3 Practical Evidences of a Young Earth

Posted on January 23, 2018 by russellmckinney

“How Old Is the Earth” series (post #7)

I’m going to use this post to name three practical evidences that the earth is less than 10,000 years old. However, I’ll admit right up front that these three evidences are not what we might call “scientific.” That’s not to say that there isn’t scientific evidence. (There is, to be sure.) It’s just that I’m not going to get into all that right now.

Can I let you in on a little secret? The unceasing debates between Young-Earth scientists and Old-Earth scientists start to give me a headache after a while. Even though both sides work from exactly the same empirical evidence, they never fail to reach completely different conclusions concerning that evidence, and neither camp will ever give an inch on their core beliefs. Consequently, while I always side with the Young-Earth scientists in such debates, and I am certainly appreciative that qualified men are on the case in defense of the Bible’s account of a six-day creation, I find myself drawn to evidences that I don’t have to have a PhD in physics or geology to fully understand.

Here now are three of those evidences, each one phrased under the heading of a question:

Evidence #1: Where are all the people? 

According to the website worldometers.info, the world’s population is currently growing at a rate of 0.85% per year. That’s down from 0.87% in 2024 and 0.88% in 2023, but it’s up from 0.84% in 2022. The current rate equates to an increase of approximately 70 million people per year. For the record, the growth rate peaked at 2.25% in 1964.

Another website, populationconnection.org, says the world’s population didn’t first total 1 billion until 1804, but from then on the milestones haven’t taken nearly so long to reach. It took just another 123 years (1927) to hit 2 billion, just another 32 years (1959) to hit 3 billion, just another 15 years (1974) to hit 4 billion, just another 12 years (1986) to hit 5 billion, etc., etc. etc. The population total currently stands at 8 billion and is increasing every day.

Yet another website, ourworldindata.org, provides a graph of world population numbers beginning at 10,000 B.C.E. (which stands for “Before Common Era” and is the hip new way of saying B.C.) and ending at 2023 A.D. I found it interesting that the graph lists the 10,000 B.C.E. population total at 0. Since I don’t even think there ever was a 10,000 B.C.E., I’d say that’s a correct total for that year, but I’ll let that go. Here, I simply want to point out that even by that graph’s non-Biblical reckoning it has taken the human race just 12,000 years to go from 0 to over 8 billion.

Okay, according to the hot-off-the-presses evolutionary timeline, Homo sapiens (anatomically modern humans) appeared in Africa approximately 300,000 years ago. I use that description “hot-off-the-presses” because up until June of 2017 the accepted timeline for Homo sapiens began at 200,000 years. But then new dating methods were applied to some previously discovered fossils from Morocco and, presto, us Homo sapiens got 100,000 years older in one fell swoop. That’s the evolutionary timeline for you. It’s always written in pencil, never pen. One new discovery or one new test can change everything 100,000 years or a million years. The textbooks can’t even keep up with it all. Anyway, that age of 300,000 years leads us to the following question: “If it took humans 12,000 years to go from 0 to over 8 billion, what would the current population total be if we had truly had 300,000 years to work on it?”

Keep in mind now that any attempt at doing the math on this must take into account the built-in exponential factor of population growth. Putting it simply, as the numbers increase, it takes increasingly less time for the total to double itself. Since I’m no mathematician, I won’t even try to offer a guess at the total 300,000 years of human reproduction would achieve, but that number would surely be staggering. Isn’t it interesting, then, that the experts who study such things tell us that the earth’s current food resources could not sustain a population of over 10 or 11 billion?

It’s at this point that those who contend for an old earth and evolution will say, “But the population rate hasn’t always been what it is now.” That’s true, but it’s also true that the consistent long-term trend for thousands of years has been growth, either slow growth or rapid growth. You see, growth is still growth. Maybe we’re not growing at the 2.25% clip anymore, but we’re still ending each year with a higher population total than we had when the year began. And such yearly increases have obviously been the trending norm, perhaps even with some years of negative population growth mixed in here and there, for thousands of years. I say “obviously” because we wouldn’t have reached over 8 billion by now if we had been going backward much.

Someone else might say, “But people are living longer lives these days, and that’s what has now gotten everything askew. Humans didn’t live so long 300,000 years ago, and so you can’t make the argument that the yearly population rate always saw increases back then.” Well, there’s no denying that humans certainly are living longer lives these days. Here in America, for example, the average life expectancy has almost doubled since 1900. However, what must also be taken into account is the fact that global birth rates have dropped by more than 50% since 1950. The reason isn’t hard to discern. It was, after all, in the 1950s and 1960s that birth control started becoming a common thing for women to use.

This, you see, provides a pushback to the increase in life expectancy. Yes, we are living longer, and that helps increase the population total, but we are producing only half as many babies, and that helps decrease it. So, all in all, we have good reason to believe that the current population rate isn’t completely apples and oranges different (for example, plus 1% to minus 20% or whatever) from what it has been on average throughout the entire history of the human race. Certainly, there have been high marks and low marks in regards to the ebb and flow of that rate, times of boom and times of war and famine. That’s understood. But there’s just no way that for hundreds of thousands of years the rate was always magically just what it needed to be to allow humans to keep their numbers balanced out precisely enough to match the earth’s food supply at the time.

That, by the way, is another way the advocates for an old earth and a human race that is 300,000 years old explain away the problem of humans eventually overpopulating the planet. They say the population rate has only become a problem in recent times because only then has that rate exploded. Here again, though, the mathematical reality of the exponential aspect of growth would have had to come into play. Once the numbers (pre birth-control numbers, mind you) started piling up, whether it was in the year 100,000 B.C.E. or 10,000 B.C.E., the time it would have taken for the total to double itself would have started shrinking quickly.

That brings us back to the conclusion that if we have been here reproducing for 300,000 years, there wouldn’t be much elbow room left on this planet. At least us Bible believers have God once wiping out the world’s burgeoning population by way of a great flood and starting over with just eight people. Atheists and agnostics don’t even buy that, and they need such a drastic decrease in population much more than we do in order to make sense of the current population total. The best they can offer is the death toll from The Black Plague that swept through Europe and Asia in the 14th century, a death toll estimated to have reduced the world’s population from 450 million to 350 million. But that loss of 100 million lives isn’t nearly enough to explain how 300,000 years of human reproduction has only added up to a world population total of 8 million or so.

Evidence #2: “Where are all the graves?”

This question comes right on the heels of the previous one. If the  “modern” human race has had 300,000 years to multiply, whatever the exact birth rates, death rates, and population rates were during any given eras, where are all the graves? No one denies that large numbers of graves from mankind’s history have been discovered, just as no one denies that large numbers remain undiscovered, but are we to believe that literally billions of graves remain undiscovered?

According to anthropologists, the earliest known human burial dates back 100,000 years to human skeletal remains found at Qafzeh, Israel. That site is a group tomb of fifteen people buried in a cave along with their tools and other ritual artifacts. Anthropologists conclude from the site that humans have been burying their dead for at least 100,000 years.

Further evidence of how long humans have been burying their dead comes from the Neanderthals, a race of ancient humans that (supposedly) lived between 400,000 years ago to 50,000 years ago, with their time actually overlapping the rise of modern humans (Homo sapiens) 300,000 years ago. I agree with the Young-Earth creationists that the Neanderthals were, in fact, fully human, but that’s another post for another time. For now, let me just point out that anthropologists are in agreement that a 50,000 year old Neanderthal skeleton discovered in a cave in southwestern France in 1908 is a case of intentional burial. Additionally, anthropologists are now convinced that twenty other grave sites throughout western Europe fall under the same heading as intentional Neanderthal burials.

Okay, now lets have some fun with numbers. First, let’s ask, “How many people have been born since Homo sapiens came on the scene?” You see, all we have to do is subtract the current population total of 8 billion from that number and we’ll get at least some rough idea of how many humans have been buried in the ground of planet earth, right? Unfortunately, as you might guess, figuring out how many people have been born is a highly inexact science. Nevertheless, on the website prb.org I found a popular chart that estimates that by the year 50,000 B.C.E. 7,856,100,002 people had been born upon the earth. That chart then proceeds onward to reach the conclusion that more than 117 billion people have lived upon the earth. That’s at least a place to start.

So, when we subtract the current 8 billion who are alive on the earth right now from the 117 billion who have supposedly been born throughout history, we conclude that approximately 100 billion people have died in the past 50,000 years, a time frame during which mankind was practicing human burial. That’s when we must ask again, “Where are all those billions of corpses?” Certainly a percentage of them were cremated, and another percentage were buried at sea. And then there is another percentage that only lasted a few centuries because they were buried without the use of coffins or embalming and the condition of the ground in which they were placed turned them to nothing relatively quickly. But even taking these three categories into account, we’re talking about 100 billion graves! You see, those are the kind of bizarre, incomprehensible numbers you get into when you start floating around the idea that the human race is even 50,000 years old, let alone much, much older.

Evidence #3: “Where is all the written history?”

Let me begin my third and final piece of practical evidence by giving you a purported timeline for the milestones of modern humans (Homo sapiens) down through history. I got this from newsdesk.si.edu, a website associated with the Smithsonian Institute. Here goes:

  • By 400,000 years ago, early humans (pre Homo sapiens) were making shelters and inventing wooden thrusting spears.
  • By 250,000 years ago, early humans (still pre Homo sapiens) were beginning to communicate with symbols.
  • By 200,000 years ago, Homo sapiens (modern humans) had evolved in Africa and were gathering together and hunting food.
  • By 164,000 years ago, they were collecting and cooking shellfish.
  • Between 135,000-100,000 years ago, they were making jewelry from shell beads.
  • By 130,000 years ago, they were exchanging resources over long distances.
  • By 104,000 years ago, they were catching and killing dangerous prey.
  • By 100,000 years ago, they were burying their dead.
  • By 90,000 years ago, they were making special tools for fishing.
  • By 77,000 years ago, they were recording information on objects and making clothing from hides.
  • By 60,000 years ago, they were beginning a series of worldwide migrations.
  • By 60,000 to 40,000 years ago, they were creating permanent drawings.
  • By 40,000 to 35,000 years ago, they were creating paintings and figurines.
  • By 35,000 years ago, they were creating musical instruments.
  • By 30,000 to 24,000 years ago, they were making well-fitted clothing using bone needles.
  • By 26,000 years ago, they were making baskets.
  • By 12,000 years ago, they were controlling the breeding and growth of certain animals and plants, which resulted in farming and herding and eventually led to the creation of villages, towns, and cities.
  • By 10,500 years ago, they were domesticating animals.
  • By 8000 years ago, they were using symbols to represent words and concepts.

According to scholars, it was approximately 5,000 years ago that the first system of writing was invented. This was the cuneiform system, which was developed around 3,200 B.C.E. by the Sumerian people. Cuneiform writing involved the Sumerians using a reed stylus to make wedge-shaped indentations upon clay tablets.

Well, this purported timeline of human milestones causes us to ask, “Are we supposed to believe that modern humans lived, thrived, invented things, and steadily advanced civilization for almost 300,000 years before they began to make written records in 3,200 B.C.E.?” These are the same humans, mind you, who by 3,200 B.C.E. had designed and built such impressive structures as:

  • Gobekli Tepe in Turkey (estimated date: 9,000 B.C.E.)
  • Barneze in France (estimated date: 4,850 B.C.E)
  • Tumulus of Bougon in France (estimated date: 4,700 B.C.E.)
  • Tumulus Saint Michael in France (estimated date: 4,500 B.C.E.)
  • Monte d’Accoddi in Italy (estimated date: 4,000 B.C.E.)
  • The Temples of Ggantija in Malta (estimated date: 3,700 B.C.E.)
  • The Knap of Howard in Scotland (estimated date: 3,700 B.C.E.)

Are we really to think that such ingenious people either didn’t see the need to invent writing, or simply couldn’t figure out how to do it, for almost 300,000 years? That seems preposterous. And yet the fact remains that there simply is no written record of human history before 3,200 B.C.E. None. That’s not much of a problem if the Bible’s teaching that the universe, earth, and human race are all less than 10,000 years old is true. It’s a major problem, though, if modern humans have been doing stuff, stuff worth recording for posterity’s sake, for 300,000 years.

Posted in Creation, Series: "How Old is the Earth?" | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

First Ever Podcast

Posted on January 21, 2018 by russellmckinney

Well, this isn’t a blog post so much as it is an announcement. My good friend Malcolm Woody and I have recently begun a new endeavor. It’s a podcast called “Christian Verses.” For each podcast we’ll single out one verse from the Bible and discuss how that verse is applicable to Christians today. The verse for the first one is 1 Peter 3:15. So, if you’ve got 20 minutes and want to hear a spiritual discussion on how us Christians can live out 1 Peter 3:15 in this 21st century, here’s the link:

https://soundcloud.com/user-185243867/christianverses2018001

Posted in "Christian Verses" podcast | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

The Speed of Light, the Dating of Rocks, & the Earth’s Strata

Posted on January 20, 2018 by russellmckinney

“How Old Is the Earth?” series (post #6)

What I’m going to do with this post is list three pieces of evidence that get trotted out by physicists, scientists, and geologists in their attempts to prove that the earth is billions of years old and the universe is even older. Then I’m going to provide the counter explanations the Young-Earth creationists use to explain how each piece of evidence can be understood to align with a universe and earth that is less than 10,000 years old. My goal here is simply to give you a small taste of how the ongoing debates between the two opposing groups sound. Let it be known that I’m not suggesting that these three pieces of evidence are the only ones the groups debate. Again, I’m just trying to give you the gist of how the debating goes.

Evidence #1: The Speed of Light

Physicists tell us that light travels in a vacuum at a speed of 186,000 miles per second. In layman’s terms, that means it takes light one year to cover a distance of six trillion miles. You say, “Fine, but what does that have to do with estimating the age of the universe and the earth?”

I’ll explain by using starlight. If we can stand on the earth and see light that originates from stars, and if we can reasonably figure out how far those stars are from the earth, then we can possibly assume that the universe is at least as old as the time it takes for that light from those stars to reach the earth. Get it?

Okay, the most distant objects we are currently able to observe are quasars, and by doing the math we learn that the travel time for the light coming from these objects is more than 10 billion years. So, that means that the age of the universe must be at least 10 billion years, right? Actually, the age must be even older than that because those quasars certainly aren’t the innermost extreme of the universe. This is how physicists think.

But how do Young-Earth creationists respond to this evidence from the speed of light? Many of them contend that God created the entire universe as fully mature and “in motion” right from the start. As evidence of this, the Bible plainly teaches that God created Adam as a fully mature man rather than as a baby. Also, He created the fruit trees of the garden of Eden as fully grown trees that bore ripe fruit right from the moment they were created. Therefore, in keeping with this theme, the Bible can be interpreted to indicate that God created the universe and the earth with “age” already on them, even though relatively speaking they were freshly created.

Applying this idea to the universe, it would mean that any light from space was already well on its way to the earth from the moment the object from which the light emanates was created. Young-Earth creationists point out that proof of this can be found in the fact that God specifically said that He created the sun, the moon, and the stars on day four of the creation week to give light on the earth (Genesis 1:14-18). You see, if the light from the sun, the moon, and the stars didn’t actually reach the earth until millions or billions of years later, that makes God a liar.

Furthermore, a second explanation that some Young-Earth creationists cite in regards to the evidence of the speed of light is this: perhaps that speed hasn’t always been what it is now. Could it be possible that God greatly increased the speed of light in the early days of creation and then slowed it down sometime later? If this was indeed the case, light from celestial objects could have traveled to the earth in a fraction of the time it now takes it to reach the earth.

Evidence #2: Radiometric Dating

Scientists tell us that radioactive isotopes decay from an unstable to a stable form at measurable, fixed rates. These rates are based upon the amount of radiation each isotope gives off as it moves from unstable to stable. Accordingly, if you know the specific kind of radioactive isotope found within a substance, you can backtrack the math and calculate the age of the substance.

With this in mind, let’s talk about igneous and metamorphic rocks. These are rocks which were once extremely hot and then cooled into solid rock. Basalt (a type of solidified lava) is a type of such rock. By measuring the amount of radiation within a basalt rock, you can presumably calculate how long it has been since that solid rock was in its previous liquid state and thus deduce the rock’s age. Such methods of dating have resulted in data that has led scientists to proclaim that the earth itself must be approximately 5 billion years old, with the universe being much older.

As you might expect, Young-Earth creationists downplay the accuracy of such methods of dating. How do they do this? They do it by casting serious doubts upon three assumptions that must hold true for the methods to be reliable. Here’s a crash course in those assumptions.

First, it is assumed that the decay rate of the radioactive isotopes has never changed since the dawn of creation. Well, maybe it hasn’t, but then again maybe it has. And if it has, all the data is unreliable.

Second, it is assumed that no contamination took place throughout the entire process by which the rock transformed from liquid to solid. This is a major deal because any such contamination would heavily skew the results. And who’s to say that contamination didn’t take place? Even though scientists do their best to find uncontaminated specimens to study, perhaps there aren’t any such specimens.

Third, it is assumed that the original quantity of the radioactive isotopes in the rock’s original liquid state was zero and that the only such isotopes within the rock were formed there as the rock moved from liquid to solid. The problem, however, with this assumption is that it doesn’t always stand up to real-world testing. Specifically, the solidified rocks from volcanic eruptions and lava flows that are well known from relatively recent history have been tested and found to be many thousands of years or even millions of years old. Clearly, using radiometric dating methods to date rocks and in so doing date the earth is highly suspect.

Evidence #3: The Earth’s Strata

Geologists tell us that the earth’s strata are layers of soil that are originally laid down as sediment and are changed into rock, over the course of much time, by pressure, heat, and chemical reactions. One layer is gradually laid down atop the previous layer as time progresses, and the end result is more or less a vertical stacking of layers, with the oldest layer being the bottom one and the newest layer being the top one. This means that the deeper you dig into the ground, the deeper you dig into the layers of earth history. At least that’s the general premise.

Stratigraphy is the study of the layers of the earth’s strata, and by engaging in such studies geologists have come to the conclusion that the layers of the earth’s strata were laid down progressively and systematically over the course of hundreds of millions of years. They reach this conclusion by using radiometric dating, carbon dating, and other such dating methods to date the age of the rocks found within each layer of strata. Incidentally, this is also one of the ways by which they date any fossils found within a layer.

Okay, so how do Young-Earth creationists explain the earth’s strata in light of the fact that they believe the earth is less than 10,000 years old? They do it by asserting that the layers of the earth’s strata were not laid down slowly and gradually but were instead laid down relatively quickly — within a year or so — as a byproduct of Noah’s flood. That flood, after all, was caused not just by rain but by “all the great fountains of the deep” being broken up (Genesis 7:11). This speaks of incredible seismic activity beneath the ocean floors. Consequently, all that seismic activity, as well as the subsequent “waters receding continually from the earth (Genesis 8:3), could have left us with not only the planet’s stacked layers of strata but also the entire fossil record of animals killed by the flood.

One famous example that Young-Earth creationists cite concerning the earth’s strata is known as The Great Unconformity in the Grand Canyon. Basically, this is a gap in the accepted timeline of the strata where two formations that were supposedly formed one billion years apart are nestled right atop one another. This unconformity showcases one of two things. One, either a billion years passed between the two formations and no sediment was laid down for that entire billion years. (Frankly, that option seems unimaginable.) Or, two, a short period of time passed between the forming of the two formations. You can guess which option Young-Earth creationists favor.

Well, as you can see from these three categories of examples, if you want to believe in a universe and an earth that are less than 10,000 years old, you have some Christian physicists, scientists, and geologists out there fighting for your cause. I don’t pretend to be such an expert, but I can certainly read what these experts write and take encouragement from their conclusions. That is what I do, and let me go on record as saying that I greatly appreciate the awesome work these men contribute in defense of the Bible and its account of God’s creation week. I only wish they didn’t have to fight so hard against a lost, unbelieving, academic world that wants nothing to do with God or His written word.

Posted in Creation, Series: "How Old is the Earth?" | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The Gap Theory

Posted on January 17, 2018 by russellmckinney

“How Old Is the Earth?” series (post #5)

Genesis 1:1 tells us that in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. But right on the heels of that we get Genesis 1:2, which tells us that the earth was without form (formless), void (empty), covered in water (the deep), and engulfed in complete darkness (hence the need for, “Let there be light”). The apparent conflict between verses 1 and 2 leaves us with two possible interpretations. Interpretation #1: God deliberately created the earth as initially incomplete, in need of more detail work, because the earth was going to be the unique planet upon which He would create human beings. Or, interpretation #2: Sometime after the earth’s creation, a catastrophe struck it that left it in a ruined condition.

As for me, I hold to interpretation #1. There are, however, some sincere students of the Bible who hold to interpretation #2. And how do these folks explain the great catastrophe that left the earth in such a decimated state? Their explanation is commonly known as “The Gap Theory,” with the idea being that there is a great gap of time between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2.

The basics of the gap theory go as follows:

  • Stage 1: God creates the earth of Genesis 1:1 as perfect, complete, fully detailed, and teeming with life. The earth has vegetation, insects, sea creatures, flying creatures, and land creatures. The dinosaurs live during this time, and perhaps there is even some type of race of pre-Adamic humans (Neanderthals, Homo Sapiens, etc.). All is well upon the earth for an indeterminable amount of time.
  • Stage 2: Satan and his fellow rebellious angels rebel against God, are banished from heaven, are cast down to the earthly realm, and somehow this event causes the earth (and perhaps even all of creation) to be laid to waste. All life on earth is killed off and the planet is left in the condition described in Genesis 1:2. (A more detailed explanation of this stage has God placing the still unfallen angel Lucifer in charge of the earth, and Lucifer ruling over the planet from Eden (Ezekiel 28:13) until he becomes so prideful within himself that he decides to lead a rebellion against God (Isaiah 14:13-14) and is punished for it.)
  • Stage 3: The earth remains in its ruined state for an indeterminable amount of time, with the time span lasting for millions or billions of years.
  • Stage 4: God finally sets Himself to the task of restoring the earth. He accomplishes this restoration by way of the six days that are recorded from Genesis 1:3 to Genesis 1:31. This restoration gives us the earth we have now.

You see, the Gap Theory proposes that Genesis chapter 1’s six days of creation are actually six days of recreation (restoration, reconstruction, renewal, revitalization). But now that we understand the basics of the theory, we must attempt to figure out its validity or lack thereof. To help us do this, I’m going to list the strengths and weaknesses of the theory. To be fair, I’ll list seven from each category, beginning with the strengths.

  1. Strength #1: While Genesis 1:2 says the earth was “without form” (K.J.V., N.K.J.V.), Isaiah 45:18 says that God didn’t create it “in vain” (K.J.V., N.K.J.V.). What’s significant about that is the fact that both phrases translate the same Hebrew word, tohu. Putting it simply, Genesis 1:2 says the earth was tohu, but Isaiah 45:18 says that God didn’t create it tohu.
  2. Strength #2: The Hebrew conjunctive expression tohu wa bohu — which gets translated as “without form, and void” — is used in only two other instances in the Old Testament. Those are Isaiah 34:11 and Jeremiah 4:23, and in both instances the condition is produced by some type of divine judgment.
  3. Strength #3: The Hebrew word translated as “was” in Genesis 1:2 is hayah, and it is possible to translate it as “became.” This would make Genesis 1:2 read: “The earth BECAME without form, and void…” rather than “The earth WAS without form, and void…” Of course, the vast majority of Hebrew translators do not think the word should be translated this way in the context of Genesis 1:2, and that’s why our English translations read “was” instead of “became.” Nevertheless, the fact remains that in certain instances hayah can mean “became.”
  4. Strength #4:  In the original Hebrew of Genesis 1:1-2, there is no break or pause at the end of Genesis 1:1. However, the Masoretes, who were an ancient group of Jewish scholars, added a small mark called a rebia following Genesis 1:1. Such a mark plays the role of informing the reader that there is a break in the narrative and that he should pause before going on to the next verse. The Masoretes added this mark because, in their considered opinion, there was a break between the two verses. Obviously, the Masoretes could have been mistaken in their opinion, but they were a highly respected group of scholars.  
  5. Strength #5: The Gap Theory leaves plenty of room for all the scientific and geological data that supposedly shows that the earth is billions of years old. For example, how should we fit the dinosaurs into Genesis chapter 1? By way of The Gap Theory they become part of the Genesis 1:1 world that got laid to waste by Satan’s fall. How do we categorize the various “subhuman” skeletons that have been dug up around the world? Those supposedly pre-Adamic beings become part of that Genesis 1:1 world, too. How do we explain the multiple layers of strata found in the earth’s geologic column? According to the theory, all those layers got laid down either during the unspecified amount of time of Genesis 1:1 or during the unspecified “gap” of time between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2.
  6. Strength #6: The old King James translation (the K.J.V.) quotes God in Genesis 1:28 as saying to Adam and Eve, “Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth…” That word “replenish” seems to indicate that the earth was once home to some type of pre-Adamic race that got wiped out. The Hebrew word translated there as “replenish” is male, and it’s a common word that is used many times in the original Hebrew of the Old Testament. Interestingly, the K.J.V. translators translated it more than fifty different ways, going with “replenish” or “replenished” in only seven of the instances. In the context of Genesis 1:28, only the K.J.V. translates male as “replenish.” Other translations translate it as “fill.”
  7. Strength #7: In 2 Corinthians 4:6, the apostle Paul uses the idea of God commanding the light to shine out of the darkness as a way of illustrating that God has similarly given Christians the light of the knowledge of His glory. And since Christians are part of Adam’s race, a race that was originally created perfect but became ruined by God’s judgment upon sin, such an illustration aligns nicely with the idea of God creating the earth in perfection only to have it ruined by His judgment upon the sin of Satan and his fellow rebellious angels.

Well, as you can see, the strengths of The Gap Theory do make for a compelling case to support it. This explains why noted Bible teachers such as R.A. Torrey, Arthur Pink, Harry Rimmer, M.R. Dehaan, Donald Grey Barnhouse, Merrill Unger, A.C. Gaebelein, Arthur C. Custance, and J. Vernon McGee preached it. Even though Scottish theologian Thomas Chalmers is generally credited with first making the theory popular, it was C.I. Scofield who took it to new heights of popularity. By advocating the theory in the 1909 edition of his Scofield Reference Bible, Scofield made the theory quite prominent among the conservative preachers of the early 20th century. Still, though, before we fully embrace the theory, we must examine its weaknesses. As we will see, there are several of them and they are, to say the least, highly problematic.

  1. Weakness #1: Exodus 20:11 says: “For is 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.” The Hebrew word translated there as “made” is asah, and it’s the same word that is consistently translated as “made” in the creation story. And it’s not a word that usually means “recreated,” “restored,” “reconstructed,” or “fixed.”
  2. Weakness #2: Genesis 1:31 says: “Then God saw everything that He had made, and indeed it was very good. So the evening and the morning were the sixth day.” First, how could God classify all of His creation (including all His angels) as “very good” if Satan and his fellow rebellious angels were already in a state of rebellion and had been so for some time? Second, how could He classify everything as “very good” if His original earth from Genesis 1:1 had been decimated to the point where He had to step in and redo it? Third, how could He classify everything as “very good” if the remains of all the plant life and animal life — not to mention the possibility of a pre-Adamic race of beings — from that Genesis 1:1 world were now being walked upon by Adam, Eve, and the new creatures?
  3. Weakness #3: In Romans 5:12 and 1 Corinthians 15:21-22, the apostle Paul explains that it was Adam, with his sin in Eden, that brought death into the world. This teaching stands in direct contradiction to The Gap Theory, which contends that it was Satan, with his fall, that brought death into the world. How could Adam have been walking atop what would have amounted to a worldwide fossilized graveyard (complete with dinosaur skeletons) if death didn’t come into the world until he sinned?
  4. Weakness #4: To believe The Gap Theory is to believe, for all intents and purposes, that Genesis 1:1 is its own separate Bible, a Bible that doesn’t give us enough details about itself to amount to anything. Was the Genesis 1:1 earth round? Did it have seasons? Was there a race of pre-Adamic beings that called it home? If there was such a race, did they have souls? Were the creatures of that earth similar to the creatures of our modern earth? Obviously, if we believe The Gap Theory’s version of events, we can’t know the answers to any of these questions because the Bible never addresses them.
  5. Weakness #5: A major strength of The Gap Theory interpretation is the supposed contradiction between Genesis 1:2 and Isaiah 45:18. But are we really to believe that God expects us to get just two verses into reading the Bible and then race over to some obscure passage from Isaiah so that we can correctly interpret what we just read? Pity the poor reader who would have tried to make sense of Genesis 1:1-2 before Isaiah lived and wrote! Doesn’t it make much more sense to conclude that Isaiah 45:18 simply means that God did not create the earth to be uninhabited but from the get-go in Genesis 1:1-2 intended to shortly place Adam, Eve, and their descendants upon it?
  6. Weakness #6: The Gap Theory gives Satan and his fall an incredible amount of influence over God’s creation. Think about it, if God is all knowing, and if He knew going in that Him judging Satan and the other rebellious angels would completely wipe out all life on earth and decimate the planet to the point of inhabitability, why would He choose that course of punishment? Why punish life on earth because of the sin of a group of angels?
  7. Weakness #7: Since Genesis 1:3 has God creating light to illuminate the darkness of the earth of Genesis 1:2, are we to believe that Satan’s fall was so catastrophic that it literally destroyed or extinguished all the light from the completed earth of Genesis 1:1? Such a thought simply defies belief.

And so, in conclusion, I just can’t take all the evidence into account and throw my support behind The Gap Theory. While I understand the theory’s appeal — it certainly makes the job of reconciling the Bible to modern science easier — there are just too many problems with it for me to buy it. I find it so much more believable that God created all of creation (including a crude version of the earth) in Genesis 1:1, and then He singled out the earth from all the other planets for extra detail work because He had to get it ready to sustain the human race. This, to me, is the way a loving God who wants His people to understand how He gave us creation would explain His process, and it’s so much better than believing that He would play homiletical word games with us right out of the opening gate of scripture. As for how we should explain the dinosaurs, the Neanderthals, the earth’s geologic column, and other such conundrums, stay tuned. I promise to address those issues in future posts before we are finished with this series.

Posted in Angels, Bible Study, Creation, Demons, Dinosaurs, God's Word, Satan, Scripture, Series: "How Old is the Earth?", The Bible, The Devil | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | 6 Comments

What Jesus Taught About the Age of the Earth

Posted on January 15, 2018 by russellmckinney

“How Old Is the Earth?” series (post #4)

There is no passage in which Jesus provides the exact age of the earth. There are, however, multiple passages in which He verifies the Genesis account of history by referencing various stories from Genesis. Interestingly, He seemed to go out of His way to reference the ones that people find the most incredible and hardest to believe (i.e., Creation, Adam and Eve, Satan’s fall, Noah’s ark, and Sodom and Gomorrah). Here’s the list:

  1. God created creation. (Mark 13:19)
  2. Adam and Eve were a real couple who were around at the “beginning” of creation. (Matthew 19:3-6; Mark 10:6-9)
  3. Satan’s fall occurred sometime around the “beginning” of creation. (John 8:44)
  4. Cain and Abel were real brothers who were around at “the foundation of the world,” and Cain really did murder Abel. (Luke 11:49-51; Matthew 23:34-35)
  5. Noah was a real man who built a real ark to escape a real worldwide flood. (Matthew 24:37-39; Luke 17:26-27)
  6. Abraham was a real man who was the father of the Jewish race. (John 8:37-58; Matthew 8:11; Matthew 22:32; Luke 13:16; Luke 13:28; Luke 19:9; Luke 20:37)
  7. Sodom and Gomorrah were real cities that were destroyed in judgment. (Matthew 10:15; Matthew 11:23-24)
  8. Lot was a real man who fled from real fire and brimstone that rained down upon Sodom and Gomorrah, and his wife was a real person who really did look back toward Sodom and in so doing had her body turned into a real pillar of salt (Luke 17:28-32).
  9. Isaac was a real man who was Abraham’s real son. (Matthew 8:11; Matthew 22:32; Mark 12:26; Luke 13:28; Luke 20:37)
  10. Jacob was a real man who was Isaac’s real son. (Matthew 8:11; Matthew 22:32; Mark 12:26; Luke 13:28; Luke 20:37)

By the way, in case you are interested, Jesus also referenced (thus verifying) the following stories:

  • Moses and the burning bush (Luke 20:37)
  • Moses lifting up the bronze serpent on the pole in the wilderness (John 3:14)
  • God sending manna for the Israelites to eat (John 6:30-33)
  • The queen of Sheba’s visit to King Solomon (Matthew 12:42)
  • Elijah predicting a three-and-a-half-year drought upon Israel and being sent to the home of the widow of Zarephath (Luke 4:25-26)
  • Elisha healing the leprosy of Naaman (Luke 4:27)
  • Jonah being swallowed by a great fish (Matthew 12:38-41)

You see, before we start dismissing the stories of the Old Testament as myths, legends, allegories, or fairy tales, we’d do well to realize that Jesus took them seriously and literally. He used them as examples to teach others about: sin, judgment, salvation, God’s omnipotence, God’s plan for mankind, God’s program of prophecy, obeying God, and living for God. Therefore, anytime we start drawing lines of distinction between Christ’s teaching and all that “Old Testament stuff” we get into serious trouble theologically and doctrinally.

And so, what does all of this show us concerning what Jesus taught about the age of the earth? The answer is simple:

  1. He taught that God created creation (Mark 13:19), the obvious implication being that God did it just as Genesis chapters 1 and 2 describe, which equates to a literal week of literal 24-hour days.
  2. He taught that Adam and Eve were there for the “beginning” of creation (Matthew 19:3-6; Mark 10:6-9), which only makes sense if they were created on day six of the creation week. The idea that they came along millions or billions of years after creation is just wrong.
  3. He taught that Satan’s fall occurred sometime around the “beginning” of creation (John 8:44), which makes perfect sense in regards to the Genesis storyline because Satan shows up in Genesis 3:1, inside the serpent, to tempt Eve.
  4. He taught that Abel’s blood was shed from “the foundation of the world” (Luke 11:49-51), which only makes sense if Abel’s death was relatively close to the creation week.

Lastly, as my way of closing this post, I’ve got one more line of thought for you to consider. Still on the subject of what Jesus taught about the age of the earth, consider the following:

  • God spoke directly to Moses and used the seven days of the creation week as His example for why He was commanding the Jewish people to observe a weekly Sabbath day (Exodus 20:1,8-11).
  • Jesus said, “I and My Father are one.” (John 10:30)
  • Jesus was the Word from the beginning, and was not only with God but was God. (John 1:1-2)
  • Jesus is the image of the invisible God. (Colossians 1:15)
  • All things were made through Jesus, and without Him nothing was made that was made. (John 1:3; Hebrews 1:1)
  • By Jesus all things were created that are in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, and all things were created through Him and for Him. (Colossians 1:16)
  • Therefore, in light of all these facts, it logically follows that what God told Moses about the Sabbath’s relationship to the creation week was at the very least agreed with by Jesus and was possibly even literally voiced to Moses by Jesus.
Posted in Creation, Scripture, Series: "How Old is the Earth?", The Bible, The Sabbath | Tagged , , , , | 4 Comments

What the Sabbath Teaches Us About the Days of Creation

Posted on January 13, 2018 by russellmckinney

“How Old Is the Earth?” series (post #3)

Did you know that #4 of the famous 10 commandments tells us something about the age of the earth? Do you remember which commandment that is? It’s the one about keeping the Sabbath. It goes like this:

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, 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, NKJV)

In the Jewish mind, a day ran from sundown to sundown rather than sunrise to sunrise. This went back to the days of the creation week, which are described as beginning at evening. And why are those days described by that seemingly reversed description? It’s because day one of the creation week began in darkness (Genesis 1:2). Light didn’t enter into the picture until God said, “Let there be light” later that day (Genesis 1:3).

So, a Jewish Sabbath day began at sundown on Friday evening and ended at sundown on Saturday evening (Leviticus 23:32). During those 24 hours a Jew could do no work (Leviticus 23:3). Under the Mosaic law, the penalty for working on a Sabbath day was death (Exodus 31:14, Numbers 15:32-36).

With all this said, I should probably point out that keeping the Sabbath has always been an exclusively Jewish thing. Not only was it a part of their Old Testament law, it was nothing less than a sign that marked the covenant that God had entered Himself into with Israel. Consider carefully God’s words from Exodus 31:16-17:

Therefore the children of Israel shall keep the Sabbath, to observe the Sabbath throughout their generations as a perpetual covenant. It is a sign between Me and the children of Israel forever; for in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, and on the seventh day He rested and was refreshed. (N.K.J.V., emphasis mine)

I realize that some well-meaning Christians, in their attempts to make every single one of Exodus chapter 20’s ten commandments applicable today, contend that Sunday is the “Christian” Sabbath and that we should therefore rest on that day. But that simply isn’t a right interpretation or application of the Sabbath. The Sabbath has always been about God’s dealings with the Jews, not the church. I do find it interesting that those who believe that Christians must keep Sunday as a “Christian” Sabbath have no problems whatsoever blowing off the part about inflicting the death penalty upon anyone who happens to do some work on Sunday.

Anyway, I didn’t sit down today to write a post about all the details of keeping the Sabbath. What I sat down to write is a post about how God used His creation week as an example of why the Jews should keep a weekly Sabbath. After giving the Jews the command to keep the Sabbath, what did He say?:

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 20:11, N.K.J.V.)

And so, now I ask you, “How much sense would God’s example have made to the Jews if the days of the creation week were anything other than 24-hour days?” Think about it, God didn’t want the Jews to work six thousand years and then take a thousand years of rest for a Sabbath. He didn’t want them to work six million years and then take a million years of rest for a Sabbath. He didn’t want them to work six billion years and then take a billion years of rest for a Sabbath. Any such interpretations are ludicrous. So, what does His use of that specific example tell us about the days of the creation week? I think you know. You see, before we start trying to harmonize the Bible to the beliefs of modern science, we’d better start paying closer attention to what the Bible actually says.

Posted in Bible Study, Creation, God's Work, Scripture, Series: "How Old is the Earth?", The Bible, The Old Testament Law, The Sabbath | Tagged , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Adam & Eve Lived Through Days 6 & 7

Posted on January 10, 2018 by russellmckinney

“How Old Is the Earth?” series (post #2)

The Bible teaches that the days of the creation week, as described in Genesis chapter 1, were literal 24-hour days. Need proof of that? Then hang with me for this series entitled “How Old Is the Earth?”

In the series’ first post, I dealt with the Hebrew word yom, the word our English translations translate as “day” in the Bible’s creation story. There’s nothing unique or exciting about yom. For the most part, it’s just the common Hebrew word for “day.” That in itself is significant. Then, when we add in that the Bible specifically says that the six days each had an evening and a morning, well, it takes some imagination to read anything other than 24-hour days into that.

Okay, now with this second post, I’d like to hit upon another easy-to-understand piece of evidence for those days being 24-hour days. That second piece of evidence is this: Adam and Eve were created on day six and lived all the way through days six and seven. You see, this one is so simple and obvious that many people read right past it. Call it a case of hiding in plain sight.

The record of God’s work on day six of creation is found in Genesis 1:24-31, with further details of that work being provided in Genesis 2:1-25. First, the day began with God creating all of the earth’s land creatures: the beasts of the earth, livestock, insects, snakes, lizards, etc. (Genesis 1:24-25). Second, God created Adam and placed him in the garden of Eden (Genesis 2:7-8,15). Third, God gave Adam the command not to eat the fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (Genesis 2:16-17). Fourth, God brought the land creatures that He had created earlier in the day and allowed Adam to show his dominion over them by naming them (Genesis 2:19-20). Fifth, God caused Adam to fall into a deep sleep, and while Adam slept, God took a rib from him and from that rib created Eve (Genesis 2:18, 21-25).

All of this allows us to place Genesis 2:1-3 into its proper chronological place in the order of events. Those verses say:

Thus the heavens and the earth, and all the host of them, were finished. And on the seventh day God ended His work which He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done. Then God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because in it He rested from all His work which God had created and made. (N.K.J.V.)

The Bible doesn’t tell us how old Adam was when Eve gave birth to Cain or Abel (Genesis 4:1-2), but it does tell us that he was 130 when she gave birth to Seth (Genesis 5:3). That would be 130 years after the day when Adam himself had been created. Following Seth’s birth Adam then went on to live another 800 years before dying at the age 930 (Genesis 5:4-5).

So, you tell me, does any of that sound like either day six or day seven of the creation week was anything other than a 24-hour day? I mean, once Adam was created and placed in Eden, if either the rest of that sixth day or the entirety of the seventh day was thousands, millions, or billions of years long, Adam would have been much older than 930 when he died. And the same thing holds true for Eve despite the fact that the Bible doesn’t mention her age at any point of her life or death.

You see, Adam dying at 930 — and there are solid explanations for how those early people lived such long lives — isn’t a problem if the days of the creation week were 24-hour days. But it becomes a colossal problem if we try to interpret those days as eons of time that gobbled up thousands, millions, or billions of years. I would even go so far as to say that God purposely inspired Moses to write Adam’s age at death as a way of confirming that the creation week was just that, an actual week. And needless to say, a literal week of creation adds up to an earth that is a few thousand years old and no more.

Posted in Creation, Scripture, Series: "How Old is the Earth?", The Bible | Tagged , , , , , | 6 Comments

The Hebrew Word “Yom”

Posted on January 8, 2018 by russellmckinney

“How Old Is the Earth?” series: (post #1)

I am in the “young earth” camp. That means that I believe the earth, not to mention the rest of the universe, is less than 10,000 years old. Yes, I am a college graduate. Yes, I know about carbon dating. Yes, I know about the geologic column. Yes, I know about the speed of light. Yes, I know about the theory of evolution. Yes, I know what scientists tell us about the enormity and vastness of space. Trust me, I’ve heard the evidences for an earth and a universe that are billions of years old. But here’s something else I know: Like it or not, believe it or not, scoff at it or not, the Bible teaches that the earth is only a few thousand years old. Don’t believe me? Then I hope you will hear me out in this new series entitled “How Old Is the Earth?”

With this opening post I’ll define the Hebrew word yom, the word our English translations translate as “day” for each of the seven days of the creation week in Genesis chapters 1 and 2. And how is yom defined? It’s the word the Jewish people use to refer to a typical 24-hour day.

The Bible’s first instance of yom comes in Genesis 1:5, which describes the first day (Sunday) of the creation week. That verse says:

God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. So the evening and the morning were the first day. (N.K.J.V.)

In keeping with this first instance, we find this same kind of summary phrase and use of yom following each of the remaining five days upon which God worked. The pattern is always the same: “So the evening and the morning were the ______ day.” We see this in Genesis 1:8; 1:13; 1:19; 1:23; and 1:31. The only exception to this rule is that we don’t get such a phrase following God resting on the seventh day (the Sabbath day, Saturday).

The fact is that yom is used some 2,300 times in the Old Testament text, and in the overwhelming majority of instances it refers to nothing more than a 24-hour day. Admittedly, there are some passages in which it is used in reference to a more general, larger period of time. Most of those passages, however, are prophetic in nature. In particular, there are various verses that speak of a coming period of judgment called “the day (yom) of the Lord.” None of this applies, however, to the days of the creation week because those had nothing to do with prophecy or judgment.

Even more than that, each day of creation is assigned a definite number (“the first day,” “the second day,” etc.). This is important to note because in every instance where the Old Testament applies a numerical adjective to yom the reference is to a 24-hour day. And then there is the fact that each of the six days of God’s work is specifically described as having an evening and a morning.

Seriously, how much clearer does God have to make it? Think about it like this: If the days of the creation week really were literal 24-hour days, the descriptive language God would use to convey that teaching to mankind as simply and as directly as He could would be the language used in Genesis chapter 1! That being the case, how can we be so quick to explain such language away and seek other interpretations?

Of course, there are those who try to bring a New Testament verse, 2 Peter 3:8, into this whole discussion. That verse says:

But, beloved, do not forget this one thing, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. (N.K.J.V.)

According to some this verse allows for the idea that the days of the creation week were vast geological ages that could have extended for millions of years. This is known as “the day-age theory.” Obviously, though, even if we take the verse hyper literally, it still doesn’t teach that the earth is millions of years old. At most, the creation week would have lasted 7,000 years and the earth would still be under 20,000 years old.

Actually, though, a close reading of 2 Peter 3:8 shows that it has nothing to do with creation. The verse is found in the context of a teaching on God’s judgment, and it’s used figuratively to illustrate how patient and longsuffering God is about sending judgment upon the world. Peter is saying, “The fact that God hasn’t poured out His judgment yet doesn’t mean that He isn’t going to do it.”

So, in conclusion, we just need to let the Genesis account of creation read the way it is written and stop trying to bring dicey word-plays into it. First, yom is the word the Jews used for a 24-hour day. And second, God’s six days of work are each described as having an evening and a morning. I dare say that these two facts by themselves make the case for a young earth. I’m happy to report, though, that there is even more evidence to be seen, and in the next post we’ll look at another important piece of that evidence.

Posted in Creation, Scripture, Series: "How Old is the Earth?", The Bible | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Were Adam & Eve Real People?

Posted on January 6, 2018 by russellmckinney

The attempts to dodge a literal reading of the Genesis account of creation began in earnest with the rise of Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution and have continued unceasingly ever since. In recent years these attempts have been used by some to support the idea that marriage doesn’t necessarily have to be between a man and a woman. As the thinking goes, if you mythologize the story of Adam and Eve, you leave the door open for the allowance of same-sex marriages.

The problem, however, with trying to water down the literalness of Genesis chapters 1 and 2 is this: Jesus and the writers of the New Testament took the Genesis creation story quite literally. In keeping with that literalness, they spoke of the story of Adam and Eve as being an actual event that involved an actual man and an actual woman. Therefore, if you are looking for a way to turn Adam and Eve into myths or fictional characters, don’t try quoting Jesus and the writers of the New Testament.

For starters, let me cite a couple of references from Jesus:

And He answered and said to them, “Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.” (Matthew 19:4-5, N.K.J.V.)

“For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me; for he wrote about Me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe My words?” (John 5:46-47, N.K.J.V.)

Concerning that John 5:46-47 passage, Christ’s words imply two important truths. Truth #1: In saying that Moses had “writings,” Jesus confirmed the Jews’ long-held historical belief that Moses wrote not only the book of Genesis but also the books of Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, & Deuteronomy. Truth #2: In specifically mentioning Genesis 3:15 (where Jesus is described as being “the Seed of the woman”), Jesus confirmed the literalness of the entire story of Adam and Eve, which begins in Genesis chapters 1 and 2 and carries over into chapter 3.

Okay, now that we have established that Jesus believed that Adam and Eve were literal people, let’s move on and look at what the apostle Paul taught in regards to the topic. We find his teaching in multiple passages. What I’ll do here is cite each passage and briefly explain how it applies to the question of whether or not Adam and Eve literally existed.

First, in Romans 5:12 Paul distinctly depicts Adam as a real man who not only was the father of the human race but took the race down into sin:

Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned…(N.K.J.V.)

Second, in Romans 8:20-21 he speaks of the effect that Adam’s sin had upon all creation:

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. (N.K.J.V.)

Third, in 1 Corinthians 15:45 he calls Adam “the first Adam” and Jesus “the last Adam,” and since Jesus obviously existed as an historical figure, Adam must have as well:

And so it is written, “The first man Adam became a living being.” The last Adam became a life-giving spirit. (N.K.J.V.)

Fourth, in 1 Timothy 2:13-14 he can’t be any clearer that Adam and Eve actually existed and that the Genesis account of them rings true:

For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression. (N.K.J.V.)

And now, before I close this post let me also mention just a quick word about Luke. Not only did Luke consider Adam to be an actual man who once existed, he traced the genealogical family tree of Jesus all the way back to Adam. The verse is Luke 3:38, the concluding verse in Luke’s genealogy of Jesus. That verse says:

the son of Enosh, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God. (N.K.J.V.)

Clearly, in all of these references it is obvious that Jesus, Paul, and Luke took the Genesis creation story, including what it says about Adam and Eve, quite literally. Consequently, if you are going to take on that story and try to explain it away as myth or fiction, you are going to have to take on them as well. You see, it’s not just two chapters in the Old Testament you are denying. No, it’s doctrinal teaching given in multiple passages by multiple characters in the New Testament.

Of course, if someone wants to deny all of the Bible, including the entire New Testament, well, that’s a whole other conversation for a whole other time. But let’s have none of this “buffet line” approach to scripture by which we try to keep the passages that suit us and dismiss those that don’t. Frankly, I have more respect for someone who looks me squarely in the eye and says, “I think the entire Bible is about as factual as Jack & the Beanstalk” than I do someone who wants to keep the words of Jesus but mythologize the creation week and the story of Adam and Eve. I mean, how can we trust a literal interpretation of John 3:16 if we can’t apply that same kind of interpretation to Genesis 1:16 and 2:16? Think about it.

Posted in Atheism, Bible Study, Creation, Current Events, Doubt, God's Word, Homosexuality, Marriage, Scripture, The Bible | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

An Interesting Question

Posted on January 3, 2018 by russellmckinney

I once ministered to an elderly man, a member of my church, who was dying from various health issues. During one of our visits, he asked me a question that no one had ever asked me. His question was, “If a man gets saved under the ministry of a preacher, and that preacher later on gets accused of doing something really bad, what does that say about the supposed salvation experience the man experienced under the preacher’s ministry?”

It wasn’t hard to figure out that the dying man had himself in mind, and a short while later he filled in the specifics of the case. Years earlier he had heard a certain preacher preach a powerful message, after which he had accepted the preacher’s invitation to believe in Jesus Christ as Savior. In the years that had followed, though, that preacher had been disgraced out of the ministry by a scandalous accusation. Regardless of whether or not the accusation was the truth — and neither I nor the church member knew that answer — it had caused the church member to always have a sliver of a doubt about the salvation experience.

The whole thing was news to me because the dying man had been one of the most faithful members I’d had during my time as pastor of that church. I certainly had no reason to doubt his salvation. But I could see that the question was weighing on his mind as he lay at death’s door, and so I did my best to assure him that he had placed his belief in Jesus, not the preacher. Jesus was the one who had saved him, and Jesus can’t fail. The preacher was merely the vessel through which the gospel had been given, and that message was untainted no matter what sin the preacher may or may not have committed later on in life. I think the church member already knew that answer, but he wanted to get a second opinion before he went out to meet his Maker. How I wish that everyone was as concerned about their relationship with Jesus as they come to the end of life.

As I think about the characters of the Bible, I can name many who did great things for the Lord only to fail somehow in the days that followed:

  • Noah saved the human race by building an ark, but then he got drunk sometime after the flood was over (Genesis 9:18-21). Did that bout of drunkenness invalidate his building of the ark?
  • Abraham left his hometown of Ur and allowed God to lead him to Canaan, but then he went down to Egypt and, once there, lied about his relationship to his wife Sarah (Genesis 12:10-20). Did that trip and that lie invalidate the obedience and faith he had shown in making the journey to Canaan?
  • Moses faithfully led the Israelites for over forty years, but then he struck the rock in anger and in so doing disqualified himself from leading them into Canaan (Numbers 20:6-12). Did that one act invalidate everything he had done in the previous forty years of dedicated service?
  • David served God as a shepherd boy, wrote Psalms, slew the giant Goliath, patiently waited on God to remove Saul as king, united the 12 tribes of Israel into one kingdom, captured Jerusalem and made it Israel’s capital, brought the Ark of the Covenant into Jerusalem, and ushered in a golden age for Israel, but then he had a one-night stand with Bathsheba, got her pregnant, had her husband Uriah killed, and married her (2 Samuel 11:1-27). Did his sins of adultery and murder invalidate all the good he had done leading up to them?
  • Solomon succeeded David upon Israel’s throne, received great wisdom from God, built the Jewish temple, and led Israel into its greatest economic and political era, but then he allowed his hundreds of foreign wives and concubines to seduce him into their worship of false gods (1 Kings 11:1-8). Did his idolatry invalidate everything he had done before it?
  • Peter was the leader of Christ’s chosen 12 apostles and was sent forth by Christ with the other 11 to cast out demons, heal the sick, and preach the gospel, but following Christ’s arrest he thrice denied knowing Jesus (Matthew 26:69-75). Did those denials invalidate all of Peter’s previous ministry?
  • Thomas was one of the chosen 12, and he too was sent forth by Christ to cast out demons, heal the sick, and preach the gospel, but following Christ’s death he openly doubted Christ’s resurrection (John 20:24-29). Did that refusal to believe that Jesus had resurrected invalidate all of Thomas’ previous ministry?

As you can see, there is plenty of Bible evidence for the answer I gave that dying man. As a matter of fact, I wish he had given me a little notice about his question so that I could have provided him with a more thorough answer that day. In the end, though, he seemed at peace with not only my answer but also the decision for Jesus he had made under the ministry of that preacher. The church member died not long afterward, and I had no hesitation whatsoever about using my funeral sermon to assure his family that he was in heaven with his Savior. For that matter, that preacher is dead now as well, and if he truly did know Christ as his Savior, regardless of any sin he ever committed, he’s in heaven too. Remember, Jesus forgives the believer of all sins, even scandalous ones.

Posted in Backsliding, Belief, Doubt, Eternal Security, Evangelism, Faith, Forgiveness, God's Work, Grace, Ministry, Personal, Preaching, Salvation, Service, Sin, The Gospel, Witnessing | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment