: Gomer, Magog, Madai, Javan, Tubal, Meshech, and Tiras. (3)  The sons of Gomer: Ashkenaz, Riphath, and Togarmah. (4)  The sons of Javan: Elishah, Tarshish, Kittim, and Dodanim.

I Chron. 1:5-7 (Japheth’s Line) (5)  The sons of Japheth: Gomer, Magog, Madai, Javan, Tubal, Meshech, and Tiras. (6)  The sons of Gomer: Ashkenaz, Riphath, and Togarmah. (7)  The sons of Javan: Elishah, Tarshish, Kittim, and Rodanim.

These are exactly the same word for word.  Japheth, Gomer, or Javan are not mentioned in any other passages. Now I understand this is only three generations, Japheth, his sons, and his grandsons. But the point still stands. There is no evidence of gaps in the genealogy of these men. I Chronicles written hundreds of years after Moses gives us the same list as Genesis does. 

Here are the two places Ham's line is mentioned. I highlighted the corresponding questions in the same color to make them easier to read. I also took out the extended section about Nimrod in Genesis 10:9-12. 

Gen 10:6-8, 13-18 (Ham’s Line) (6)  The sons of Ham: Cush, Egypt, Put, and Canaan. (7)  The sons of Cush: Seba, Havilah, Sabtah, Raamah, and Sabteca. The sons of Raamah: Sheba and Dedan. (8)  Cush fathered Nimrod; he was the first on earth to be a mighty man. (13)  Egypt fathered Ludim, Anamim, Lehabim, Naphtuhim, (14)  Pathrusim, Casluhim (from whom the Philistines came), and Caphtorim. (15)  Canaan fathered Sidon his firstborn and Heth, (16)  and the Jebusites, the Amorites, the Girgashites, (17)  the Hivites, the Arkites, the Sinites, (18)  the Arvadites, the Zemarites, and the Hamathites..

1Chron. 1:8-16 Ham’s Line (8)  The sons of Ham: Cush, Egypt, Put, and Canaan. (9)  The sons of Cush: Seba, Havilah, Sabta, Raama, and Sabteca. The sons of Raamah: Sheba and Dedan. (10)  Cush fathered Nimrod. He was the first on earth to be a mighty man. (11)  Egypt fathered Ludim, Anamim, Lehabim, Naphtuhim, (12)  Pathrusim, Casluhim (from whom the Philistines came), and Caphtorim. (13)  Canaan fathered Sidon his firstborn and Heth, (14)  and the Jebusites, the Amorites, the Girgashites, (15)  the Hivites, the Arkites, the Sinites, (16)  the Arvadites, the Zemarites, and the Hamathites.

This is a similar situation to Japheth's line. It goes from father, to son, to grandsons. There are no further mentions of Cush, Egypt, or Canaan as men in the Old Testament to compare this genealogy to. This one is also more complicated because tribes are listed not just men. But there is no proof in either list of gaps in the genealogy. 

What is an Old-Earth Creationist?

Wikipedia defines a young earth creationist as someone who believes the earth is between 5,700 and 10,000 years old. They believe that the Lord created the world from nothing in six, 24 hour days. They do not believe in evolution. This is all very clear.

But when it comes to the old earth creationist, clarity is lacking.Wikipedia gives no time frame for the old earth creationists. Some believe in evolution and some do not. What is an old-earth creationist? I am not being snarky here. I really want to know. I feel like this term is thrown around with only a very fuzzy definition. So here are some questions for Christians who would describe themselves as old-earthers or those who who have interacted with them.

Do you believe the world is millions of years old or tens of thousands? (Are there even Christians arguing that the earth is 25,000 years old? 50,000 years old? 100,000 years old? I have not heard this. This is not what secular old earthers argue for. My understanding is that old-earth creationists believe the earth is millions/billions of years old, not tens of thousands.)

If you believe the earth is only thousands of years old, why? (Again I have not heard this theory said or implied in any of the study I have done of old earth creationists.)

For those who believe the earth is millions of years old:

Do you believe that only land +water has been around for millions of years (Creation days 1-2)? Or do you also believe that plants, fish, birds, and animals have been around for millions of years (Creation days 3-6)? (I have not heard anyone argue that only the first two days are millions of years, but I guess this is possible.)

Do you believe man has been around for millions of years? If you believe men lived prior to Adam, when did Adam come into existence and did those men who lived prior to Adam die ? If you don't believe men lived prior to Adam and you do believe there are millions of years between us and Adam where do you find the millions of years in the Biblical chronology?

Do you believe evolution is part of the process by which God populated the globe? Do you believe man evolved from a lower species?

There are two reasons I would like to see these questions answered. First, old earth creationists need to be clear about what they are and are not saying. Saying, "I believe in the Framework Theory" or "Yom can mean great ages of time" is insufficient. It allows one to slide out the back door without really stating his opinion on what is really the point: the age of the earth and evolution. Old-earth Christians need to clearly explain their position on these two things. If they say they do not know how old the earth is, then I will ask, "Could it be less than 10,000 years?" If they answer, "No" then I will know they are not age of the earth agnostics. They do know how old they think the earth is, they just won't say.

The other point is that in secular science the age of the earth and evolution are two sides of the same coin. The reason the earth needs to be millions/billions of years old is to support the theory of evolution. Without evolution, why posit an earth that is millions of years old? I think old earthers want to say the earth is old without saying they believe in evolution. It is possible to say this. I know many evangelical men do. But can one logically separate an old earth from evolution?

I know there is variety among the old-earthers, but clarity on the age of the earth, evolution, and the link or non-link they see between the two would be very helpful.

Initial Thoughts on the Age of the Earth

I have been doing some study on the age of the earth. I am just beginning to scratch the surface of the research out there. I have my assumptions about its age. These assumptions come from a straight forward reading of Genesis 1-3 and related texts. However, I know many evangelicals disagree on this point.  Here are some of my initial thoughts on this subject. These are a bit random but they put fences around my further exploration of the topic.

The three books I have used so far have been Jim Jordan's Creation in Six Days, Douglas Kelly's Creation and Change, and Henry Morris' The Genesis Record. I have also read some articles that deal with this including Kline and Waltke. I read some of Philip Johnson a long time ago. I have also read various secular men who are working to refute or at least modify the prevailing views of evolution.

First, the Biblical chronology from Adam to us is a few thousand years. Even if we put gaps in the genealogies (and it must be proven they exist), we cannot get thousands (much less millions) more years. If you look at Genesis 5, 11, and other genealogies, such as Luke 3, it is clear that they are intended to be pretty straight forward accounts of who was born to whom. For example, compare Genesis 5:1-24 with I Chronicles 1:1-3, Luke 3:36-38, and Jude 1:14. All of these show that Enoch was the seventh generation after Adam. There may be gaps (and there may not be) but these gaps are not thousands of years. Thus from Adam to us will be around 6,000 years maybe a bit  more. If thousands or millions of more years are to found they must be found earlier than Adam. One cannot posit an old earth (unless by old-earth one means 10,000 years or less!) from the Biblical chronology post-Adam. In other words, from the day six creation of Adam to us is not very long.

Second, the Bible treats the creation account as history. It assumes a literal Adam and Eve with a literal fall in the garden that happened exactly as the Genesis account says it does. Christ assumes the creation account is accurate in Matthew 19:3-9. Paul assumes the creation account in I Corinthians 11:8-9 and I Timothy 2:13-14. Henry Morris has an extensive list of New Testament allusions and quotations to Genesis. Not all of these are from the first few chapters of Genesis. But the list proves that New Testament treated Genesis as real history.

Third, Adam was created from the dust of the earth. He did not evolve. Eve was created from his side. She did not evolve either. There is nothing in the Genesis text to point to the animals evolving either. Theistic evolution is compromise of highest order.

Fourth, death came with Adam's sin. There was no death prior to Adam's sin. This is clear in the New Testament passages which refer to Adam (Romans 5:12-21 and I Corinthians 15:21-22). The phrase, "It was good" throughout Genesis 1 could point to this as well. To say there was death prior to Adam is to undo the fabric of Scripture.

Fifth, the concept of evolution necessarily involves death. I understand this is simplistic. But evolution means organisms that do not adapt die. For evolution to be a part of the creation week there must be death. But death does not come until Genesis 3. What about plants? Did they die prior to Adam's sin? There is no reason to assume that to be the case. It would appear there is a difference between plants and animals in this regard. Plants could be eaten prior to the fall and may be eaten in the New Heavens and Earth (Isaiah 11:6-9, 65:25). (These passages in Isaiah probably involve some type of symbolism. But even if that is the case the symbol is one of peace. Thus eating straw implies peace, not death.) Another thought is eating a plant does not require it dying. Eating an animal usually does.

Sixth, God created all things from nothing (See Jeremiah 32:1, Acts 4:24, Colossians 1:16-17, and Hebrews 11:3). Matter is not eternal (See II Timothy 1:9 and Titus 1:1). Only God is. There was a time when there was only God.

Seventh, there is no reason to pit literary form against literal chronology. The Bible often punctuates historical narratives with literary structures. For example, the entire book of Genesis is structured by the idea of generations (See Genesis 2:4, 5:1, 6:9, etc.). Does this literary device make the story non-chronological or unhistorical? Does a chiasm in I Kings make it unhistorical and non-chronological? My point here is that to argue for a literary/poetic reading of Genesis 1 does not have to lead one away from a 24-hour, six day creation. It must be proven that the literary structure denies a 24-hour, six day creation.

Creation and Technology: Part II

1.   Sin does not live inside of technology or things. Computers do not make us sin. Cars do not make us sin. Sin is always what we do with things and how we corrupt them. Someone who gets rid of their TV is not getting rid of sin. They are putting one particular area of temptation out of reach. This is not bad. It will prevent sinning. But it is not a permanent answer. If a man lacks self-control with his computer, he does not gain self-control by getting rid of the computer.  But he does close a gate where his lack of self-control tended to take him off the right road. The important thing to remember is the computer was not the problem. The man is. A righteous man will recognize those situations where he is tempted and avoid them. But a righteous man will also know that the sin and temptation are in his own heart not in the machine.  

2.   Though sin does not live inside of machines, etc. technology does have direction. It shapes our lives in particular ways. The biggest problem Christians have is we don’t think about how technology shapes our lives. We just keep buying things and using things without a care for how they are changing the way we think and live. Technology rules over us instead of us ruling over it.  We fail to be faithful kings and priests with our technology.

a.    Example: How has our world changed by the automobile?  We used to rarely travel outside of our community. People could live their entire lives and never leave their city or town. Teens would not be able to travel to other cities. We could not drive 45 minutes to a church that we liked better. We could not move across the country in a couple of days.  Much of what we bought, especially food, was bought locally because there was not any way to ship it. Now I can get food from all over the world.  The automobile has completely reshaped our lives.  How does this reshaping hurt the Christian life? How does it help? We need to ask these types of questions. Unfortunately we rarely do.

b.    Example 2: What happens when we substitute a teacher on video for a teacher in the classroom?  How does this reshape the learning experience? Is it good or bad? How should we as Christians approach video technology like this?

3.   With all technology something is gained and something is lost. Figure out what it is. Should what was lost be kept? Is the gain worth it? Should we actually desire what the new technology is giving us?

a.    Example: For hundreds of years men and women farmed. Some farmed for their family. Others farmed for their community. But farming, or something like it, was essential to the life of most people. Now, due primarily to technology, farming represents a very small percentage of our population.  That, by itself, is not bad. But something was lost when we made the transition from plowing to typing.  Should what was lost with farming be kept? I think the answer is yes. We need ask these types of questions. 

4.       Here are some current dangers with technology, especially the internet, cell phones, etc.

a.   We think we are connected with other people, but it is only an illusion. We are only connected with their picture or voice. 

b.   Our lack of self-control with technology leads to laziness and squandering of time.

c.   Everything has got to be fast. There is not time to slow down and go deep. We don’t stop and think about our lives and where they are going. We just go, go, go.

d.   Those who sell technology try to cultivate in our hearts a deep desire to “keep up/be cool.”  The Bible calls this greed or covetousness. There is nothing wrong with having an up to date phone or computer.  But to long for and covet the latest thing is usually a sin.  The eyes are never satisfied. (Proverbs 27:20) The advertisers know this.

e.   We are too mentally scattered to be effective.  This is closely related to “c” above.  Instead of sitting down and spending a couple of hours focusing on one thing, we leap from thing to thing. We go to a friend’s house, but answer the cell phone several times while we are there. We are at the movies, but we are texting during it. We are working on a project in our cubicle, but we keep thinking about whether or not there is a new email. Our minds are fragmented.  Focus has been lost.