|
|
|
|
|
Full-Grown: A Mature Creation by Juan J. Guajardo
|
|
|
PAUL
|
2017-07-24 11:12:59, 조회 : 2,052 |
|
|
Full-Grown: A Mature Creation
Posted on October 18, 2011 by guajardo7
by Juan J. Guajardo
We speak out against abortion, as well we should; and we raise some awareness. We speak out against homosexual unions, as we should; and we persuade a few people. We speak out against civil government’s funding of fetal stem cell research, against euthanasia, and against cloning; and we might persuade a few here and there. Evolutionists raise doubts about God’s creation and design, and they forge an educational system for a century. That system produces evolutionists who become anti-Christian civic and cultural leaders.
While Christians busy ourselves addressing the issues of the day, evolutionists attack the biblical worldview at its root: Genesis. If the historicity of the creation, fall, and redemption of man can be sold as mythology or legends, the evolutionist has won half the war.
God either created Adam and Eve, or he didn’t. If he did, how much of the biblical account and declarations are true? The answers to these questions determine a person’s outlook on life and the world. Bible believers and followers of Jesus Christ must address these questions. Here’s my attempt.
A FULLY-FUNCTIONAL CREATION
Because we are surrounded by things and by people that obviously had a beginning, we are tempted to jump to the conclusion that everything had a beginning. Such a conclusion, however, would be a fatal leap into the abyss of absurdity. It would be fatal to religion. It would also be fatal to science and to reason.
Why? Did I not say that everything in time and space had a beginning? Isn’t that the same thing as saying simply that everything had a beginning? By no means. It is simply logically and scientifically impossible that everything had a beginning. Why? If everything that exists once had a beginning, then there had to be a time when nothing existed.
(R. C. Sproul. Essential Truths of the Christian Faith, p. 57)
Since nothing can be created by something that does not exist, only an existent being can create something. God is eternal, without beginning and without ending; his human creation is without ending but not without beginning. (Gordon J. Spykman. Reformational Theology: A New Paradigm for Doing Dogmatics, pp. 148-149). This cosmological explanation for a creation created by a Creator must be expounded without neglecting teleological arguments (implying “a purpose or direction”), rational (implying “a mind behind” creation), ontological (implying “a God who imprinted such a consciousness”), or the moral (implying “an innate awareness of a code of law”). (Henry F. Schaefer. Science and Christianity: Conflict or Coherence, p. 47) Unlike some liberal believers in Jesus Christ (and some conservatives as well), Sproul, Spykman, and Schaefer resist the temptation to speculate and read into Scripture ideas that will support their preconceived notions. And if differences exist among Christians, the contrast is drastically more pronounced when Christians are compared with unbelievers; many Christians believe in divine creation while most non-Christians in “chance.” Without trying to be syncretistic, we might consider Spykman’s words: “Could it be that from both sides we have locked ourselves into a set of dubious assumptions, false dilemmas, and methodological decisions which offer no promise of a happy outcome?” (p. 151)
While “a happy outcome” is not necessarily our goal in delving into the subject of creation, we would do well to keep in mind that since there is so much knowledge that God has chosen not to share with His creation, a real need exists for discernment of what He has revealed, things not of private interpretation but accepted by the pillar and ground of truth. To that end I have directed this synthesis. I have come to believe that God created everything in six 24-hour days, all in a mature, fully functional world of beings. I agree with the Westminster Shorter Catechism’s answer to Question 9: “The work of creation is God’s making all things of nothing, by the word of his power, in the space of six days, and all very good.” Let us proceed by tracing Moses’ description of the facts in Genesis 1, according to the New King James Version, to be used throughout this paper.
DAY 1
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters. Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good; and God divided the light from the darkness. God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. So the evening and the morning were the first day. (vv. 1-5)
John Calvin pointed out that Moses did not use the word “ruy, (yatsar,) which signifies to frame or forms but arb, (bara,) which signifies to create. Therefore [Moses’] meaning is that the world was made out of nothing.” (ewordtoday.com/comments/genesis/calvin/genesis1.htm) Out of nothing God created the earth; then He spoke the light into being—immediately. The text gives no logical or grammatical reason for justifying the view of a long period of time between His speaking and light’s being. Mathematician Vern Poythress agrees; after deliberating linguistic and logical issues, he says: “I conclude, then, that Genesis 1:1 describes the original act of creating out of nothing.” (Redeeming Science: A God-Centered Approach, p. 74)
The Maker of everything defines day and night in this passage, but a man might argue that there is an inconsistency here since the sun, stars and moon were not created until the fourth day. Another Calvinistic comment addresses this concern: “[T]he Lord, by the very order of the creation, bears witness that he holds in his hand the light, which he is able to impart to us without the sun and moon.” (ewordtoday.com/comments/genesis/calvin/genesis1.htm)
DAY 2
Then God said, “Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.” Thus God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament; and it was so. And God called the firmament Heaven. So the evening and the morning were the second day. (vv. 6-8)
The word firmament comes from Latin not Greek. But the Hebrew “eyqur (rakia) comprehends not only the whole region of the air, but whatever is open above.” (Calvin) Those who know Spanish can understand how the word cielo can mean sky/firmament, or heaven; the same dynamic exists in these verses. The idea of waters in the sky can sound unlikely, but King David is inspired to declare God’s miracles in Psalm 104:3, “He lays the beams of His upper chambers in the waters….” And again in Psalm 148:4, “Praise Him, you heavens of heavens, and you waters above the heavens!” Who are we to say that there is no water in the sky? Is that not the place from where the rain comes?
DAY 3
Then God said, “Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear”; and it was so. And God called the dry land Earth, and the gathering together of the waters He called Seas. And God saw that it was good. Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb that yields seed, and the fruit tree that yields fruit according to its kind, whose seed is in itself, on the earth”; and it was so. And the earth brought forth grass, the herb that yields seed according to its kind, and the tree that yields fruit, whose seed is in itself according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. So the evening and the morning were the third day. (vv. 9-13)
As another evening and day come and go, God creates again, this time He first separates the land from the water, that His creation may live without being flooded prematurely. And as with the first two days, I see no reason to suspect that millions, let alone billions, of years go by between days. After all, how long will the tree take to yield fruit and the seed to multiply itself?
DAY 4
Then God said, “Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs and seasons, and for days and years; and let them be for lights in the firmament of the heavens to give light on the earth”; and it was so. Then God made two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night. He made the stars also. God set them in the firmament of the heavens to give light on the earth, and to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good. So the evening and the morning were the fourth day. (vv. 14-19)
Here might be a good place to point out God’s provision in preparing the housing for His creation throughout the week. On Day 1 He created the habitat for the celestial beings of Day 4. On Day 2 He created a place for the sea creatures and birds of Day 5 to live. On Day 3 He dried the earth so that the land animals and man of Day 6 could live on dry ground. Indeed, a God of order, the one Creator and Provider.
Scientists may argue the merits of calling the moon a light since, as we know, it mostly reflects the light from the sun. However, one must keep in mind that Moses was communicating to the common, average Hebrews, many of whom did not even read or write. His was not an astronomical exposition but a plain explanation of historical events in everyday language, not withstanding our romantic concept today of the words of Shakespeare and King James.
But in giving power to the sun and moon to “rule” the day and night respectively, does God possibly give up some of His own power? Calvin did not think so: “God governs the days and nights by the ministry of the sun and moon, because he has them as his charioteers to convey light suited to the season.”
DAY 5
Then God said, “Let the waters abound with an abundance of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the face of the firmament of the heavens.” So God created great sea creatures and every living thing that moves, with which the waters abounded, according to their kind, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. And God blessed them, saying, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth.” So the evening and the morning were the fifth day. (vv. 20-23)
On this day God created the beings of the air and those of the sea. Theologian Louis Berkhof aptly explains the commonality of these animals: “Birds and fishes belong together, because there is a great similarity in their organic structure. Moreover, they are characterized by an instability and mobility which they have in common with the element in which they move, in distinction from the solid ground.” (Systematic Theology, p. 156) Berkhof also points out that, as with the other creatures, these “too were created after their kind, that is the species were created.”
We should notice that God created the birds with the ability to reproduce through their eggs. In other words, the chicken came before the egg.
DAY 6
Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth the living creature according to its kind: cattle and creeping thing and beast of the earth, each according to its kind”; and it was so. And God made the beast of the earth according to its kind, cattle according to its kind, and everything that creeps on the earth according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all [or “all the wild animals of] the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. Then God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”
And God said, “See, I have given you every herb that yields seed which is on the face of all the earth, and every tree whose fruit yields seed; to you it shall be for food. Also, to every beast of the earth, to every bird of the air, and to everything that creeps on the earth, in which there is life, I have given every green herb for food”; and it was so. Then God saw everything that He had made, and indeed it was very good. So the evening and the morning were the sixth day. (vv. 24-31)
Interestingly, Moses gives no hint of a plan for tiny creatures to evolve into other, different types of creatures. He did not speak of one eye coming into existence, developing into two and beginning the making of a nose or ear…and all from a one little creature over a very long period of time.
As God continued His work of that week long ago, He was preparing all creation for His jewel, for the apple of His eye, for him whom He made in His own image, so that man would have a domain over which to take dominion. It is fascinating that God created everything in an order of increasing intimacy to Himself. He created the heavens and the earth; He began to fill the earth with life; then from the earth itself He created Adam—a fitting reminder of our own creatureliness. But we should never overlook the fact that man is not an animal; man was created sinless and with the capacity to commune and live with God forever. So from dust to dust our bodies come and go, but because we carry that image, our eternal being will last forever.
DAY 7
And then God rested from all the creating that He had done. Was He tired of working? Did millions (or billions) of years of creation fatigue Him to the point that He needed another million or billion years to rest? Moses did not seem to think so, as evidenced by his words regarding the Fourth Commandment:
Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the LORD your God. In it you shall do no work; you, nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your male servant, nor your female servant, nor your cattle, nor your stranger who is within your gates. For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it. (Exodus 20:8-11)
How likely is it that Moses was speaking of seven 24-hour days in the Hebrew context yet a long period of time in God’s case of creation? I find no grammatical or logical reason to believe that in either case, especially given the “evening and morning” of Genesis 1, the Holy Spirit was speaking of anything other than days of the 24-hour kind. The idea that one day is as a thousand years with God, and vice versa, does not apply because Peter was admonishing believers not to presume on God’s patience (2 Peter 2:8-9); he was not commenting on the duration of the historical event of creation.
Genesis 2 begins by finishing the first week. The first three verses show God’s delight in what He made, and give us the model for the Fourth Commandment. We must address, however, the question of whether the rest of the chapter describes a second act of creation. Berkhof strongly rejects this idea, and his assertion makes much sense:
The second chapter of Genesis begins the description of the history of man, arranges its material to suit this purpose, and only repeats so much of what was said in the previous chapter, without any consideration of chronological order, as is necessary for the author’s purpose. (p. 158)
Our understanding of creation is of utmost importance not just for the strengthening of our faith but for the redeeming of our culture. This first act of God was not done without laying the chief Cornerstone. From there was built the whole foundation for Christianity, and it is all told in the first of our holy writings. Creationists Ken Ham and Paul Taylor put it well:
Why has the Bible’s most respected [in fact most quoted-from] book become the most attacked in our modern world? Why do the enemies of Christianity put so much effort into defeating that particular book above all others? Because Genesis is the most foundational book of the Bible. And, as the psalmist said, “When the foundations are being destroyed, what can the righteous do?” (Ps. 11:3)
To see the truth of that statement, think about building a house. A building is constructed from the foundations up, for a very important reason. The foundation is crucial to the whole structure. If the foundation is suddenly removed, the structure will almost surely collapse.
In a similar way, Genesis is a foundation for the rest of the Bible. Ultimately, all biblical doctrines of theology (the structure) are based directly or indirectly on the Book of Genesis (the foundation). (The Genesis Solution, p. 25)
TODAY’S OBJECTIONS
In analyzing the elements of the mature creation view, Vern Poythress addresses some common opposition to it.
Objection 1: The Mature Creation View Implies That God Has Deceived Us
Not wanting outright to challenge God’s sovereign right to create something and make it look of any age He wishes, some still wonder what else He would do that might look one age and be another. Poythress answers the question first by using Adam and Eve as an example.
God apparently indicated to Adam, either by direct words or by some other means, that he had newly created Eve from Adam’s rib. Adam said, “…she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man” (Gen. 2:23b). Adam saw a mature woman in front of him, but he did not mistakenly thing that she had already actually lived for some 20 years. (p. 117)
Poythress points out that the only people feeling deceived would be those who already “deny the possibility of mature creation.” Otherwise, why would we have a problem accepting that God’s primary creation would be made capable of reproducing? He did not tell Adam and Eve to grow up and after puberty, when fully grown, be fruitful and multiply. Another argument against the deception objection is Eden itself. It was created with plants and soil ready to yield their fruit, with all necessary chemicals and bacteria for immediate reproduction. The apparent age would not lead Adam or Eve to conclude that the garden was many years old.
Poythress then admits that “a more nuanced objection arises: …records or traces of earlier apparent events from an unreal (ideal) past.” (p. 118) Two examples of such assumed events would be the rings on trees and a belly button on Adam, neither of which would have been a true sign of age in the beginning. But this line of thinking neglects the miracle-making power, which of course was used at creation. For instance, were the wedding guests at Cana to reject Jesus’ wine because the fermentation process was not followed? “Modern scientists often research the past using the assumptions that all apparent ages must be real. But that is their assumption. They assume that God (or their idolatrous substitute for God) must have acted in the past in exactly the same way as they see him operating now.” (p. 120)
Objection 2: Mature Creation Would Falsely Imply That Death Preceded the Fall
This objection is answered with the explanation “that older fossils belong to the projected past” and are therefore not necessarily older. But was there death before the Fall? Certainly not human death. As far as the animals are concerned, however, we must note that God did give Noah the right to kill animals. Whether God did the first killing of an animal to cover Adam and Eve’s nakedness after the Fall is unclear from Scripture and actually really misses the point; for animals were not created in God’s image and therefore do not share the status of God’s final creation. As Poythress says, “[W]e must beware of presuming to dictate to God what kind of world he had to create. It had to be ‘very good’ in his sight; but that is not the same as saying that it must match what some of us may think ideal.” (p. 122)
Objection 3: The Mature Creation View Makes Scientific Investigation Illegitimate
Some scientifically minded individuals insist on God’s responsibility to act consistently and ordinarily. But God never promises objector Davis Young or any other human being that He will behave in the controlled manner and work in a laboratory environment conducive to man’s experiments. Young claims that mature creation makes his work a waste of time “inasmuch as these rocks were created instantaneously in place.” (p. 123) What he does not realize is that he is actually working on quite reliable specimens because “[t]he coherence of processes in ideal time is also an aspect of the display of God’s wisdom, and Young makes a genuine contribution by studying this wisdom.” (p. 124) Any further frustrations might just be symptoms of human pride.
Objection 4: The Mature Creation View Undermines Noah’s Flood
Many geologists and astronomers believe in an old earth, with the former arguing that this view goes against the Flood. But we must remember that the key element in the theory of a mature creation is that the age of things at creation was an apparent age, thus making the ages of rocks and other geological objects of study also apparently of a certain age.
Poythress posits that the mechanics and extent of the flood are critical for scientific understanding. God’s creation was miraculous but not a violation of “so-called ‘natural law.’” (p. 125) God acted supernaturally, whether by degree or design, but always by law—His spoken word, that is. As primary cause of everything, God can use secondary causes like storms and “chance” happenings, and these might make a scientist scratch his head or reject God. But the scientist must come to terms with his inability to explain all things; sometimes God chooses not to reveal things to men. What He has shown us is that the Flood served as a second mature creation, so to speak. (See 2 Peter 3:5-7.) As such, it again gives scientists the appearance of old rocks and fossils.
Now, about the extent of the Flood, Poythress summarizes after a lengthy grammatical and cultural analysis: “The Bible does not say one way or the other whether the waters covered the whole globe or only an extensive area in the ancient Near East—enough to wipe out all the human beings, who in Noah’s time had not yet spread out over all the earth (Gen. 11:8-9).” (p. 129) The story of Noah concentrates on him, not on whether the waters were in liquid form or whether they receded in a way that we would expect today. Therefore, the flood geologists and mainstream geologists both continue to work with their assumptions in mind, the latter seeming to have the upper logical hand given modern radiometric dating. “But when we return to the Bible and let it free us from some of the limitations of the modern worldview, we may recognize that both of these assumptions are just that—assumptions. The assumptions are natural and plausible, but need not necessarily be true.” (p. 130)
AN HONEST FORMER EVOLUTIONIST
The mature creation theory is one of several views on how everything on earth came to be. Some theories are based on an intelligent designer/creator, and some on evolutionary thinking. Some can fall under both of these categories, creation by a God who worked in evolutionary and very slow, long method(s). Proponents of each theory employ logic, grammar, history, morality, and every argument they can think of to support their beliefs. Ultimately, though, belief is just about all it is, for the Bible does not give an abundance of evidence for one particular view over all the others.
We are reminded that God’s Word is useful in preparing the man of God for every good work…echoing the work of God that was “very good.” He has promised to give us grace as we humble ourselves before Him; and when we have the grace to trust and obey Him as babes, He reveals His secrets to us. He brings His chosen ones to that faith according to His own design, just as He created all things, according to His own design.
Colin Patterson, a senior paleontologist at the British Museum, visited America in 1981 and gave the following lecture before the ichthyology department of the Natural History Museum. His candidness and humility are refreshing and should be emulated by everyone seeking truth.
Now, I think always before in my life, when I’ve got up to speak on a subject, I’ve been confident of one thing—that I know more about it than anybody in the room, because I’ve worked on it.
Well, this time that isn’t true. I’m speaking on two subjects, evolutionism and creationism, and I believe it’s true to say that I know nothing whatever about either of them. Now, one of the reasons I started taking this anti-evolutionary view, well, let’s call it non-evolutionary, was last year I had a sudden realization. For over twenty years I had thought that I was working on evolution in some way. One morning I woke up, and something had happened in the night, and it struck me that I had been working on this stuff for twenty years, and there was not one thing I knew about it. That was quite a shock, to learn that one can be so misled for so long.
So either there was something wrong with me, or there was something wrong with evolutionary theory. Naturally I know there’s nothing wrong with me. So for the last few weeks, I’ve tried putting a simple question to various people and groups of people.
The question is: can you tell me anything you know about evolution, any one thing, any one thing that you think is true? I tried that question on the geology staff in the Field Museum of Natural History, and the only answer I got was silence. I tried it on the members of the Evolutionary Morphology Seminar in the University of Chicago, a very prestigious body of evolutionists, and all I got there was silence for a long time, and then eventually one person said, “Yes, I do know one thing. It ought not to be taught in high school.” [Laughter] (Tom Bethell. The Politically Incorrect Guide to Science, pp. 216-217)
CONCLUSION
I have presented the case for what I believe is the most plausible set of facts regarding God’s making of a fully grown, mature creation. This is not the only possible explanation for the truthfulness of the biblical account, and it is not necessary to believe exactly as I do to be an effective apologist. But one thing is clear to me: the enemies of God are busy attacking the very foundation of Christianity.
The biggest challenge for Bible believers is not convincing unbelievers of the veracity and reliability of the Scriptures. The first and greatest task is preaching to the proverbial choir. Christians who do not believe in a literal creation, fall, and redemption of man must repent, study, and let God teach them. As long as some would-be followers of Christ do not believe in the whole Bible as the inspired, infallible Book of God, we run the risk of fighting battles on the issues that flow out of man’s evil nature at the expense of neglecting the basis for man himself. The bad guys are shooting at our foundation; we must not waste bullets shooting at their banners in the air.
This is my Father’s world. If you’re my brother, help me defend it against those who want to steal it and its history. After all, is it not the inheritance of the meek?
. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
선교운동소개
나눔의광장 