The debate over the veracity of the Bible, especially the first
part of Genesis has raged for over a century. During this century,
many scientifically trained people have left the faith they were
raised with because they could not see how to reconcile Genesis and
Science. Many have observed that if the Bible is not historically
true, then there is no reason to believe the claims that the Bible
makes for our lives. I agree with this point. Unfortunately, most
of those people feel that there is no way that the Bible can be
compatible with modern scientific observation. _Foundation, Fall
and Flood_ presents a new harmonization which does not violate
any of the scientific observations but allows the events in Genesis
to be actual, not allegorical, events.
Genesis 1 Issues
Genesis 1 occurs at the beginning of the universe. These are 6
proclamations God made in laying out the laws of the universe.
They are proclamations only -- not actualizations. Nothing was
completed on these days. Thus these can be events immediately at
the beginning of the universe or just prior to the existence of the
universe. The days are viewed as consecutive proclamations or
"periods" of short duration. The proclamations were in temporal
order; the fulfillment of those proclamations were NOT in the same
temporal order. Diagrammatically it looks like,
<pre>
time---->
proclamation 1 (light)----fulfillment
proclamation 2 (expanse)---fulfillment
proclamation 3 (dry ground, plants)---fulfillment=>
proclamation 4 (sun,moon)--fulfillment
proclamation 5 (sea creatures)-fulfillment=>
proclamation 6 (land creatures,man)--fulfillment=>---fulfillment
<\pre>
Take Genesis 1:3,4, And God said, 'Let there be light,'
and there was light. God saw that the light was good, and He
separated the light from the darkness."(NIV)
Moses reported what God said at the beginning of the universe "Let
there be light" The rest of this passage is Moses' commentary.
Moses reports that sometime after God said this, light existed.
This does not say that the light necessarily existed at the moment
God said it. There could have been a time lag. Later God
separated the light from the darkness.
Genesis 1:6 "And God said, 'Let there be an expanse between the
waters to separate water from water.'
Genesis 7 "So God made the expanse and separated the water under
the expanse from the water above it and it was so." (NIV)
Verse 6 is the proclamation. Verses 7 and 8 are the commentary by
Moses that yes indeed this was accomplished. BUT THERE IS NO
REPORTED TIME FRAME IN WHICH THE ACTION WAS COMPLETED!
This last point is very important. There is no explicit time
relationship in any of the Genesis 1 verses between the
proclamation by God and the completion of the event. Today we,
like Moses, can say that it was accomplished. All the
proclamations are completed. But this last statement does not
tell you the time frame in which those were finished. While the
proclamations were in temporal order, the fulfillments were not!
Several problems are avoided by this interpretation.
There is no problem raised by the Genesis account in relation
to the time of creation of the sun/plants or sun and moon/day-
night, or insects after the plants or anything at all. God
merely proclaimed the future existence of these animals and
plants in the order He chose fit. He did not create them
necessarily in the order He proclaimed them. The Bible does
not require a belief in 24-hour accomplishment of the events
of Genesis 1. By this technique a whole host of nasty problems
are avoided in the relation between science and the Bible.
Some might object that God only works instantaneously. When
He speaks it is done. There are lots of prophecies in the Bible
which took time. God's promise to Abraham to have a son; God's
promise to Abraham that all nations would be blessed through him.
Jesus' prophecy concerning the fate of Jerusalem took some time
to become fulfilled. So the Days of Proclamation I am advocating
here has other precedents in the Scripture.
Evolution
Does the Bible teach that evolution did not occur? No, it does not
teach this in spite of what many Christian apologetical books say! A
look at Genesis 1:11 shows that God did not create the plants
directly.
Genesis 1:11 "And God said, 'Let the land produce vegetation....'"
The Bible states very clearly that God used a secondary cause to
produce the vegetation. God used the land. I firmly believe that
this implies God used evolution to create the plants. They were
not created as young-earth creationists often teach because the best
translations of the Hebrew state differently than they teach. God
commanded the land to produce the vegetation; He didn't do it
directly!
To continue with verse 1:11, "The God said, 'Let the land produce
vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear
fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds.' And it
was so."
The second very important point here is that contrary to almost all
Christian exegesis this verse does not teach that the plants were
commanded to reproduce according to their various kinds. The land
was commanded to "produce plants and trees...that bear
fruit...according to their various kinds." This is merely saying
that there were supposed to be various kinds of fruit which is
quite different from saying that fruit could only reproduce fruit
after their kind. There is a big difference between the two. Young
earth christians have clearly perverted what Genesis says here. If I
send you to the grocery store to "get fruits after their kind", do
you think I have told you something about the reproductive potential
of fruit trees? Of course I haven't. I have told you to get various
kinds of fruits from the store. This is the same thing that Genesis
1:11 is saying. God created various kinds of fruits.
Genesis 1:21 says "God created the great creatures of the
sea and every living and moving thing with which the water
teems,according to their kinds." Look at the object of this sentence
and the modifying phrase, "Creatures... according to their kind."
God created creatures according to their kind. They were not
commanded to reproduce according to their kind. Once again, a very
different situation. Why Christians misread this I really don't
know.
Genesis 1:24 "And God said, 'Let the land produce living creatures
according to their kind." Once again nothing about reproduction
was mentioned. The land produced creatures according to their
kind. This is not the same as saying animals reproduced according
to their kind. "Animals" is not the subject of the sentence, "land"
is. Thus this verse says nothing about reproduction.
Assuming that the translators have remained somewhat faithful to
the Hebrew, the subject/verb relationships here say nothing about
the reproductive abilities of animals.
The three verses which are most often used to say that the Bible
rules out evolution, do not even say what young-earth creationists
say they do. Their entire view is based upon a gross
misunderstanding of what the Bible actually says!
Thus the Bible is perfectly in accord with the concept of
evolution, i.e. that animals do not have to reproduce according to
their kind. They are free to reproduce anyway they want. They
were not free for the land to produce them anyway they wanted. God
placed a limit on the production of plants and animals. They were
to be produced according to their kinds. Some translations say
various kinds.
For those who might need more convincing, consider Genesis 1:21 which
says,
"And God created great whales and every living creature that moveth,
which the waters brought forth abundantly, AFTER THEIR KIND, and
every winged fowl after his kind:..."
Then compare that to Genesis 6:19-20 which says
"And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt
thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee; they shall
be male and female. Of fowls AFTER THEIR KIND, and of cattle AFTER
THEIR KIND, two of every sort shall come unto thee, to keep them alive."
What is fascinating is that anti-evolutionary christians say that
the phrase "after their kind" in Genesis 1 implies something about
the reproductive capacities of animals and yet no one says that the
same phrase used in a parallel fashion in Genesis 6 means something
about the reproductive capacities. Thus internal Biblical evidence
says that the phrase "after their kind" does not mean what the
creationists say it does! The creationists have engaged in a tremendous
misinterpretation of the Bible.
What is the relationship between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2?
Normally, young-earth creationists view the events of Genesis 2 as
an expansion of Day 6 of Chapter 1. I do not believe this is true.
Genesis 2 is a separate event which occurred billions of years after
Genesis 1. By viewing Genesis 1 as a separate event from Genesis 2,
there is no problem with trying to account for why are there two
creation accounts (which is often a criticism of the Biblical
accounts) There are not two creation accounts, there are two
descriptions of two separate events. Adam does not fit into the
sixth day of Genesis 1. In Genesis 1 that was the
proclamation of man's existence; Genesis 2 was the actualization of
man's existence billions of years after Genesis 1.
Genesis 2 Issues
As I mentioned above, Genesis 2 is a totally separate event
which occurred billions of years after Genesis 1. This voids the
higher criticism objection to the scriptural validity that these
two accounts of creation are the two accounts of two different
peoples who joined to become the Hebrews. The JEDP theory is not
satisfactory because it assumes the existence of documents and
traditions for which there is absolutely no evidence.
Assuming the existence of evidence is not the way to prove the view.
The lay of the land
Genesis 2:5 "Now no shrub of the field was yet in the earth and no
plant of the field had yet sprouted, for the Lord God had not sent
rain upon the earth; and there was no man to cultivate the ground.
But a mist used to rise from the earth and water the whole surface
of the ground." NAS
This verse is often said to support the idea that there was no rain
on earth before the flood. This can not be correct scientifically,
unless the laws of physics were different in the past (which is an
impossibility). As long as the earth is a sphere, the poles will
receive less heat from the sun than the equator. Because of this,
air currents will be initiated which attempt to equalize the
distribution of heat. This will mean cold and warm fronts and the
rainfall associated with them would have occurred. If one wants to
believe that there was no rain anywhere on earth before the flood,
then it is incumbent upon them to postulate a viable hypothesis
which would explain the lack of rain. And the vapor canopy will not
solve this problem. The solution to this verse lies with the
translation.
I am going to suggest that the Hebrew word "eretz" which is
often translated "earth" might more sensibly be translated "land"
through much of Genesis 2-11. If you do that, then the above verse
says there was no rain upon the land and that there was no shrub of
the field in the land. The lack of rain and plants of the field
could imply a desert. The modifier to plants, 'of the field',
could imply a lack of agricultural plants because of the statement
that there was no man to cultivate the ground --a condition which
was removed a few verses later. It is amazing the difference the
choice of a translated word can make. To extend the lack of
rainfall to the entire earth until the advent of the flood, as
young earth creationists do, seems to be an excessive
extrapolation. "Eretz" can equally be translated "land" or
"country" and these choices for the translation are entirely ignored
by them.
There are two areas of the hydrology of Genesis 2 which are
utterly bizarre when compared to present realities. The first is
the mists which used to rise up out of the ground. This implies
artesian type of activity which means that the "land"
(mistranslated earth) was in a topographically low area where
rainfall on the highlands seeped into the ground and emerged from
the ground at a lower elevation.
<pre>
rain
--------
\
\water oozing out
\
\
\_________
<\pre>
The second bizarre hydrological situation is the splitting of
the 4 rivers out of Eden. Rivers don't split into 4 except at two
places - a delta, and where a river flows from a steep gradient out
onto a broad plain at a lower level. At the place where the
gradient lessens, the flow is more easily split into numerous
channels. Once again this implies a topographically low area.
<pre>
stream splits at change of slope
******* |
* |
* |
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
<\pre>
I will make a suggestion that the place Genesis 2 is talking
about is the Mediterranean basin when it was emptied 5.5 million
years ago. There are several reasons for this. 1. When it was dry,
there would be very little rainfall on that land. In all
directions it would be in the rain shadow of 15,000 foot tall
mountains. 2. Subterranean water in the rocks of the surrounding
continental sediments (Africa, Asia, and Europe) would ooze out of
the ground along what we now call the continental slope of the
Mediterranean basin, thus explaining the "mist" or "streams" spoken
of in Genesis 2:6.
When the Mediterranean was dry, the Nile River flowing out onto the
basin would split into numerous channels much as the modern rivers
in the Kalahari desert do today. 3. All the minerals described in
Genesis 2:10-17 are found in the region I am describing. 4. This
makes an excellent place for the Flood to have occurred because it
fits the Biblical description of the Flood covering high mountains
and provides a mechanism for the massive rainfall described. As that
basin filled with water, the air would be forced upward. Air,
containing any moisture which rises, cools and condenses to form
rain fall.
Was the Mediterranean dry?
This is the currently accepted view of the geologic history of the
Mediterranean region. (Hsu, 1972, 1974; Hsu et al, 1977; Hsu, 1983).
The evaporation of the Mediterranean region is such that if you
built a dam across the Strait of Gibraltar today, the entire sea
would evaporate in 1000-4000 years. The evidence Hsu cites are many.
Caves are eroded into the limestones which form Malta down to a
depth of 2000 meters and deep karsts are found in Yugoslavia (Hsu,
et al, 1974, p. 140; Hsu, 1983, p. 175). Rivers cut canyons as deep
as 3,000 meters below sea level along the Rhone in southern France,
the Nile, in Italy, Corsica, Sardinia, and Libya.(Hsu, et al, 1973,
p. 243) Desert deposited alluvial fans were drilled into at the base
of the Miocene (Hsu, 1983, p. 149). Desiccation cracks filled with
salt were found (Hsu et al, 1974, p. 139) The fauna below the desert
deposits were deep ocean sediments. These were overlain by salt,
anhydrite, limestone and other desert-like deposits with animals
indicating a hypersaline environment. (Hsu et al, 1977, p. 401).
These in turn are overlain once again by animals which could only
have lived in excess of 1000 m of water (Hsu et al, 1973, p. 240;
see also Robertson et al, 1995, p. 233). The European fauna from
the time of the Mediterranean desiccation changed from a forest to a
savannah environment as the climate dried up (Hsu, et al, 1974, p.
141). Hippopotami walked down the Nile and up onto Cyprus during
this time. (Hsu, 1983, p. 177). Since Hippopotami do not live in the
ocean, they could not have swum to Cyprus. Chicken-wire dolomite is
a type of rock which is only deposited if the temperature is above
35 deg C. Chicken-wire dolomite is found on the bottom of the
Mediterranean where today the water temperature is near freezing.
(Hsu, 1983, p. 14) Finally, stromatolites, a type of algal
precipitated rock is found on the bottom of the Mediterranean,
several thousand meters below the present sea level. Stromatolites
are only deposited when the water is less than 10 meters deep! (Hsu,
1983, p. 14-17)
Thus there is lots of geologic evidence that the Mediterranean was
once a desert. The most fascinating thing about this is that very
shortly after this time the earliest hominids are found in the
fossil record!
The origin of man.
This is the tricky place. Everybody says that it is impossible to
account for the origin of Adam and Eve by means of evolution and
yet still have the Biblical account be true (Wells, 1961, p. 777;
Whitcomb and Morris, 1961, p. 473; Davidheiser, 1969, p. 168-169).
An example is Lane (1994, p. 20) who says:
"Special creationists in contrast, point out that the general
theory of evolution is incompatible with Biblical Christianity,
a view shared by many atheistic and agnostic evolutionists."
This is false. Christians have not put enough effort into solving
this problem. Here is what the evidence says.
The apes have 48 chromosomes; we have 46 (Johanson and Edey, p.
138, 275). If we arose from the apes,(as I believe we did) there
must have been a chromosomal fusion (there are also other
differences like inversions of certain segments etc). The data
clearly shows that it man's chromosome 2 is the combination of two
ape chromosomes. The banding in chromosome 2 are identical to the
banding in 2 ape chromosomes. ( Yunis and Prakash, 1982, p. 1526)
The biggest piece of evidence in my mind connecting us to the
apes is a) the extreme similarity in DNA (99%) and b) the existence
of pseudogene insertions at the same locations in man, chimp,
gorilla and orangutan. (Max, 1986, p.42; 1990, p. 48) A pseudogene
is a BROKEN gene which is found in a part of the genome far removed
from its normal position. The pseudogene has lost the control
information which informs the cellular machinery how to make the
protein and thus it does nothing. Since the pseudogene does not
perform any useful function it can not be claimed to be the result
of design. Designers do not design broken parts! Thus the pseudogene
is an error in DNA copying. As noted above, this same error has been
found at the same location in the four species listed above. What
are the odds of this happening by chance? About the same as this:
Let 4 different people go to four different towns with the
instructions to type a copy of Gibbon's _Decline and Fall_. Sometime
during the typing each of the 4 are to stop, randomly select one
paragraph from somewhere else in the book and insert the paragraph
where they stopped. They then continue typing the rest of the book.
Do you believe that the 4 people would not only choose the same
paragraph, but also choose the same spot to insert it into their copy?
If you believe this, then you can believe that the pseudogene was
produced by pure chance. To believe this is pure lunacy. Thus the
pseudogene requires that the humans, chimps, gorillas and orangutan be
related. Any Biblical interpretation which expects to survive the
scrutiny of modern science needs to handle this piece of data.
Currently no conservative view of the Bible addresses this problem.
Biblically, it states that God made man from the dust of the
ground, that He breathed the breath of life into the man, and that
the man was alone--no Eve. This would appear to contradict
evolution. God is also described as being actively and
supernaturally involved in the creation of man. And that man's
spirit is somehow different from that of the animals. Is there a
way to put all this together? I believe there is.
Assume that God was ready to create a being who was "made in
_____________________________________________________________
Terry M. Gray, Ph.D. Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry
Calvin College 3201 Burton SE Grand Rapids, MI 40546
Office: (616) 957-7187 FAX: (616) 957-6501
Email: grayt@calvin.edu http://www.calvin.edu/~grayt