A PERFECT Creation????

Glenn R. Morton (grmorton@waymark.net)
Sun, 27 Sep 1998 20:42:38 -0500

At 01:38 PM 9/27/98 -0600, Karen G. Jensen wrote:
>>If God designed the laws in such a fashion that they in turn could give
>>rise to the adaptable organisms, it still follows that GOD DESIGNED THE
>>ORGANISMS. He just input his design at an earlier stage than Christians
>>want to allow.
>
>Or that most Bible believers believe He said in His word (not just in
Genesis).
>

We all agree that God spoke the universe into existence, that is what the
Bible says. But show me the verse that adds the crucial thing you want
added. Show me the verse that says "God spoke the universe into existence
INSTANTANEOUSLY?"

I want a clear verse that informs us of the rate of God's creative activities.

>
> We want God to act like a magician popping organisms into
>>existence in a puff of smoke.
>
>Maybe we are fascinated by magicians because they try to appear to do what
>God says He did.

Maybe we want God to behave as we erroneously interpret His scriptures and
want Him to support our 'infallible' interpretive abilities! That is what
always gets me, young-earth creationists believe that they have an
infallible ability to interpret the scritpure and this isn't true.

>
>
> We don't like the idea that God might have
>>designed an entire universe with properties that would allow for animals
>>and mankind to arise after a long period of time.
>
>Who is this "we"? Do you feel that way now? I guess I liked the idea of
>evolution for a long time (past the Master's degree level). So when I
>first really read Genesis 1, being a botanist, I focused on the plants (Gen
>1:11-13) and imagined God evolving all the plants from a one-celled one in
>one day. Then I re-read it, and realized, no, He spoke and the earth
>brought forth each kind.

Where does it say he spoke and IMMEDIATELY it came into existence? People
have argued over what the word yom (day) means for centuries and centuries.
I. like St. Basil of the 4th century, believe that the days were prior to
the origin of the universe itself. Basil certainly wasn't fighting modern
geology, astronomy or biology, but he saw the scripture allowing the
interpretation that the days were not temporal days.

>
>
> I think there are two
>>reasons for this. One we like excitement and power and popping animals
>>into existence instantaneously satisfies our longing, like Caiphas', to see
>>a miracle.
>
>which is rooted in the desire to be "as God" -- in His position (Gen 3:4)

Absolutely agreed. And global flood advocates and young-earth advocates
make God perform as they interpret the Bible. God MIGHT have performed
that way but there are other interpretations which involve God working more
slowly and these also are equally valid interpretations.

>
>
> Second, we think somehow that God is unable to design things
>>prior to their popping them into existence. This of course is strange.
>>God has all the patience in the world and while He could create the
>>universe in a second, he didn't.
>
>Right. He took seven days (He practices what He preaches - Ex.20:9).

What if the days were prior to the formation of the universe and the
proclamations are the plans for the universe? What if the days are periods
of time? How do you know that the absolutely ONLY possibility is for the
days to be 24-hours? Can you rule out the other interpretations?

authorities from competing positions before coming to your conclusion.

>
>And He designed the organisms with ability to adapt to environmental
>changes. But not infinite adaptability (no created thing has infinite
>ability -- tho we in our fallen hearts might wish to have infinite ability,
>again "as God").

Nobody is arguing for infinite adaptability. Even the changes we have seen
from fish to man are not infinite changes. Fish have back bones, so do we;
fish have hearts, so do we; fish have livers, so do we; fish have eyes, so
do we. What gives you the idea that anyone is talking about INFINITE
variability? If organisms were infinitely variable, then no one would be
able to classify them into genera, families, orders, etc.

>In His patience God watches the perfection He created continue to change,
>with the hope of its coming restoration (Rom 8:19-21).

I don't see the Bible saying the God created the world 'PERFECT'. I see
the Bible saying that creation was 'good' but that is in English quite a
different concept. MacGuire's accomplishment in hitting 70 homers was
good. It wasn't perfect. I believe that MacGuire also set the record for
the most strike outs this year also.

Now, here is Biblical proof of what I say. If God had wanted to tell us
that the creation before the fall was 'perfect' He could have inspired the
writer to use the Hebrew word for perfect--tamiym.

8549. tamiym, taw-meem'; from H8552; entire (lit., fig. or mor.); also (as
noun) integrity, truth:--without blemish, complete, full, perfect,
sincerely (-ity), sound, without spot, undefiled, upright (-ly), whole.

This word is first used in describing Noah and is used to describe a lamb
which was to be sacrificed (Gen 6:9;Lev 22:21)

But instead, God inspired the writer to use the word 'good'--towb!

2896. towb, tobe; from H2895; good (as an adj.) in the widest sense; used
likewise as a noun, both in the masc. and the fem., the sing. and the plur.
(good, a good or good thing, a good man or woman; the good, goods or good
things, good men or women), also as an adv. (well):--beautiful, best,
better, bountiful, cheerful, at ease, X fair (word), (be in) favour, fine,
glad, good (deed, -lier, liest, -ly, -ness, -s), graciously, joyful,
kindly, kindness, liketh (best), loving, merry, X most, pleasant, +
pleaseth, pleasure, precious, prosperity, ready, sweet, wealth, welfare,
(be) well ([-favoured]).

This word appears to have the same meaning as good in English. Lot told the
people around his house to do to his daughters what was GOOD (towb) in
their eyes. What Lot and they might have had in mind was certainly NOT
perfection.

Towb is not the same thing as perfect. So why do you think that global
flood/young-earthers never discuss the word God used in Genesis 1? I read
lots and lots of young-earth creationist literature and have studied this
area for over 25 years, but I don't recall ever seeing a discussion in YEC
literature about the difference between towb and tamiym. I might be wrong,
but I certainly can't find one in perusing my large library right now.
Henry Morris says:

"Eventually the whole universe seems desitined to die, when all the energy
of the sun and stars will have been degraded to uniformly-dispersed
low-level heat energy, no longer capable of being converted into useful work.
"Is this what God intended, when He finished His creation and pronounced
it all 'very good' (Genesis 1:31)? Obviously not; God is not capricious,
and we can be absolutely sure He will accomplish His good purpose in
creation."
~ Henry Morris, The Remarkable Birth of Planet Earth, (Minneapolis:
Bethany Fellowship, 1972), p.17.

But Henry doesn't tell the Reader that in the Hebrew text, God said the
world was good (towb) not perfect (tamiym). Karen, is it moral to leave
this very important textural issue out of a discussion when the YECs make
such a hard and fast claim that 'good' equals 'perfect'? 'Good' (towb)
would allow for death in the universe, 'perfect' (tamiym) might not. God
deliberately avoided tamiym in Genesis 1!!!!! But Henry and the YECs
correct God and re-insert it via their books!!!!
glenn

Adam, Apes and Anthropology
Foundation, Fall and Flood
& lots of creation/evolution information
http://www.isource.net/~grmorton/dmd.htm