biblegateway.com
Biblos.com, Free Online Biblical Study Tools
BlueLetterBible.org – An on-line interactive reference library
e-Sword.net – The Sword of the Lord with an Electronic Edge
levendwater.org – Bullinger ’s Companion Bible
Philologos Religious Online Books
SearchGodsWord.org
gladtidingsfellowship.com How to Read the Bible for Understanding and Power
NetHymnal
Amazon.com
ChristianCafe.com
Family Christian StoresCreation, Science, and Genesis 1
Posted By Ken Brown on November 27, 2009
I was at a wedding reception not long ago, seated next to a man I had not previously met. We exchanged the usual small talk. I learned that he was a retired eighth-grade science teacher and so on. The conversation was pleasant enough until he learned that I am a Bible-believing Christian (and as I like to say, “Should there be any other kind?”). He immediately launched into an all-out assault. “How can you possibly believe Genesis?” He went on and on about evolution, endeavoring to make a mockery of God’s Word. It takes hundreds of thousands of years for the light from such and such a star to reach the earth. How could God have created the universe only about six thousand years ago? He referred to the Bible as a practical joke.
The man was well prepared with his long list of scientific reasons why Genesis chapter one could not possibly be true, and he continued for about 20 minutes endeavoring to shame me for being so stupid. The problem he was having, however, (other than being terribly rude at a wedding reception) was that he had never before met anyone who held the position I do regarding the “creation” account. For every objection and piece of scientific evidence he brought up, I was able to give him a simple Biblically correct response that allowed for his “evidence.” He was finally silenced, unable to think of a way to poke a hole in my position.
So what is my position on the age of the earth, the fossil records, evolutionary theory, etc? My position is that it is a bunch of science stuff and I am not a scientist. I don’t actually know for myself how much of what is said about these things is true, but I know that none of it contradicts God’s Word when we properly understand what it says.
Maybe the earth is a million years old or 10 billion. The fact that various numbers are still being proposed tells me that the jury is still out on this, but virtually everyone agrees that it is older than six thousand years. I said “virtually everyone.” We live just a hop and a skip from the “Creation Museum,” displaying men and dinosaurs together.
The problem the Creation Museum people have is that it is documentable from the Scriptures that Adam and Eve lived about six thousand years ago. If they were created on the “sixth day of creation,” then the earth is only about six thousand years old. Since they cannot reasonably deny the prior existence of the wooly mammoth, or whatever, they are forced by what they believe the Bible says, to place the wooly mammoth in a relatively recent time frame. I admire their determination to hold to the Scriptures, but their scholarship is less admirable.
Let’s take a look at what Genesis says.
[KJV] Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
The Hebrew words translated, “without form and void,” communicate an empty or confused waste. The earth was obviously not completely without form. The face of the waters already existed.
Notice the two uses of the state of being verb, “was” in verse two. The first is in normal type. The second one is in italics. Italics in the King James Version indicate a word that was supplied by the translators. There is no Hebrew word for it in the text. The state of being verb is only implied by the rest of the sentence. This is the most common way it was done in Hebrew.
The first “was” is translated from “hayah,” which occurs only 74 times in the Hebrew Old Testament, obviously not the normal way to express the state of being. I am not a Hebrew scholar and I am not going to pretend to be, but there are a few basic things we need to recognize about Hebrew verbs when considering their meaning. “Hayah” occurs in the qal form and the perfect mood (as in verse two above) just 25 times. I used the general word “form” here. Various writers refer to this as a “stem”, “verb pattern” or “conjugation” (not to be confused with what we English speakers think of as conjugating verbs). Hebrew verbs take on different meanings in these different forms. “Hayah” in the qal form does not mean exactly the same as it does in the niphal form or some other form. There are 7 different such forms, or stems, that Hebrew verbs can take. When looking at the other uses of a Hebrew verb to see it in other contexts and get a more clear picture of its meaning, we must recognize that it is only the other uses in the same form that will carry the same meaning. I have read the 25 occurrences of “hayah” in the qal form (and perfect mood). Many of them demand the sense of something becoming rather than just being. Others could allow for either meaning. A relatively small number seem to carry the sense of the state of being verb.
The “Let there be” of “let there be light” in verse 3 is “hayah” and also in the qal form but in the imperfect mood. The action had not yet occurred, but the statement is indicative of an action taken, not just a state of being.
Here is the Strong’s data for “hayah” in Genesis 1:2.
1961 hy”h’ hayah {haw-yaw}
Meaning: 1) to be, become, come to pass, exist, happen, fall out 1a) (Qal) 1a1) —– 1a1a) to happen, fall out, occur, take place, come about, come to pass 1a1b) to come about, come to pass 1a2) to come into being, become 1a2a) to arise, appear, come 1a2b) to become 1a2b1) to become 1a2b2) to become like 1a2b3) to be instituted, be established 1a3) to be 1a3a) to exist, be in existence 1a3b) to abide, remain, continue (with word of place or time) 1a3c) to stand, lie, be in, be at, be situated (with word of locality) 1a3d) to accompany, be with 1b) (Niphal) 1b1) to occur, come to pass, be done, be brought about 1b2) to be done, be finished, be gone
Origin: a primitive root [compare 01933]; TWOT – 491; v
Usage: AV – was, come to pass, came, has been, were happened, become, pertained, better for thee; 74
08804 Stem – Qal (See 08851) Mood – Perfect (See 08816) Count – 12562
“Hayah” can in certain contexts indicate mere existence or being, but that is not the usual sense of the word. Another telling piece of information in the Strong’s data above is the mood of “hayah” in Genesis 1:2. It is the perfect mood. This is how the lexicon describes the perfect mood:
08816 Perfect
The Perfect expresses a completed action.
1) In reference to time such an action may be:
1a) one just completed from the standpoint of the present “I have come” to tell you the news
1b) one completed in the more or less distant past in the beginning God “created” “I was (once) young” and “I have (now) grown old” but “I have not seen” a righteous man forsaken
1c) one already completed from the point of view of another past act God saw everything that “he had made”….
The perfect mood indicates a completed ACTION. Just “being” is not an action. “Becoming” is an action.
In light of all this, I submit that a better translation of Genesis 1:1 & 2 is:
Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
2 And the earth became an empty waste; and darkness upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
How much time was there between God creating the heaven and the earth and when the earth became a wasteland? It can be whatever the scientists want to say. And the record only says here that the earth became a waste, not the whole universe. How long was it between the earth’s destruction and when God put it back together? It could have been a long time. We don’t know. But we know that about six thousand years ago, God, to some degree, started over. I say “to some degree” because God did not have to start completely from nothing. There was already an earth. It had seen massive destruction, but did not cease to exist. It seems that the “face of the waters” was still intact. And there is nothing to indicate that the entire universe had been destroyed.
Another thing to keep in mind as you read through the rest of the record is that it is written from the perspective of what God did to restore the earth. When the record says that God said let there be light and there was light, it does not mean that there was no such thing as light existent anywhere in the universe. There just wasn’t light, or enough of it, on earth.
There were not six days of creation as some people say. “Create” is only used here of what God did in the beginning (could have been billions of years ago) and during the six days when God created animals and people. For every thing else, it says God made whatever, and that’s different. My son and I made a tree house, but we were in no position to create one. Or, the record says God said and it was so. We don’t know how He did that, but it isn’t called creating in the record. Some versions might use the word “create” more frequently in this record, but they shouldn’t. The Hebrew words make a distinction between making and creating. So it was six days of some creation, but mostly putting things back together. And yes, I believe the days were literal 24-hour days. It is hard to read, “And the evening and the morning were the first day,” and think the Author was endeavoring to communicate that what He meant by “day” was an age of hundreds of thousands of years.
I realize that I am not the first to present what some might refer to as, “the gap theory.” I don’t call it that, and I do not necessarily subscribe to everything proponents of what they call “the gap” might present. But translating “hayah” as “became” rather than as “was” seems reasonable enough. As I said before, I am not a Hebrew scholar. I could be wrong, but the evidence sure seems to me to point in the direction of the “became” translation.
Were there people before Adam and Eve? I’ve been told that there is evidence of villages that existed 20,000 or 30,000 years ago. Maybe there were and maybe there weren’t. I am not in the business of analyzing that kind of evidence. Either way, it does nothing to shake my faith. Whoever those creatures were, human or human-like, they died. And God started over with Adam about six thousand years ago.
Is the earth 10 billion years old? Did life forms develop through some evolutionary process? I am not necessarily completely settled on how much of which theories I accept, but I have no problem with people proclaiming them. They do not contradict God’s Word.
I would be happy if people who are more knowledgeable of Hebrew and/or science than I am would jump in and confirm or repudiate what I have written. This would add to the learning process, would it not? (Unless you are just a creep like the guy at the wedding reception who only wanted to intimidate, humiliate, and embarrass his prey. In that case, you don’t need to feel compelled to comment.).
This article is a little different than some others I have submitted. There have been others in which I have asserted absolutely what God’s Word has to say. Here, we are dealing with a translation from Hebrew. This is outside the area of my primary expertise. The “became” translation seems reasonable to me, and it accounts for the scientific evidence. I had intended to include the 25 references where “hayah” occurs in the qal form and the perfect mood. I’m not going to be able to get that done in time for my publishing deadline. Maybe I can get that submitted as an appendix some time this coming week so you can read this portion of the evidence for yourself.
The bottom line is that The Word of God is True. When we correctly understand what it is saying, and we also have true science (though neither always correctly understanding God’s Word nor always having accurate scientific conclusions is a given), then there will be no conflict between the two.
All links to external websites are for reference purposes only and do not necessarily represent the opinions or beliefs of BrownBible.com
We invite you to participate. Please rate this article and/or its comments by clicking on the stars or thumbs. Or better yet, join the conversation by leaving a comment of your own.
Help us get the word out to the rest of the world by sharing this article with your favorite social network. It's easy too! Just click on the icons shown at the end of every article. We recommend sharing with your friends at FaceBook & Twitter. Also, please share with Digg, StumbleUpon, Del.icio.us & Propeller.
Related posts
About the author
Being neither a Hebrew scholar nor a scientist, I am not in the least qualified to comment upon the informational aspects of the article. (It does seems well-researched.) Quite honestly, I fall pretty squarely into the group of (probably post-modern) Christians who just don’t care very much about creation. I understand that God’s Word says that He created the world and all that is in it, and for me that is enough. Details for me are uninteresting and irrelevant to my daily life. Is it okay to be a Christian who just doesn’t much care about this? I have seen creationists and evolutionists who get very heated in debating these topics, and I just roll my eyes. Does this demonstrate spiritual immaturity on my part?
Ken, I couldn’t help but comment when you mentioned the creation museum:
Below are a few links to photos and articles about the tracks found in Glen Rose Texas where human and dinosaur tracks were found together. I know many “old earthers” say they simply aren’t even close to looking like human prints, but check out the photos on the first link.
http://75.125.60.6/~creatio1/index.php?Itemid=24&id=48&option=com_content&task=view
http://www.bible.ca/tracks/tracks.htm
http://paleo.cc/paluxy/paluxy.htm
My answer for years has been “God can do whatever he wants, however he wants”. For me to suggest any differently would put limits on a limitless God. I have never understood why someone would want to fight with me over my personal beliefs when I do not want to fight with them over theirs. I don’t claim to understand all the in’s and out’s of God or science. But I had a wonderful geology professor in college who quoted our class the above saying and it has stuck with me ever since. He was a Chrisitian Geologist and had no problem telling anyone about his faith or science. It is interesting to note that he did not work at a Christian college.
I love your respones to someone who just wants to fight. I had a geology professor at a secular college who had the perfect answer for how he could be a geologist and a christian. He said “God can do it however he wants to. He is God. It is not my place to tell Him how to create.” That has been my answer to people who want to pick a fight ever since. I don’t have to argue or explain myself at all. They have no response to that and usually just stop talking altogether. I don’t tell other people what to believe so why should I have to defend myself from someone who thinks they are smarter than me. I don’t care to fight with people and I am not going to.
It’s really hard for a creationist and a scientist to argue. But I think your point is quite interesting, that Genesis left blank a period of time during which what happened isn’t explicitly stated. But I do believe you should look more into geological and anthropological accounts of human existence before six thousand years ago—if the numbering doesn’t work out as you originally thought, it really isn’t a big deal. And keep in mind that “day†(especially counting other languages, like Hebrew) can be taken in many senses – the complete rotation of the earth (that means the earth must already exist!), exactly 24 hours (how do you truly measure time?) or simply a length of time.
As a Bible-believing Christian, I agree with much of what you write. I do not pretend to be a scholar, biblical or Hebrew. But I certainly know what the Lord tells me through the Bible. I believe by faith that the Bible is true. I also believe by faith that God is the Creator of the Earth and everything on the Earth. So if I believe that way, why wouldn’t I be able to believe that God created something on the face of the Earth BEFORE us? God is all powerful and all knowing. He who created man, woman and all animals is not going to be stumped by dinosaurs or wooly mammoths! God’s Word is the answer to any question so those who want to argue should actually read it (& understand it!) before entering into a discussion about it. God loves them too so we must feel compassion and love for them! I pray God bless you all.
I can agree with you that God’s Word is true. I am a Bible-believing Christian and this world would be a lot easier if more people would read and study the Word. Especially if they want to argue about it! I do not agree with arguing because God has given us all we need to know. He created us and our world so how can He possibly be stumped by wooly mammoths? God is all powerful; why wouldn’t He be able to create different versions of life on this Earth? I have a deep faith in God and in His Word; therefore I believe it is true. Wooly mammoths had their time and now we have ours. God’s timing is perfect and all these “arguments” will mean nothing on the day Jesus comes back to take us to our real home with Him. Until that day, I pray God continues to bless you no matter what you believe.
Fantastic! God allows for dinosaurs right there in His Word without contradiction. One less thing to wonder about and one more thing to bolster my confidence in God’s Word. Whenever I see the exactness of God’s Word it builds up my willingness to believe more of it. I really appreciate that my heavenly Father has such a thing for perfection. : )
Thank you Ken.
Hi Amanda,
I just wanted to respond to your statement.
“…this world would be a lot easier if more people would read and study the Word. Especially if they want to argue about it! ”
I think if someone wants to argue about the Word of God they should not study it. That way we who do study it can shut them down quick and feel good doing it. ; ) Like Ken’s wedding example.
I don’t want to be mistaken for the obnoxious wedding attendant, but I have concerns about assuming the Bible is accurate and the science is not. I’m not yet convinced that the Bible is truly God’s word, as it was written by man and has been translated time and time again. And the argument that man may have existed in some form or another before God “started overâ€, seems very convenient and impossible to prove.
zanzibar, I hear time and again the statement that the Bible was translated so many times…making the assumption that things got changed along the line to control people.
They have the dead sea scrolls online now. The translation is the same. The old process of writing bibles was serious. A missed comma and the bible was completely rewritten again.
Dear Ken,
I was surfing the Web for sites that mention the Gap Theory and I came across your article “Creation, Science, and Genesis 1.” I’m not a Hebrew scholar (not even close) but I’ve written a book defending the Gap Theory and I talk about the 25 verses in Genesis (other than Genesis 1:2) where HAYAH is in the Qal Perfect. You may have already posted them, but if you haven’t, I hope this saves you some time. Here they are:
(The verses are from the KJV where HAYAH is translated, “WAS”)
1. Gen 3:1 “Now the serpent WAS more subtle than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?â€
2. Gen 3:20 “And Adam called his wife’s name Eve; because she WAS the mother of all living.â€
3. Gen 4:2 “And she again bare his brother Abel. And Abel was a keeper of sheep, but Cain WAS a tiller of the ground.â€
4. Gen 4:20 “And Adah bare Jabal: he WAS the father of such as dwell in tents, and of such as have cattle.â€
5. Gen 4:21 “And his brother’s name was Jubal: he WAS the father of all such as handle the harp and organ.â€
6. Gen 6:9 “These are the generations of Noah: Noah WAS a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God.â€
7. Gen 7:6 “And Noah was six hundred years old when the flood of waters WAS upon the earth.â€
8. Gen 10:9 “He WAS a mighty hunter before the LORD: wherefore it is said, Even as Nimrod the mighty hunter before the LORD.â€
9. Gen 13:6 “And the land was not able to bear them, that they might dwell together: for their substance WAS great, so that they could not dwell together.â€
10. Gen 15:17 “And it came to pass, that, when the sun went down, and it WAS dark, behold a smoking furnace, and a burning lamp that passed between those pieces.â€
11. Gen 26:1 “And there was a famine in the land, beside the first famine that WAS in the days of Abraham. And Isaac went unto Abimelech king of the Philistines unto Gerar.â€
12. Gen 26:28 “And they said, We saw certainly that the LORD WAS with thee: and we said, Let there be now an oath betwixt us, even betwixt us and thee, and let us make a covenant with thee;â€
13. Gen 29:17 “Leah was tender eyed; but Rachel WAS beautiful and well favoured.â€
14. Gen 30:29 “And he said unto him, Thou knowest how I have served thee, and how thy cattle WAS with me.â€
15. Gen 31:40 “Thus I WAS; in the day the drought consumed me, and the frost by night; and my sleep departed from mine eyes.â€
16. Gen 36:12 “And Timna WAS concubine to Eliphaz Esau’s son; and she bare to Eliphaz Amalek: these were the sons of Adah Esau’s wife.â€
17. Gen 37:2 “These are the generations of Jacob. Joseph, being seventeen years old, WAS feeding the flock with his brethren; and the lad was with the sons of Bilhah, and with the sons of Zilpah, his father’s wives: and Joseph brought unto his father their evil report.â€
18. Gen 38:21 “Then he asked the men of that place, saying, Where is the harlot, that was openly by the way side? And they said, There WAS no harlot in this place.â€
19. Gen 38:22 “And he returned to Judah, and said, I cannot find her; and also the men of the place said, that there WAS no harlot in this place.â€
20. Gen 39:22 “And the keeper of the prison committed to Joseph’s hand all the prisoners that were in the prison; and whatsoever they did there, he WAS the doer of it.â€
21. Gen 41:13 “And it came to pass, as he interpreted to us, so it WAS; me he restored unto mine office, and him he hanged.â€
22. Gen 41:53 “And the seven years of plenteousness, that WAS in the land of Egypt, were ended.â€
23. Gen 41:54 “And the seven years of dearth began to come, according as Joseph had said: and the dearth was in all lands; but in all the land of Egypt there WAS bread.â€
24. Gen 41:56 “And the famine WAS over all the face of the earth: And Joseph opened all the storehouses, and sold unto the Egyptians; and the famine waxed sore in the land of Egypt.â€
25. Gen 42:5 “And the sons of Israel came to buy corn among those that came: for the famine WAS in the land of Canaan.â€
While the translation is “WAS” in the KJV, the Hebrew mindset was not like that of English speaking people. HAYAH in the Qal perfect indicated a dynamic condition of becoming rather than a static condition of being. Thus, famine CAME in the land of Canaan, the serpent BECAME more subtle, Eve BECAME the mother of all living, it BECAME dark, no harlot CAME to this place, the flood of waters CAME upon the earth, Rachel CAME TO BE beautiful, etc.
A thorough study of the meaning of HAYAH to the ancient Hebrews clearly reveals that they would have believed the earth BECAME without form and void. The Gap Theory is the only creation theory that fits with what Moses was trying to convey.
Thanks for you article.
Your brother in Christ,
Steve Dill
Very interesting, Ken. I gotta say though, it was a bit like listening to Clinton explain what “is” is. See, it’s not that the world COULD be as old as they say, it’s that it CAN’T be as old – not even close! As a Bible-believing christian, I believe 6 days was 6 days, and that’s why God took pains to tell us the beginning and end of each day – so we could rest assured that He meant what He said.
The more you look at the science and the flood, the easier it becomes to believe God meant 6 days. Answers In Genesis is a great study site that points out all the wishful thinking that has replaced strong theory in science. But the main “proof” we have that all was created in 6 days, and why the meaning of “was” is not important, is that if animals lived and died before man came on the scene, that means that sin and death were on the earth before the fall. As a Bible-believing christian, i can not and do not believe that’s true.
Laura,
It seems to me that you didn’t read Ken Brown’s article very well before you launched into attack mode. You say that the Ken can’t be right about the Gap Theory because you believe, “6 days was 6 days.” That’s great, Laura, but that’s exactly what Ken said. Here is his quote:
“And yes, I believe the days were literal 24-hour days. It is hard to read, ‘And the evening and the morning were the first day,’ and think the Author was endeavoring to communicate that what He meant by ‘day’ was an age of hundreds of thousands of years.”
As a fellow Christian, I find your “attack-without-reading” difficult to understand. You see, Laura, we Gap Theory Creationists believe the days were six, literal days too. In fact, if the six days weren’t six, literal, twenty-four hour days, then the Gap Theory is wrong. So how can six, literal 24-hour days be believed by both the Young-Earth Theory and the Gap Theory? The answer is simple. We both agree that the days were six, literal 24-hour days. The difference is that Young-Earth Creationists believe the six days started at Genesis 1:1. Gap-Theory Creationists believe the six days started at Genesis 1:3. Look closely at the context.
Each day in Genesis One starts with a statement like, “And God said, ‘Let…,”
Each day in Genesis One ends with a statement like, “And the evening and the morning were…”
God placed these points of demarcation throughout the text so that we would know when a day started and when a day ended. Now note: Genesis 1:1-2 is not part of the first day. It is not until verse three that God places the first point of demarcation. Day One began at Genesis 1:3. The heavens and the earth had already been created before Genesis 1:3. This is the precise layout of the words because this is the precise chronology the Holy Spirit wants to teach us.
The Young-Earth Theory makes this erroneous assumption: Because it took God six days to create the things listed in Genesis One, then it must have been six thousand years ago.
Why is that an erroneous assumption? Because, it is an illogical assumption. Ken talked about how he and his son built a tree house. Now, what if Ken told you that it took him six days to build it? Would you be able to tell in what year it was built? Of course you couldn’t. It would be illogical to assume a particular year just from the fact that it took six days. Revealing how long a project takes doesn’t tell you when the project was started. The Bible doesn’t tell us when Genesis 1:1 started. Using the genealogies as a means of finding a starting point can only go back as far as Adam. It can’t go back any father because there are no genealogies before Adam. So even if you prove that Adam was created 6,000 to 8,000 years ago, you don’t PROVE the heavens and the earth were created 6,000 to 8,000 years ago. Besides, most Gap-Theory Creationists also believe that Adam was created 6,000- to 8,000 years ago.
I find it difficult to understand why a Christian would say something so disparaging about God’s choice of words as you did. You said, “the meaning of ‘was’ is not important.”
That is an insult to me because my Lord Jesus said:
(Mat 5:18 KJV) “For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.”
It is an insult to me because the Holy Spirit chose when, where, how, and to whom He would reveal His truth. Genesis was written in ancient Hebrew, to ancient Hebrews, for ancient Hebrews, by an ancient Hebrew. It seems pretty arrogant for someone in the 21st century to tell us which words in the Bible are important and which words aren’t important. Which other words in the Bible aren’t important?
Let me remind you what the Bible says about its choice of words:
(Mat 24:35 KJV) “Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.”
(Psa 119:89 KJV) “For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven.”
(Isa 40:8 KJV) “The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever.”
(1 Pet 1:25 KJV) “But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you.”
(2 Tim 3:16 KJV) “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:”
The choice of HAYAH (the word translated as “was” in Genesis 1:2) IS IMPORTANT. The Holy Spirit picked THAT word, in THAT language, to THAT people, because it was THE word that expressed “a dynamic coming-to-be,” and not “a static condition-of-being.” The fact that we English speakers don’t think like ancient Hebrews, does not change the meanings of the words the Holy Spirit spoke. English falters in the ability to distinguish between various meanings of this word. Many other languages don’t. Look at a Spanish translation, for instance. Spanish has two forms of the verb “to be.” They are SER and ESTAR. SER tends to denote a more static state of being while ESTAR tends to denote a more dynamic state of being. In Spanish, a form of ESTAR is used in Genesis 1:2.
“Y la tierra estaba desordenada y vacía,”
In today’s English, “The earth became without form, and void ,” is a more precise translation than, “The earth was without form, and void.”
The Holy Spirit used the precise word He wanted to use because it conveyed the precise meaning He wanted to express. I believe Ken did a very good job at clarifying this point. Don’t chew out Ken Brown for God’s choice of words. Take it up with the Holy Spirit. The only way we can know what the Bible really tells us is if we really look at every word and really understand the precise meanings of what the Holy Spirit said. We can’t do that if we decide that some words aren’t important just because they don’t agree with what WE want to believe.
In addition, the passages in Romans 5:12 and 1 Corinthians 15:21 that talk about sin and death entering the world, clearly reveal that God is talking about the sin and death of MEN, not animals.
Rom. 5:12 “Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all MEN, for that all have sinned:” (KJV)
1 Cor. 15:21-23 “For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. {22} For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. {23} But every MAN in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ’s at his coming.” (KJV)
“ALL have sinned,” is referring to men; not animals. Animals can’t sin. If “all die” means animals, then “shall all be made alive” means that every fly, gnat, earthworm, spider, mosquito, amoeba, etc. will receive resurrection bodies like Christ’s. It’s pretty obvious that Paul was talking about PEOPLE, not ANIMALS in these passages. Yes, the Bible says that God made the animals vegetarians, (in Genesis 1:30) but being vegetarian doesn’t mean they didn’t die. Cows are vegetarian, but cows still die. Where in the Bible does it say that animals DIDN’T die before Adam fell? As a veterinarian, I really want to find the verse that says animals didn’t die before Adam fell, but I can’t find it. If you can find that verse for me, I would be very, very grateful. In the meantime, my advice to you is to quit making unwarranted attacks, and quit blindly accepting what others tell you without checking it out for yourself. Find out what the Bible DOES and DOESN’T say. It will make a difference in what the Holy Spirit DOES or DOESN’T teach you.
Steven Dill, D.V.M.
Wow, Steven! I must admit I was a bit perplexed about why giving my opinion of why the interpretation of “was” is not important in the big picture would cause anyone to perceive that as an “attack on Ken”. It’s ok – it’s not the first time I’ve posted to a blog and been misunderstood. They’ll never take the place, for clarity’s sake, of good ‘ol conversation.
First (on a lighter note to clear the air), if you think that animals don’t sin, you haven’t witnessed my young wiener dog stealing treats from my old, blind dog, and getting caught at it. I don’t have to say a word – if he sees that I saw it, shame and guilt overtakes him.
Let me start with a question. As a Christian, what do you say to a mother who’s child dies of leukemia? Or to a friend that was brutally raped, or to a family after 9-11? In other words, how do you explain evil in the world, pain and suffering, and what do you say when someone asks “Where was God?”
See, I believe every word of the Bible is important too. The scripture you used by Paul to the Romans and Corinthians spell out that sin and death came by Adam, but we need to go to Romans 8 to get the full picture – the big picture.
“For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us. For the earnest expectation of the creation eagerly waits for the revealing of the sons of God. For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it in hope; because the creation itself also will be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation groans and labors with birth pangs together until now. Not only that, but we also who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, eagerly waiting for the adoption, the redemption of our body.” ~Romans 8:18-23
God called His creation “very good”. Then, creation was “subjected” – past tense, by an outside force, not willingly. What God called “very good” would not have been corrupt. So, when was His creation subjected to futility, not willingly, thus suffering the bondage of corruption? Genesis 3:14-19
At one time, the earth, animals, and man were in peaceful harmony and coexistence. If God’s creation was corrupt – cursed with death anytime before Genesis 3 – that means we can offer no credible defense for why there is evil, pain and suffering in this world. His Word tells us God is good, loving, just, and merciful, and that sin and death came by Adam – the point I was making as to why the interpretation of “was” wasn’t important in the big picture.
Oh! I see!! My little avatar guy has a stern look on his face. I get it now.
I didn’t pick that – it just happened.
Laura,
I apologize for thinking you were attacking Ken. It just seemed to me that since you were telling all of us that what Ken said was NOT true, (i.e., a lie) then you were accusing Ken of not telling the truth (i.e., he was a liar). Unless, of course you were putting him into the category of being so ignorant, or so arrogant, or so easily deceived, that he didn’t know the truth from a lie. Why else would he say things that aren’t true? Something has to be wrong with him for teaching untrue things, right? Why else would you think he tells lies?
Yes, let’s clear the air, but before we do, I want you to answer two of my questions:
1.) “How can six, literal 24-hour days be believed by both the Young-Earth Theory and the Gap Theory?”
Ken said they were “six, literal days.” You said they were “six, literal days.” But then you said that Ken was wrong because they were “six, literal days?” I’m confused. How do “six, literal days” not mean the same thing as “six, literal days?”
2.) “Where in the Bible does it say that animals DIDN’T die before Adam fell?”
Romans 5:12 and 1 Corinthians 15:21-23 say nothing about animals; these verses are talking only about humans. Yes, Genesis 1:30 says that God gave animals green plants for food, but it doesn’t say they didn’t die. Let’s look at Genesis 1:30 to see what it says, and what it doesn’t say.
(Gen 1:30 KJV) “And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.”
God mentions three categories of animals: 1) Beasts of the earth, 2) fowls of the air, and 3) things that creep upon the earth. Now look very carefully; He doesn’t mention animals that swim in the sea. Why is this important? Because there are some species of marine animals that are physically unable to feed on plant material alone. Baleen whales, basking sharks, and other filter-feeders have no ability to segregate plant material from animal material in their diets. Baleen whales take in large mouthfuls of seawater, and then partially close their mouths while pressing their tongues forward toward the rows of baleen “teeth.” This filters out the water so that the remaining material can be swallowed. Seawater contains more than plants. Baleen whales swallow shrimp, fish, squid, crabs, and other delicious things. Whatever is in the water, winds up in their stomachs. Since God had already commanded the waters to teem with those creatures BEFORE Adam sinned, baleen whales’ stomachs also teemed with those creatures BEFORE Adam sinned. If you were a tiny octopus in the newly created ocean, it wouldn’t make any difference to you if Adam had sinned yet or not. If you were swallowed by a baleen whale, you would be digested by a baleen whale. That meant you died! Some animals died before Adam sinned.
Now, even though God gave animals green plants for food, the Bible doesn’t say that animals were not unintentionally swallowed along with those green plants. Again, this is important because a great number species of animals eat green plants, and as they do so they also eat the animals living on those plants. When a cow swallows a big mouthful of grass, it also swallows the microscopic insects, mites, nematodes, etc. that live on the grass. They swallow even larger creatures. Several years ago, here in Kentucky we had a sudden and tremendous increase in the number of spontaneous abortions in mares. Foals were dying by the thousands. The cause? There was an outbreak of bagworms (some people call them tent-caterpillars or webworms) that year and these tiny animals contained a chemical which when digested caused sudden fetal death in those pregnant mares. How did the bagworms get swallowed by the mares? The mares ate grass and leaves that harbored those tiny animals. Horses are vegetarians, but they swallow animals just as often as cows do. It is impossible to keep some animals from being swallowed by other animals, even if those other animals are vegetarians. Even if you have been a strict vegetarian your whole life, you have unintentionally eaten large amounts of microscopic animals. I think horses and cows and camels and zebras and reindeer and all the other vegetarian animals would have swallowed lots of tiny animals before Adam sinned. The Bible doesn’t give us any clue that there were no microscopic insects, mites, nematodes, etc. before Adam sinned. We have to assume that God created them along with everything else He created. If not, then where did they come from? Some animals were unintentionally swallowed and they were killed in the process.
Is being eaten and digested (even accidentally) the only way that animals can die? No, every time a herd of bison moves from one end of the prairie to the other, uncountable numbers of small animals are stepped on and killed. Insects, earthworms, spiders, snakes, lizards, and a whole host of microscopic animals get killed every time the buffaloes shuffle off to Buffalo. The soil is so full of these animals that it would be impossible for a buffalo, or a caribou, or a rhinoceros, or an elephant, etc. to take so much as one step without potentially killing these creatures of God. Was the soil any different before Adam sinned? I have to assume the soil teemed with tiny soil creatures because God created them to live there, and He commanded them to be fruitful and multiply.
You talk about animals living, “in peaceful harmony and coexistence,” but how harmonious would it have been for a soil nematode in the middle of a buffalo herd? How much coexistence did a shrimp experience in the belly of a whale? There is nothing in the Bible (or in science) that gives even the tiniest bit of evidence that the “peaceful harmony and coexistence” you suggest has ever happened. Again, where is the Bible verse that says animals DIDN’T die? It’s a beautiful, dreamlike, utopian thought, but unless there is Biblical or scientific evidence for it, I’m going to put it into the category of a man-created myth.
Next issue: Your young wiener dog that steals treats from you old, blind dog.
Let me remind you that I am a veterinarian. I have been a veterinarian for twenty-five years so I have some right to claim at least some authority on this subject. I know for absolutely certain that your little wiener dog does not feel shame and guilt. What you see as shame and guilt is actually an avoidance behavior known as submissive posturing. If you don’t believe me, then seek the advice of any qualified, board-certified animal behaviorist. (i.e. doggie shrink) They all say the same thing. If you relate this story to them, they will tell you that your wiener dog only acts this way because it doesn’t want to be punished by you. The animal behaviorist would know from your story that you have “punished” your wiener dog in the past when it “stole” the old, blind dog’s treats. Now, “punished” doesn’t mean that you kicked your dog, or hit your dog, or anything like that, but it does mean that when you caught your wiener dog in the act of “stealing,” you did something known as NEGATIVE REINFORCEMENT. You scolded it, yelled at it, stomped your feet, made a loud noise, or did something that the wiener dog perceived as unpleasant. More than likely, this happened more than once. Your wiener dog has learned to associate “stealing” a treat with an unpleasant experience if he sees that you saw it. This “shame and guilt” look is nothing more than a form of body language that dogs share. This behavior is a way for a subordinate dog to communicate to a dominant dog that he (or she) is “boss.” It’s the way the subordinate dog tells the dominant dog, “You don’t have to bite me and hurt me to prove your dominance. I’m publicly displaying to all the pack that you are Mr. Numero Uno…. Don’t hurt me.”
One of the biggest problems that dog owners complain about is doggy poop in the house. The owners come home and know immediately that Fido has pooped in the house again. “He always acts so guilty when he does it,” they say. So, Fido does the same type of avoidance behavior that your wiener dog does. It looks like guilt and shame, but it isn’t. Fido knows that the last ten times his owner came home and found dog poop on the rug, his owner swatted him with the newspaper, spanked him with his hand, scolded him, beat him, or something else very unpleasant. Fido associates poop on the floor and the owner coming home with “punishment.” Fido doesn’t associate the act of pooping on the floor with being punished, however. How do we know that? Animal behaviorists have documented evidence to prove it. They set up a hidden video camera in the house of a dog that has learned this behavior (“If there is dog poop on the floor when my master comes home, I will be punished.) and then they place a pile of poop from another dog on the floor. They record what happens when the master comes home. Here’s what happens: Fido will act the same way. He displays this same type of “guilt and shame.” It’s not his poop; he’s not guilty. He didn’t poop on the floor; there is no reason for shame. But he knows he will be punished if there is poop on the floor when the master comes home. It is a learned behavior. It is not guilt or shame. Animal behaviorists have shown over and over and over again that the best thing to do is to ignore the poop on the floor. Wait until the dog is out of sight and then clean it up. Don’t clean it up while the dog is there because it may trigger another disgusting (but normal) doggie behavior known as copraphagy. They eat their own poop to keep the area clean because they think that’s what you want done with poop. The best way to avoid improper elimination is to give POSITIVE reinforcements (treats/praise) when it goes outside and eliminates. Give NEGATIVE reinforcements ONLY WHEN CAUGHT IN THE ACT, and never make it PHYSICAL. Every animal behaviorist I have ever studied under has said the same thing. POSITIVE REINFORCEMENT WORKS a hundred times better than NEGATIVE REINFORCEMENT. (It’s a shame some parents can’t learn that lesson about raising children.)
I know we all want to think that our dogs are capable of such lofty thoughts as property rights, kindness, generosity, and benevolence, but dogs don’t (can’t) do that. Out in the wild, younger, more active, more dominant dogs take food away from older, weaker, less dominant dogs all the time without the least hint of remorse, guilt, or shame.
That’s the scientific reason why your dog doesn’t feel guilt. Your wiener dog is not sinning when it takes a treat from your old, blind dog. Dogs can’t sin. Now, here is the Biblical reason I use to show pet owners why their dogs don’t sin. (People often ask me if their dog will go to heaven when it dies. I use that as an opportunity to share the Gospel. I reply by telling them that it would be a shame if their dog did, but they didn’t. I let the conversation take off from there.)
Dogs can’t sin because sin is NOT bad behavior that irritates or displeases US. We are not the ones who decide what sin is or isn’t. Sin is when someone violates the commands of God.
God says, “Don’t do this…” We do it anyway, so that is sin.
God says, “Do this…” We don’t do it, so that is a sin too.
Here are some verses:
(1 John 3:4 KJV) “Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.”
(Rom 4:15 NASB) “for the Law brings about wrath, but where there is no law, neither is there violation.”
(Rom 5:13 NASB) “for until the Law sin was in the world; but sin is not imputed when there is no law.”
Unless an animal violates a command of God, it is not sinning. Unless a law is transgressed, there is no sin. When an eagle swoops down and rips open a cute baby bunny rabbit, it may be disgusting to us, but it is not a violation of any command from God. When a pack of wolves circle an injured calf, and then go in for the kill, they are not breaking any law of God. God has given no Law to animals that prohibit this. Find the verses in the Bible that tell lions not to eat prey. If eating prey is a sin for lions, then God sins:
(Job 38:39-41 NASB) “Can you hunt the prey for the lion, Or satisfy the appetite of the young lions, {40} When they crouch in their dens, And lie in wait in their lair? {41} Who prepares for the raven its nourishment, When its young cry to God, And wander about without food?”
God is telling Job here that it is He, The Lord God Almighty of the universe, Who “hunts” the prey for the lion and prepares nourishment for ravens. What do ravens eat?
“Common ravens are mainly scavengers. They eat a wide array of animal foods, including arthropods, amphibians, small mammals, birds, reptiles, and carrion. They are attracted to carrion and eat also the insects that feed on carrion (chiefly on maggots and beetles). They are also known to eat the afterbirth of ewes and other large mammals. Vegetable foods include grains, acorns, fruits, and buds. Stomach analyses show that the diet is made up primarily of mammalian flesh, followed by insects and birds.”
Boarman, W., B. Heinrich. 1999. Corvus corax: Common Raven. The Birds of North America, 476: 1-32.
If eating animals is a sin for Ravens, then God is the one who makes them sin. God doesn’t sin! God gave no law to ravens not to kill and eat animals. Ravens don’t sin. Neither does your wiener dog.
Well, I don’t have the time right not to go into explaining suffering. Just let me say that in my 59 years on this planet, I have become familiar with suffering. As a child, I had a baby brother die. In high school I had a friend who never came back from Vietnam. My wife and I experienced the death of my father, then her father, then her mother, and then my mother. I held my mother’s hand and sang to her as she took her final breaths. I have wept with parents whose children have died. I have shared the loss of friends whose husbands or wives have died. I’ve recently grieved with a young couple whose baby miscarried. Can I explain suffering? Yes, sometimes. No, not always. But, do I know the ultimate source of suffering? Yes, it is Lucifer, not Adam. You say that Adam was the first to sin on earth? The Bible says differently.
1st) The first sin was committed by Lucifer. The first sin came in the form of a question. Now, asking a question is not a sin unless it is asked with the intent of causing someone else to sin. Leading someone into sin is actually a greater sin. Lucifer twisted the truth of God’s command so that Eve would question God’s character. Lucifer committed the first sin on earth.
Gen 3:1 “Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the LORD God had made. He said to the woman, ‘Did God really say, ‘You must not eat from any tree in the garden’?’” (NIV)
2nd) Next, Lucifer came right out and lied to her. This was sin number two:
Gen 3:4 “‘You will not surely die,’ the serpent said to the woman.” (NIV)
3rd) Then Lucifer made a statement containing a partial truth. It was a half-lie, intended to cause Eve to think she could be like God. This was the third sin:
Gen 3:5 “For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” (NIV)
4th) The fourth sin was when Eve took the fruit and ate it.
Gen 3:6a “When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it” (NIV)
5th) Sin number five was when Eve caused Adam to sin.
Gen 3:6b “She also gave some to her husband, who was with her,”
6th) Sin number six was when Adam ate the fruit. (Some theologians say that the Bible associates the number six with sin and with man. This may be the reason.)
Gen 3:6c “and he ate it.”
Adam actually committed the sixth sin. Five sins had already been committed in the world before Adam sinned. Adam didn’t cause sin to enter into the world, but he did cause sin to enter into the “world system.” The word used for “world” in Romans 5:12 is KOSMOS, and it means more than just the physical world; it means the world system, the world of man. God wasn’t saying that sin first entered the physical world by Adam; He was saying that Adam’s sin was the introduction of sin into man’s world. Adam was the one given authority over the KOSMOS, so it was because of him that sin entered the KOSMOS. It was because of his sin that death came upon all men.
The Gap Theory doesn’t say there is no such thing as sin and suffering. The Gap Theory places the source of sin and suffering on the one whom the Bible says is the source of sin and suffering, Lucifer.
If you would like to know why I believe the Gap Theory, I suggest you go to my web page and order a copy of my book that explains why the Bible and Science defend it:
http://www.gaptheoryofcreation.com
Other than that, I have no more to say,
Steven Dill, D.V.M.
Hi Steven. Thank you for the apology – not necessary but appreciated.
I would like to have this conversation with you, but there are so many obstacles in the way and they must be addressed first:
You said… “It just seemed to me that since you were telling all of us that what Ken said was NOT true, (i.e., a lie)”
1) I never said that.
You said… “then you were accusing Ken of not telling the truth (i.e., he was a liar).”
2) I never said what he said wasn’t true, hence, I was not accusing Ken nor calling him a liar.
You said… “Unless, of course you were putting him into the category of being so ignorant, or so arrogant, or so easily deceived, that he didn’t know the truth from a lie.”
3) Since I only gave my opinion and never addressed anything directly Ken said other than why “was” wasn’t important in the big picture, everything you said here is simply conjecture about what I had in my mind about Ken personally, which was nothing other than he has good taste in the art used on this page.
You said… “Why else would he say things that aren’t true? Something has to be wrong with him for teaching untrue things, right? Why else would you think he tells lies?”
4) I never said what he said wasn’t true, so again, you lost me here.
You said… “But then you said that Ken was wrong because they were “six, literal days?”
5) I never said that Ken was wrong, so again, you lost me here.
Hey! I appreciate a good debate as much as the next person, but you have read so much more into what was originally written that it’s futile to continue until we can come to agreement about what was actually said. My original post is still there, so please have another look.
Thanks!
Laura