Category Archives: Creation

Could God Have Used Evolution?

Posted on by

Ken Ham in a facebook post October 27, 2023 writes:

Could God have used evolution? Well, first of all, it’s not a matter of what God could have done but what he said he did. Secondly, if a Christian truly understands evolution and its processes of death, disease, and violence over millions of years, and understands the attributes of a holy God, then, no—God couldn’t have used evolution to create life. To do so would be against his own character.

Many Christians today claim that millions of years of earth history fit with the Bible and that God could have used evolutionary processes to create. This idea is not a recent invention. For over 200 years, many theologians have attempted such harmonizations in response to the work of people like Charles Darwin and Scottish geologist Charles Lyell before him, who helped popularize the idea of millions of years of earth history and slow geological processes.

When we consider the possibility that God used evolutionary processes to create over millions of years, we are faced with serious consequences: the Word of God is no longer authoritative, and the character of our loving God is questioned.

Already in Darwin’s day, one of the leading evolutionists saw the compromise involved in claiming that God used evolution, and his insightful comments are worth reading again. Once you accept evolution and its implications about history, then man becomes free to pick and choose which parts of the Bible he wants to accept.

The leading humanist of Darwin’s day, Thomas Huxley (1825–1895), eloquently pointed out the inconsistencies of reinterpreting Scripture to fit with popular scientific thinking. Huxley, an ardent evolutionary humanist, was known as “Darwin’s bulldog,” as he did more to popularize Darwin’s ideas than Darwin himself. Huxley understood Christianity much more clearly than did compromising theologians who tried to add evolution and millions of years to the Bible. He used their compromise against them to help his cause in undermining Christianity.

In his essay “Lights of the Church and Science,” Huxley stated,

“I am fairly at a loss to comprehend how anyone, for a moment, can doubt that Christian theology must stand or fall with the historical trustworthiness of the Jewish Scriptures. The very conception of the Messiah, or Christ, is inextricably interwoven with Jewish history…what about the authority of the writers of the books of the New Testament, who, on this theory, have not merely accepted flimsy fictions for solid truths, but have built the very foundations of Christian dogma upon legendary quicksands?”

Huxley made the point that if we are to believe the New Testament doctrines, we must believe the historical account of Genesis as historical truth.

Huxley was definitely out to destroy the truth of the biblical record. When people rejected the Bible, he was happy. But when they tried to harmonize evolutionary ideas with the Bible and reinterpret it, he vigorously attacked this position. He stated:

“I confess I soon lose my way when I try to follow those who walk delicately among ‘types’ and allegories. A certain passion for clearness forces me to ask, bluntly, whether the writer means to say that Jesus did not believe the stories in question or that he did? When Jesus spoke, as a matter of fact, that ‘the Flood came and destroyed them all,’ did he believe that the Deluge really took place, or not? It seems to me that, as the narrative mentions Noah’s wife, and his sons’ wives, there is good scriptural warranty for the statement that the antediluvians married and were given in marriage: and I should have thought that their eating and drinking might be assumed by the firmest believer in the literal truth of the story. Moreover, I venture to ask what sort of value, as an illustration of God’s methods of dealing with sin, has an account of an event that never happened? If no Flood swept the careless people away, how is the warning of more worth than the cry of ‘Wolf’ when there is no wolf?“

Huxley also quoted 1 Corinthians 15:21–22: “For since by man came death, by Man also came the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive.”

Huxley continued, “If Adam may be held to be no more real a personage than Prometheus, and if the story of the Fall is merely an instructive ‘type,’ comparable to the profound Promethean mythos, what value has Paul’s dialectic?

Thus, concerning those who accepted the New Testament doctrines that the Apostle Paul and Christ teach but rejected Genesis as literal history, Huxley claimed “the melancholy fact remains, that the position they have taken up is hopelessly untenable.”

He was adamant that science (by which he meant evolutionary, long-age ideas about the past) had proven that one cannot intelligently accept the Genesis account of creation and the flood as historical truth. He further pointed out that various doctrines in the New Testament are dependent on the truth of these events, such as Paul’s teaching on the doctrine of sin, Christ’s teaching on the doctrine of marriage, and the warning of future judgment. Huxley mocked those who try to harmonize evolution and millions of years with the Bible, because it requires them to give up a historical Genesis while still trying to hold to the doctrines of the New Testament.

The book of Genesis teaches that death is the result of Adam’s sin (Genesis 3:19; Romans 5:12, 8:18–22) and that all of God’s creation was “very good” upon its completion (Genesis 1:31). All animals and humans were originally vegetarian (Genesis 1:29–30). But if we compromise on the history of Genesis by adding millions of years, we must believe that death and disease were part of the world before Adam sinned. You see, the (alleged) millions of years of earth history in the fossil record shows evidence of animals eating each other, diseases like cancer in their bones, violence, plants with thorns, and so on. All of this supposedly took place before man appears on the scene, and thus before sin (and its curse of death, disease, thorns, carnivory, and so on) entered the world.

Christians who believe in an old earth (billions of years) need to come to grips with the real nature of the god of an old earth—it is not the loving God of the Bible. Even many conservative, evangelical Christian leaders accept and actively promote a belief in millions and billions of years for the age of rocks. How could a God of love allow such horrible processes as disease, suffering, and death for millions of years as part of his “very good” creation?

The god of an old earth cannot therefore be the God of the Bible who is able to save us from sin and death. Thus, when Christians compromise with the millions of years attributed by many scientists to the fossil record, they are, in that sense, seemingly worshipping a different god—the cruel god of an old earth.

People must remember that God created a perfect world; so when they look at this present world, they are not looking at the nature of God but at the results of our sin.

The God of the Bible, the God of mercy, grace, and love, sent his one and only Son to become a man (but God nonetheless), to become our sin bearer so that we could be saved from sin and eternal separation from God. As 2 Corinthians 5:21 says, “For He has made Him who knew no sin, to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.”

There’s no doubt—the god of an old earth destroys the gospel.

Now it is true that rejection of six literal days doesn’t ultimately affect one’s salvation, if one is truly born again. However, we need to stand back and look at the big picture.

In many nations, the Word of God was once widely respected and taken seriously. But once the door of compromise is unlocked, once Christian leaders concede that we shouldn’t interpret the Bible as written in Genesis, why should the world take heed of God’s Word in any area? Because the church has told the world that one can use man’s interpretation of the world, such as billions of years, to reinterpret the Bible, this Book is seen as an outdated, scientifically incorrect holy book not intended to be believed as written.

As each subsequent generation has pushed this door of compromise open farther and farther, they are increasingly not accepting the morality or salvation of the Bible either. After all, if the history in Genesis is not correct, how can one be sure the rest is correct? Jesus said, “If I have told you earthly things, and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you of heavenly things?” (John 3:12).

The battle is not one of young earth vs. old earth, or billions of years vs. six days, or creation vs. evolution—the real battle is the authority of the Word of God vs. man’s fallible opinions. Is God’s Word the authority, or is man’s word the authority?

So, couldn’t God have used evolution to create? The answer is no. A belief in millions of years of evolution not only contradicts the clear teaching of Genesis and the rest of Scripture but also impugns the character of God. He told us in the book of Genesis that he created the whole universe and everything in it in six days by his word: “Then God said . . .” His Word is the evidence of how and when God created, and his Word is incredibly clear.

Compromise Positions

Posted on by

An article by Ken Ham:

There are many different, what I call “compromise positions,” on Genesis such as theistic evolution, progressive creation, gap theory, day age theory, and many others. They actually all have one thing in common: trying to fit the supposed millions/billions of years into Scripture. Let’s look at one of these positions that has been fairly prevalent, progressive creation.

This position (popularized by Dr. Hugh Ross) allowed Christians to use the term “creationist” but still gave them supposed academic respectability in the eyes of the world by rejecting six literal days of creation and maintaining billions of years.

In summary, progressive creation teaches:

The big-bang origin of the universe occurred about 13–15 billion years ago.

The days of creation were overlapping periods of millions and billions of years.

Over millions of years, God created new species as others kept going extinct.

The record of nature (as interpreted by man) is just as reliable as the Word of God.

Death, bloodshed, and disease existed before Adam and Eve.

Manlike creatures that looked and behaved much like us (and painted on cave walls) existed before Adam and Eve but did not have a spirit that was made in the image of God, and thus had no hope of salvation.

The Genesis flood was a local event.

The big bang origin of the universe

Progressive creationists claim that the days of creation in Genesis chapter 1 represent long periods of time and that day three of creation week lasted more than three billion years! This assertion is made in order to allow for the billions of years that evolutionists claim are represented in the rock layers of earth. This position, however, has problems, both biblically and scientifically.

The text of Genesis 1 clearly states that God supernaturally created all that is in six actual days. If we are prepared to let the words of the text speak to us in accord with the context and their normal definitions, without influence from outside ideas, then the word for “day” in Genesis 1 obviously means an ordinary day of about 24 hours. It is qualified by a number, the phrase “evening and morning,” and for day one, the words “light and darkness.”

As their name indicates, progressive creationists believe that God progressively created species on earth over billions of years, with new species replacing extinct ones, starting with simple organisms and culminating in the creation of Adam and Eve. They accept the evolutionary order for the development of life on earth, even though this contradicts the order given in the Genesis account of creation. Evolutionary belief holds that the first life forms were marine organisms, while the Bible says that God created land plants first. Reptiles are supposed to have predated birds, while Genesis says that birds came first. Evolutionists believe that land mammals came before whales, while the Bible teaches that God created whales first.

Progressive creationists have stated that nature is “just as perfect” as the Bible and call nature the “sixty-seventh book” of the Bible.

Now God tells us in Romans 8:22 that “the whole creation groans and labors with birth pangs” because of sin. And not only was the universe cursed, but man himself has been affected by the fall. So how can sinful, fallible human beings in a sin-cursed universe say that their interpretation of the evidence (nature) is as perfect as God’s written revelation? Scientific assertions must use fallible assumptions and fallen reasoning—how can this be the Word of God? It can’t.

Christians should build their thinking on the Bible, not on fallible interpretations of scientific observations about the past.

Progressive creationists believe the fossil record was formed from the millions of animals that lived and died before Adam and Eve were created. They accept the idea that there was death, bloodshed, and disease (including cancer) before sin, which goes directly against the teaching of the Bible and dishonors the character of God.

But God created a perfect world at the beginning. When he was finished, God stated that his creation was “very good.” The Bible makes it clear that man and all the animals were vegetarians before the fall (Genesis 1:29-30). Plants were given to them for food (plants do not have a nephesh [life spirit] as man and animals do and thus eating them would not constitute “death” in the biblical sense).

Concerning the entrance of sin into the world, progressive creationist Dr. Ross writes, “The groaning of creation in anticipation of release from sin has lasted fifteen billion years and affected a hundred billion trillion stars.”

The Bible,however, teaches something quite different. In the context of human death, the apostle Paul states, “Through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin” (Romans 5:12). It is clear that there was no sin in the world before Adam sinned, and thus no death.

Since evolutionary radiometric dating methods have dated certain humanlike fossils as older than Ross’s date for modern humans (approx. 40,000 years), he and other progressive creationists insist that these are fossils of pre-Adamic creatures that had no spirit, and thus no salvation.

Progressive creationists accept and defend evolutionary dating methods, so they must redefine all evidence of humans (descendants of Noah) if they are given evolutionary dates of more than about 40,000 years (e.g., the Neanderthal cave sites) as related to spiritless “hominids,” which the Bible does not mention. However, these same methods have been used to “date” the Australian Aborigines back at least 60,000 years (some have claimed much older) and fossils of “anatomically modern humans” to over 100,000 years. By Ross’s reasoning, none of these (including the Australian Aborigines) could be descendants of Adam and Eve and so wouldn’t have souls. However, Acts 17:26 says, “And he has made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth, and has determined their preappointed times and the boundaries of their dwellings”. All people who have lived on earth are descendants of Adam.

In addition, the fossil record cannot, by its very nature, conclusively reveal if a creature had a spirit or not, since spirits are not fossilized. But there is clear evidence that creatures, which progressive creationists place before Adam, had art and clever technology and that they buried their dead in a way that many of Adam’s descendants did. They were fully human and actually descendants of Adam, and they lived only a few thousand years ago.

Progressive creationists will say they believe in a “universal” or “worldwide” flood, but in reality they do not believe that the flood covered the whole earth. They believe in a local flood. They argue that the text of Genesis 7 doesn’t really say that the flood covered the whole earth. But read it for yourself and you will find the language overwhelmingly speaks of a flood covering the entire earth and everything on it.

Now it is true that whether one believes in six literal days does not ultimately affect one’s salvation, if one is truly born again. However, we need to stand back and look at the “big picture.” In many nations, the Word of God was once widely respected and taken seriously. But once the door of compromise is unlocked and Christian leaders concede that we shouldn’t take the Bible as written in Genesis, why should the world take heed of it in any area? Because the Church has told the world that one can use man’s interpretation of the world (such as billions of years) to reinterpret the Bible, it is seen as an outdated, scientifically incorrect “holy book,” not intended to be taken seriously.

Beware of compromise positions that attempt to fit man’s evolutionary/millions of years beliefs into the Bible.

Can You Love Theistic Evolutionists?

Posted on by

An article by Ken Ham:

I have been traveling around the world and speaking on creation-apologetics for over 40 years. I’ve also been on many media interviews and radio talk shows during that time. I’ve met thousands of people. You could imagine that during all this time I have been asked a lot of questions relating to what I teach concerning Genesis chapters 1-11, the authority of Scripture, and the gospel. Surely by now you would think I’ve heard every question possible. But no, I think almost every week I’ll hear a question I haven’t been asked before.

During one of my trips to Australia, a reporter with a Christian media outlet had some different questions for me. I think you’ll be very interested in these questions and how I did my best to answer them. Often, after answering certain questions, I said to myself, “I need to remember how I answered that for next time!”

I always pray for wisdom and ask the Lord to help me answer new questions, and I do believe he also helps me recall things I’ve heard or read.

I’ve been in apologetics ministry for more than 40 years. My first creation-apologetics talk was in 1975. Along the way, I’ve had so many media interviews, I can’t remember most of them—TV broadcasts, radio programs, and newspaper and magazine interviews across the globe!

In a sense, I have learned to deal with being thrown to the wolves in this Answers in Genesis ministry. I’ve had to learn how to answer the most-asked questions about Genesis, creation, evolution, Noah’s flood, moral issues, the gospel, biblical authority, and so forth and do it quickly. And we hear many of those questions over and over again. That’s why we complied the 5 Answers Books to answer these most asked questions.

Actually, being out of the office and teaching in churches and colleges and interacting with Christian and secular media certainly hones our ability to answer new and sometimes difficult questions.

Over the years, every time I hear a question that I don’t know the answer to, I follow up with research, sometimes meeting with our resident scientists/theologians at AiG. We discuss the topic to ensure I can answer the question even better next time.

But let’s get to the interview I had with a reporter for a Christian media group in Australia.

The media outlet heard I was speaking at a conference in Sydney and contacted the church to ask if a reporter could talk to me. The reporter called me a couple of days later, and I spent nearly an hour on the phone with her. I wasn’t able to record the conversation, but I took careful notes and compiled them to the best of my ability.

I wasn’t surprised that it didn’t take long for her to ask a question about whether I believe someone has to believe in six literal days and a young earth to be a Christian. I emphatically stated that salvation is not conditional on the age of the earth or the six literal days, but on faith in Christ. I explained why it’s really a biblical authority issue, and I gave her many examples of how incompatible millions of years is with Genesis.

But then she asked a question that I must admit I had never been asked before, “Can you love theistic evolutionists?”

I told her I had recently spoken at a secular university (the University of Central Oklahoma) with many of the LGBTQ group from the university present. I told the crowd that as a Christian, I didn’t hate them, because I’m a Christian. And as Jesus tells us, we are to love our neighbor as ourselves. However, I told the audience that I disagreed with the LGBTQ worldview—but that should never be interpreted as hate. I then said to the reporter, “I can love LGBTQ people, and I can love theistic evolutionists.”

Sensing why the reporter might be asking the question, I added that because I speak boldly about what I believe, sometimes people will falsely interpret my beliefs as hate. I often find that those who don’t take AiG’s stand on Genesis will demand we agree that people can have different views. I told the reporter that Christians can have different views, but I’ll tell them why I believe those views are wrong—and how they undermine biblical authority! Sometimes people get angry when I respond like this, and they may even, ironically, show hate toward me! They want me to say their position is a valid one. But I can’t do if I do not believe it!

I explained to the reporter why such matters are biblical authority issues. In detail, I pointed out that adding man’s ideas to Scripture in Genesis is undermining the authority of the Word of God—that it undermines all Christian doctrine, even the gospel.

The reporter asked me many other questions, and she got to the topic of climate change. Now, I would say that this was the only time during the interview when I believe things became somewhat contentious with this Christian reporter. (Climate change can be an emotional topic.)

First, I told her there’s been climate change ever since the flood. I said I didn’t deny climate change, but the details as to why it’s happening and how serious it is (or isn’t) were matters that needed to be discussed. I referred to one of the articles in our Answers magazine where a scientist shows that there have been warming and cooling periods in the past and that our current (quite small) warming trend could be a normal fluctuation.

I further explained that we don’t have enough data to know for sure what has really been occurring. I added that scientists know the sun’s activity has a significant effect on climate change and that the main greenhouse gas is not actually carbon dioxide but water vapor.

Then it became a bit tense. I said that if you ask most people who are climate change alarmists (including most young people) to explain the data and give the facts behind what they’re claiming, most have no clue. They just regurgitate what they’ve heard.

She then said something to the effect that she didn’t need to do that. The reporter said that she could rely on the experts who have done the research. I replied that this is not the correct approach and that as Christians, we all need to search things out and be prepared to give reasons (1 Peter 3:15) for what we believe.

I told her my father wanted his kids to know why we believed what we did—and wanted us to be able to defend our beliefs. She then essentially accused me of refusing to accept what the majority of scientists are saying: that man-made climate change is a big problem.

I replied by saying that the majority of scientists say there’s no God and that life arose by naturalistic evolution. Should we then say we have to reject God because the majority of scientists say so? I emphasized that we are obligated as Christians to check things out.

I also explained that after the Flood, God told Noah, “While the earth remains, seedtime and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, day and night, shall not cease” (Genesis 8:22).

She responded with, “Are you saying we should do nothing then?” Well, of course I wasn’t saying that. I responded that God gave man dominion over the environment, not the environment over man, and that Christians should have a biblically based worldview in regard to environmental issues. We should responsibly use the creation for man’s good and God’s glory.

I gave an example that in the USA, trees are harvested for various reasons, but more trees are planted than are harvested. I also said that we need to understand how sin and the curse of Genesis 3:14-19 have affected the world.

I recalled the verse, “My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge” (Hosea 4:6).

Actually, that’s a major problem in the world and in the church! One of the reasons so many young people are being led astray by evolutionary ideas, climate change alarmists, abortionists, the LGBTQ movement, and so forth is that they have been told what to believe and not taught how to think about such issues or look at all the evidence available. And sadly, much of the church has not taught their congregations how to think about these issues from a biblical worldview perspective, and how to defend the Christian faith against the secular attacks of our day by equipping with apologetics.

Who Do You Trust? Who Should You Trust?

Posted on by

Ken Ham (in a facebook post) writes:

Who should you trust first? God or the scientist? God or the theologian? God or the Christian academic?

Many times over the years, I’ve had a number of conversations with Christians who won’t accept the days of creation as ordinary days and vehemently defend millions of years and other evolutionary beliefs. Often, the person talking to me has quoted various Christian academics, well-known theologians/Christian leaders, or certain church fathers claiming that I should give up my position on a historical Genesis because these academics/famous Christians do not agree with me.

My answer to them has been, “But what does God clearly state in his Word? I judge the people you quoted against God’s Word, not the other way round.”

I have certainly been scoffed at and mocked at over the years because of my position. Now don’t get me wrong. I respect scholarship. But regardless, we need to recognize that we could have 100 PhDs from Harvard university, but compared to what God knows we would still know nearly nothing.

When I teach children about dinosaurs, creation, and evolution, I like to ask them these questions:

•“Has any human being always been there?” They answer, “No.”

•“Has any scientist always been there?” They answer, “No.”

•“Does any human being know everything?” They answer, “No.”

•“Does any scientist know everything?” They answer, “No.”

•“Who is the only one who has always been there?” They shout out, “God.”

•“Who is the only one who knows everything?” The shout out, “God.”

I then ask:

“Who is the one we should always trust first? God or the scientist?” They call out, “God.”

And I could add, “Who should we always trust first: God, the scientist, the theologian, the teacher, the pastor, the professor?” And the answer will always be God.

In a way that sounds rather simplistic. In fact, I’ve had people who oppose my position claim that I have too simplistic a belief to just take Genesis 1-11 as it is written. Now when someone claims it’s too simplistic, I believe this is showing up a problem we all have to battle with because it’s a part of our nature, the sin nature we have, because we are descendants of Adam. The problem is pride.

God’s Word has a lot to say about pride:

“When pride comes, then comes disgrace, but with the humble is wisdom”(Proverbs 11:2).

“Do you see a man who is wise in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him” (Proverbs 26:12).

And God’s Word tells how to gain wisdom and knowledge:

“The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge” (Proverbs 1:7).

“The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom” (Proverbs 9:10).

I would rather stand before the Lord and say that I’m guilty of simplistically believing what his Word states in Genesis than to trust the word of fallible humans and reinterpret God’s Word.

I’m reminded about this so-called “simplistic” approach when I read what Jesus said about children:

“Truly, I say to you, unless you turn and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. Whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 18:3–4).

It is so much easier for children who have not had years of indoctrination from the world to believe God’s Word as written. Reading Genesis for them is just like reading a history book. Well, it is history, and history as God had it recorded for us. Sadly, the more educated people become, many find it harder to believe God’s Word as written in Genesis. And it’s not because Genesis is literal history, but I believe it’s because of pride.

And a reason for that is we all have an underlying problem.

It doesn’t matter who we are, we all have sinful hearts.

“For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23).

The origin of sin is found in Genesis 3 when Adam and Eve were tempted by the devil to disobey God. Now consider two elements of the temptation that help us understand our sin nature:

“He said to the woman, ‘Did God actually say . . .” (Genesis 3:1).

Note the first attack by the devil was on the Word of God to get Adam and Eve to doubt God’s Word so that doubt would lead to unbelief.

“For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil” (Genesis 3:5).

The second part of the temptation was really to offer them to be their own god.

We know Adam took the fruit and disobeyed God and brought sin and the judgment of death into the world. God’s Word states:

“Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned—for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law. Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come” (Romans 5:12–14).

So we have that sin nature. And Genesis 3:1 and 3:5 sum up that nature.

Our propensity will be to doubt the Word of God, as we would rather trust the word of man. I see that over and over again with Christian leaders/academics who would rather trust man’s word (beliefs) about millions of years and evolution instead of God’s Word as it’s clearly stated in Genesis 1-11.

Also, we have this propensity to be our own god. We want to decide truth for ourselves. We see ourselves as being proud of what we know. We think we can reason correctly by ourselves, so we have that problem of intellectual pride wanting intellectual respectability.

I believe this is why there is so much compromise in the church when it comes to God’s Word in Genesis. Our heart is such that we would rather trust man’s word than God’s Word, so we have a problem with intellectual pride and thus we cave to peer pressure. We must guard against this. However, none of us like being called anti-intellectual or anti-academic. And we will be called that if we believe in six literal days of creation and a young earth and universe.

But I often think about those in Hebrews 11 and the Christian martyrs of the past. They were sawn in half, thrown to lions, burned alive, lived in caves, were destitute and suffered many atrocities. And yet, so many Christians today cave because they are belittled by secular academics for believing the “simplistic” account of creation, the fall, the flood, and Tower of Babel as related in Scripture.

I wonder how many in the church today would have stood with Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego. Would you? Who do you trust first: God or the scientist?

“‘Now if you are ready when you hear the sound of the horn, pipe, lyre, trigon, harp, bagpipe, and every kind of music, to fall down and worship the image that I have made, well and good. But if you do not worship, you shall immediately be cast into a burning fiery furnace. And who is the god who will deliver you out of my hands?’

“Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego answered and said to the king, ‘O Nebuchadnezzar, we have no need to answer you in this matter. If this be so, our God whom we serve is able to deliver us from the burning fiery furnace, and he will deliver us out of your hand, O king. But if not, be it known to you, O king, that we will not serve your gods or worship the golden image that you have set up’” (Daniel 3:15–18).

All “Very Good”?

Posted on by

Ken Ham:

Does God call cancer “very good?”

Does God call arthritis “very good?”

Does God call abscesses “very good?”

Does God call tumors “very good?”

Did thorns exist before the fall?

Did animals eat other animals before the fall?

For those Christians who believe in millions of years, then the answers to the above questions are “Yes” to all!

Before I explain this, we first of all need to understand how we should define the word “good.” Let’s consider this passage:

“And as he was setting out on his journey, a man ran up and knelt before him and asked him, ‘Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?’ And Jesus said to him, ‘Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone’” (Mark 10:17–18).

Only God is “good.” This means the attributes of God define what the word “good” means.

From reading through the Scriptures, we learn God is infinite, self-existing, never changes, has no needs, all knowing, all powerful, all loving, everywhere, infinitely wise, unchangingly kind, full of good will, perfect in all he does, compassionate and merciful, perfect in all his ways, infinitely beautiful.

So when God defines anything as “very good,” then it must be exceedingly good. It must mean perfect and beautiful.

In Genesis 1:31 we read, “And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day.”

Now “everything that he had made” includes everything created over the six days in Genesis 1. And as we read in Exodus 20:11, “For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.”

God’s Word makes it clear that everything God created, from the earth, to the plants, stars, animals, and man were all “very good.” They were perfect at the beginning.

Here’s an insurmountable problem for those Christians who believe the fossil record was laid down over millions of years before man.

First, the belief in millions of years came out of naturalism, the religion of atheism. Atheists postulated that fossil layers were laid down over millions of years by natural processes (no supernatural involved), capturing evidence of life as it supposedly evolved.

Secondly, in the fossil record there are many instances documented of disease like cancer, tumors, arthritis, and abscesses in the remains of various creatures. So, if a Christian believes in millions of years, then such diseases existed over millions of years before man existed. Now the Bible tells us as I quoted above that after God made everything including man, he said everything he made was “very good.” Thus, those Christians who believe in millions of years have to admit that this would mean God calls diseases like cancer, tumors, arthritis, and abscesses as “very good.”

There is no way God calls diseases “very good.” Death and disease exist in this fallen world because of sin. Death is described as an “enemy” in 1 Corinthians 15:26. Death is an intrusion! That’s why one day it will be thrown into the lake of fire. Romans 8:22 tells us the whole creation is groaning because of sin. To accuse God of saying diseases like cancer are “very good” and to accuse God of using death as part of the process of creating life, is to attack the very character of God.

Those Christians who believe in millions of years also therefore can’t get around that this means when we look at this world of death, suffering and disease, then God must be responsible for this. But the Bible makes it clear our sin is responsible of this groaning creation. That’s why Jesus came to die on a cross because death was the penalty for sin.

Thirdly, those who believe in millions of years have to then answer the question, “what did sin do to the world?” If all that death, suffering and disease existed before man sinned, then what did sin do? Apparently nothing that we observe in this groaning world is because of sin!!!!

Fourthly, there are two more items.

1. The Scripture teaches plainly that thorns came after the curse because of man’s sin:

“Because you have listened to the voice of your wife and have eaten of the tree of which I commanded you, ‘You shall not eat of it,’ cursed is the ground because of you; in pain you shall eat of it all the days of your life; thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you;”(Genesis 3:17–18)

But there are many examples of fossil thorns supposedly formed millions of years ago!

No, you can’t have thorns millions of years before man.

2. The Scripture teaches plainly that animals were vegetarian before the fall.

“And to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the heavens and to everything that creeps on the earth, everything that has the breath of life, I have given every green plant for food.”(Genesis 1:30).

But there are many examples of animals having eaten other animals or in the midst of eating another creature in the fossil record supposedly millions of years before man and before man sinned.

No, you can’t have animals eating each other before the fall.

Christians who compromise God’s Word and undermine its authority with the belief in millions of years need to give it up and take God at his Word.

The Days of Creation

Posted on by

Ken Ham writes:

It’s amazing to me how many Christians claim the days of creation aren’t ordinary days, claim we can’t know, or it doesn’t matter.

But it does matter that we take God’s Word as written!

I remember one conversation that went something like this when discussing the meaning of the word “day” (Hebrew: “yom”) for the six days of creation:

The person said, “But the word ‘day’ can mean something other than an ordinary day.” I replied, “That’s true but the word ‘day’ can also mean an ordinary day.” The person said again, “But the word ‘day’ can mean something other than an ordinary day.” I realized this conversation could go on for ever, so I said, “The word ‘day’ can have a number of different meanings. The point is, ‘What does the word day mean in this context?’”

Actually, most words can have two or more meanings depending on context. For instance, take the word “back.” I could say to someone, “I see you came back after the intermission for my second talk and you’re sitting at the back with your back against the back of the seat because you have a sore back.”

Now we know what the word “back” means each time I used it because of the context.

The word “day” in English can have a number of different meanings. For instance I could say, as an Australian, that “one day I want to go to the outback and travel during the day for three days to get to a town I wanted to go to.”

I just used the word “day” to mean time (“one day”), the daylight portion of a day (“during the day”) and ordinary 24-hour days (“three days”).

Now in Hebrew, the word for “day,” “yom,” can have a number of different meanings. Context determines meaning.

Here are some general rules as to when “yom” means an ordinary day. Whenever it is qualified by morning, evening, number, or night it always means an ordinary day. Also when the phrase “evening and morning” occurs, this means an ordinary day. Let’s consider the six days in Genesis 1.

v. 5: “God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day.”

v. 8: “There was evening and there was morning, the second day.”

v. 13: “There was evening and there was morning, the third day.”

v. 19: “There was evening and there was morning, the fourth day.”

v. 23: “There was evening and there was morning, the fifth day.”

v. 31: “There was evening and there was morning, the sixth day.”

It’s so obvious that the word “day” for each of the days of creation must mean an ordinary day. It’s as if God qualified it over and over again to make sure we couldn’t miss it. That’s why Hebrew dictionaries make it clear that the word “day” in Genesis chapter 1 means an ordinary day.

For instance, the Hebrew dictionary by Koehler Baumgartner makes it clear that the first example of when the word day means a 24-hour day is Genesis 1:5, the first day of the creation week (see photo).

Another Hebrew dictionary (lexicon) by Brown, Driver, Briggs gives the creation days qualified by evening and morning as examples of when the word “day” means an ordinary day.

The Hebrew word for “day” (“yom”) is used over 2,300 times in the Old Testament (in the singular or plural forms), but I don’t encounter people questioning what the word “day” means anywhere except Genesis chapter 1. So why is that? Because people have been impacted by the false teaching of millions of years, and many Christians and Christian leaders try to fit the millions of years into Genesis 1 and thus want to interpret the creation days as long periods of time to try to do this.

And if those creation days are ordinary days, and Adam was created on day six, and we study the detailed genealogies in the Old Testament we can add up dates to come to the present about 6,000 years later. One doesn’t get millions of years from the Bible, nor can one fit millions of years into the Bible.

Now, God could have created everything in six hours, six minutes, six seconds, or no time at all, as he is the infinite Creator God. So the question is: why did God take so long to create everything? Six days is a long time for God to create the universe and everything in it. He did it for us. He created the week for us to be able to work for six days and rest for one. Our seven-day week is based on the first week in Genesis 1 and is used as the basis of the fourth commandment:

“For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy” (Exodus 20:11).

Note also that the six days includes the creation of “heaven and earth” which is from Genesis 1:1. Thus it’s obvious that the first creation day includes Genesis 1:1 to Genesis 1:5.

Some people ask about the meaning of the word “day” in Genesis 2:4: “These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens.”

Here the word “day” is not qualified by evening, morning, or number, etc. So in context it means time.

Throughout the Old Testament, the word “day” can have a number of different meanings depending on context, but in Genesis 1 there is only one meaning for each of the days of the creation week—ordinary 24-hour days.

Origins

Posted on by
Reply

Dr. Jason Lisle conducts a number of lectures on the theme of origins at Indian Hills Community Church, Lincoln, NE (2019):

Understanding Genesis

Secrets of the Cosmos that Confirm the Bible

The Solar System Declares the Glory of God

The Ultimate Proof of Creation

Science Confirms Biblical Creation

The Secret Code of Creation

Questions and Answers

The “Why” Behind Creation

Posted on by
Reply

by Steven Lawson

Why did God create? Certainly not because He needed someone to love. Throughout all eternity past, God enjoyed perfect love and intimate communion within His own being. The three persons of the Godhead—Father, Son, and Spirit—enjoyed perfect relationships and completely fulfilled one another. Thus, God was not inwardly lonely or personally empty; He was entirely self-satisfied, self-content, and self-contained. So God did not create because of some limitation within Himself. Instead, He created everything out of nothing in order to put His glory on display for the delight of His created beings and that they might declare His greatness. The book of Genesis records God’s extraordinary display of sovereignty in speaking creation into being—and in saving it.

In Genesis, Moses first recorded the stunning demonstration of God’s sovereignty in creation. God did not look down the tunnel of time and see the universe evolve out of nothing. He did not foresee a big bang and then adopt the chaotic results as His eternal plan. To the contrary, God intentionally spoke into being everything out of nothing. He was under no coercion to create. There was no external pressure upon Him. Rather, His act of creation magnificently displayed His imperial sovereignty. No outside restraints can be placed upon God’s supreme authority, not by Satan and his fallen angels, and certainly not by mere men.

A. W. Pink writes with thought-provoking wonder of the extraordinary sovereignty of God before creation:

In the great expanse of eternity, which stretches behind Genesis 1:1, the universe was unborn and creation existed only in the mind of the great Creator. In His sovereign majesty God dwelt all alone. We refer to that far distant period before the heavens and the earth were created. There were then no angels to hymn God’s praises, no creatures to occupy His notice, no rebels to be brought into subjection. The great God was all alone amid the awful silence of His own vast universe. But even at that time, if time it could be called, God was sovereign. He might create or not create according to His own good pleasure. He might create this way or that way; He might create one world or one million worlds, and who was there to resist His will? He might call into existence a million different creatures and place them on absolute equality, endowing them with the same faculties and placing them in the same environment; or, He might create a million creatures each differing from the others, and possessing nothing in common save their creaturehood, and who was there to challenge His right? If He so pleased, He might call into existence a world so immense that its dimensions were utterly beyond finite computation; and were He so disposed, He might create an organism so small that nothing but the most powerful microscope could reveal its existence to human eyes. It was His sovereign right to create, on the one hand, the exalted seraphim to burn around His throne, and on the other hand, the tiny insect which dies the same hour that it is born. If the mighty God chose to have one vast graduation in His universe, from loftiest seraph to creeping reptile, from revolving worlds to floating atoms, from macrocosm to microcosm, instead of making everything uniform, who was there to question His sovereign pleasure?

God’s dazzling display of sovereignty in creation was a primer on His right to rule in matters of salvation. God, who commanded the light to appear on day one of creation, soon would order gospel light to shine into the darkened hearts of spiritually blind sinners. God, who separated the waters on day two, would cause an infinite chasm to separate Himself from sinners. God, who gathered the waters together on day three, would gather sinners to Himself. God, who created the sun, moon, and stars on day four, would omnipotently create saving faith. God, who began to create the animal kingdom on day five, would graciously send His Son to be the Lamb of God to take away sin. God, who created Adam and Eve on day six, would soon re-create sinners into His image. His free grace would perform the second Genesis in the salvation of lost men and women.

This excerpt is taken from Foundations of Grace by Steven Lawson.