God's Plan is Simple: The True Christian Worldview

Chapter 3

Adam & Eve, Original Sin,
And Creation of the Universe in
6 Days? Are You Serious?

Yet as the facts of language and nature are discovered, it is important to remember a principle given by Charles Hodge: “If the ordinary sense brings the Mosaic account into conflict with facts, and another sense would avoid such conflict, then it is obligatory on us to adopt the other. Systematic Theology, (NY Charles Scribner and Co., 1872), I, 571.

Genesis One, p. 134. 

Ancient thought attached much greater importance to the names than we do. Words were more than a means of communication and the use of appropriate names was anything but arbitrary. Naming an animal properly indicated that one had understood and characterized its properties, that one had established a relationship with it and one’s rule over it. Aldert Van Der Ziel, Genesis and Scientific Inquiry (Minneapolis: T.S. Denison and Co., Inc., 1965). P. 59 Ibid, p. 156. 

The chronological method depends on several assumptions; (1) the observed physical laws hold throughout (at least) the nearby universe over its entire history; (2) our understanding of these laws is adequate for these calculations; and (3) the stars were not created instantaneously somewhere in the midst of their life cycles.

Ibid, p. 28. 

 [Young Earth] Creationists usually rely on the Bible for their evidence. They are welcome to believe the Bible is inerrant if they so desire. However, they have lately turned to actual scientific findings to support their claims. But every argument they make is incorrect or incomplete, or otherwise, and in their writings they only mete out enough information to support their argument, without giving all the data needed to make an informed decision. Bad Astronomy, p. 190.

In some areas of the “Christian” religious world there is debate as to whether or not Adam and Eve [A & E] were actually human beings, or was their story just that, a story? Well, if you think that is a very good question and hope to get the answer here, I’m going to suggest that you read the book Who Was Adam by Dr. Hugh Ross with Reasons To Believe Ministry. Though I am suggesting reading Hugh’s book, there are some points on this subject I want to mention.

The RTB model views Adam and Eve as historical individuals—the first human beings—originating by God’s miraculous intervention approximately 70,000-50,000 years ago. Adam and Eve’s descendants formed a small initial population group that eventually gave rise to all human population groups around the world…The biblical approach places the origin of humanity in or near the Garden of Eden. While theologians have yet to reach a consensus on the Garden’s exact location, it likely existed in Mesopotamia and may have extended into northern and eastern Africa. P. 248.

I have spoken with many people over the years who did not believe the story of Adam and Eve as it is explained in the Bible. Some preachers I’ve heard speak, when confronted with such an attitude, simply brush it off, dismissing the person as being something close to an atheist just because the person found it difficult to believe the account of Adam and Eve. I was somewhat close to that opinion when I first turned my life over to Jesus, but within a short time, and after having spoken with someone who had studied more Hebrew than I, it was imperative that I soften my stance a bit.

That change in me was due to the teaching that the story of Adam and Eve is basically just that, a story,though science seems to keep adding evidence to the story to make it more fact than fiction. But, even back then—thousands of years ago—it  was a very important story according to this teacher. When the original teaching on Adam and Eve came about, the world’s most common way to look at Deity was that it was made up of many members—Polytheism—not just one God.

The story of Adam and Eve, according to him, was taught by the Hebrews for the purpose of changing that programming which so pervaded the majority of the world. The story was to get people thinking about One God, not many Gods, and now with the ability to look back for thousands of years, it appears that an extremely large segment of the world’s population has learned the lesson rather well.

In the young-earth creationist model, the Sun, Moon and stars did not exist until the fourth creation day. Until that day, some divine source of heat and light must have sustained life on Earth. However, because life requires a lot more than heat and light, the lack of an actual Sun and Moon for he first three creation days poses huge, even catastrophic, problems…If the Sun, Moon, stars and presumably planets in the vicinity of Earth were dropped into place on the fourth creation day, the gravitational perturbations would have radically altered Earth and instantly destroyed all life. A Matter of Days, p. 77.

The vast majority of scientists consider the movement badly misguided, or worse, intellectually dishonest. [Young-Earth] Creationists, scientists say, aren't doing real science. http://www.ncsu.edu/news/dailyclips/0106/010406.htm

So, were Adam and Eve real or just fictional characters in a narrative? That question would probably be very hard to prove either way, since there appears to be quite a few gaps in the historical records of the Hebrews. As taught by Hugh Ross, science has proven with DNA analysis and the tracking of the human parasite, Helicobacter pylori, [1] that mankind—homo sapien—can be traced back to east Africa which is fairly close to the Garden of Eden. So with that scientific proof maybe the writer of Genesis was pretty close to being “right” about the original man and woman on the earth. Hugh reports:

“Molecular anthropologists pose what they sometimes call the “Garden of Eden” hypothesis to explain the limited genetic diversity. This model maintains that humanity had a recent origin in a single location, and the original population size must have been quite small. From this one location, humanity expanded rapidly to occupy all the geographical regions of the planet…This scenario closely resembles the biblical description of humankind’s origin—hence the “Garden of Eden” label.”                        Who Is Adam, p. 60. 

Maybe God did reveal to the author of Genesis how He did it? Dr. Ross sure does offer proofs for that conclusion in his book.

The Out of Africa hypothesis posits a recent origin for humanity in a single location (apparently Africa) and from a small population. This theory also recognizes that humanity’s genetic fingerprint traces to one woman and one man. Ibid, p. 73.

But, since I do not have much of a scientific mentality, my understanding of what was accomplished by these two Bible characters during their existence appears to be more true than it is fictional. I feel strongly that I am able to say that because God was able to accomplish His purpose for the beginning of this human race on the earth today.

This is proven, in my opinion, due to the entire concept of the born-again experience, which is explained in another section of this book. Many unbelievers would not agree mainly because  the born-again experience happens on a spiritual level and you can’t see it happen. It can best be understood by the differences you “feel” or “sense” rather than by what can be seen by the human eye.

Also, one of the most important proofs has to do with the definition of the name, Adam. In the Hebrew language this word means God’s blood. [Remember above it was stated that a name from the beginning was very important.] This definition explains to us the facts that are necessary for understanding the born-again experience in that the entire history of the world people have believed that a person’s spirit is in one’s blood. I know this may sound quite crude and vulgar, but it is a fact of history in almost all parts of the world, and it is also God’s belief as explained throughout the Bible. “It is the spirit that gives life, and that life is in the blood.” It’s a simple principle that God declared to the Middle Eastern area of the world, and that has been proven fairly accurately by scientists for many years.

So, if the original man’s name was Adam or Pudintame, in the vast scheme of things it really doesn’t matter. The only important point is that God put His spirit—electrical energy—into the first man, then that same electrical energy in some form has passed down to each man and woman since that time. God instituted that system by giving the ability to the male to create human spirits by the sperm fertilizing—with electrical energy—the egg of a female.

Another important point necessary for our story has to do with the concept of the “original sin” and its consequences for Adam and Eve and the rest of their descendants— specifically, us. Where the story says that Adam and Eve died, the story should have read—if it had been translated correctly into English—“...you shall surely be spiritually separated from Me.” [Genesis 2: 17] If this section had been translated correctly, there would not have been much discussion about the issues of Adam and Eve dying, and the issue of “original sin.”

In simple terms, the reason for the spiritual separation was because God had established a covenant with Adam and Eve, and He expected the two of them to make good on their obligations of that covenant. When they disobeyed one of the “rules” of the covenant, they had to pay the price, which was to be no longer “One” with God the Father. This teaching stays consistent with what Jesus said thousands of years later: “I and the Father are One.” Jesus was in spiritual union with God the Father, just as Adam and Eve had been in the beginning until the “original sin.” [More on this subject in the chapter on The Cross…]

Old-Earth Creation vs. Young-Earth Creation

 If the Earth is too young, it would rotate too rapidly. If the Earth were too old, it would rotate too slowly. Lights In The Sky…, p. 177.

Scientists know only one way for a planet or moon to accrue a large percentage of free oxygen in its atmosphere—through the long-term activity of super-abundant photosynthetic life. Creation As Science, p. 137.

I don’t mean to be rude, crude or socially unacceptable [2] , but I’m quite positive that young-earth creationists [3] are the most dishonest people I’ve ever met. There is not one smidgeon of scientific evidence that supports their position, but it’s their story and they’re sticking to it. How can they complain about Darwinian evolutionists—another group of liars [4] —when they themselves maintain a position far from reality? Proof for this last position is found in the Cambrian explosion along with the sudden appearance of humans around 50,000-70,000 years ago. These are facts which can be proven. The young-earth creationists and Darwin evolutionists can’t present the needed scientific evidence to continue their charade.

If anyone was chasing a phantom or retreating from empiricism it was surely Darwin, who himself freely admitted that he had absolutely no hard empirical evidence that any of the major evolutionary transformations he proposed had ever actually occurred. It was Darwin, the evolutionist, who admitted in his letter to Asa Gray, that one’s “imagination must fill up the very wide blanks.” Evolution: A Theory In Crises, p. 117

Much of the historical teaching on the subject of the “original sin” teaches that only after the disobedience of A & E did death enter into this creation. That, as I’ve stated above, is not the fact. Science has also proven that to be a false teaching as A Matter of Days explains that death was here for billions of years.

“As hard as it may be for us to see good in death, death serves a purpose. The 3.8 billion years of plant and animal death and extinction that preceded humanity provided for the needs of civilization. Through that death and decay, God gave humanity enormous biodeposits of sand, limestone, marble, topsoil, coal, oil, and natural gas. Cryptogamic colonies (symbiotic colonies of cyanobacteria, fungi, and primitive mosses) converted the surfaces of silicate landmasses (the continents) into soil suitable for the support of advanced plants. Sulfate-reducing bacteria converted soluble metal compounds that would have poisoned advanced animal life into insoluble metal compounds. These compounds became so concentrated (thanks to the bacteria) that humans could mine rich deposits of iron, copper, lead, zinc, molybdenum, chromium, silver, and other natural resources.” Ibid. p. 91.

There is just too much evidence out there that is fact for the Young-Earth Creation position to be a viable teaching. In fact, I’m of the opinion that Young-Earth Creationists are not Christians as a true Christian always accepts historical facts that are provable. The proof of the beginning of the universe is one of the most solidly proven facts in history. Deal with it!

The Six Days of Creation

The probability of a planet anywhere in the universe fitting within all 153 parameters is approximately 10 to the 194^th. The maximum possible number of planets in the universe is estimated to be 10 to the 22^nd. Thus less than 1 chance in 10 to the 172^nd (100 thousand trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion) exists that even one such planet would occur anywhere in the universe. Lights In The Sky…, p. 189.

And while I’m on this subject of A & E, let me touch on the subject of the length of the 6 days of creation. As I see it, the major problem with understanding the story of Creation in the Bible is the fact that the book was originally written in Hebrew, not in English or any other modern day language as so many of the “Young-Earthers” contend. Since that is a fact, then it would be incumbent on an honest scholar to study at least some of the original language to make sure it was translated correctly into your language, whatever that language may be.

…the claim that yom always means a twenty-four hour day cannot be substantiated by a survey of its actual use…Zechariah 14:7…the day of the Lord for example. Genesis One, p. 61.

The Hebrew word for day is “yom” which can have more than just one meaning. It can mean 12 hour daytime, a full 24 hour day, or it can mean a long period of time. Science has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that the “yoms” of creation were long periods of time, with Day 6 as the strongest proof for that contention. When that day is looked at closely one can only conclude there was no way Adam was going to do all the things listed in that verse within a 24 hour period, and still be lonely for companionship. Any man can get by without a woman for at least 24 hours. Maybe not 36, but definitely 24. [Just kidding.]

Thus, we see the true source of the great ages of those biblical patriarchs.  Their ages are simply a Hebrew version of an older Mesopotamian tradition, which is to say that they are historically fictitious, that they are endowed with symbolic meanings. Therefore, the biblical age of the earth is a product of the literary reworking of a Mesopotamian tradition and not the result of a factual estimate.  The patriarchs' ages were selected with symbolic meanings in mind, and any attempt to turn them into an estimate of the earth's age would be most unwise.

http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/

For more information on the subject of the Creation Days, I encourage you to read A Matter of Days by Reasons To Believe (www.reasons.org) a group of scientists who research and write books and articles consistent with Bible teachings.

While the Greek concept of time focuses on when something happened and the measurement of the duration of action, the Hebrew concept of time focuses on the quality of the time, and therefore on the verbs. It is not incidental that all words in the Hebrew language are derived from verbs. What God Knows, p. 11

  Again, the modern translators have imposed on the Hebrew text a Greek understanding of time. Ibid, p. 13.

 In regard to DAYS, “In the Hebrew text, the definite article is missing again…The relationship is based on quality of action rather than on temporal sequence. Ibid, p. 14.

  Even with the vast expanse of time between days, this sequence still follows the Western pattern of thought…These can be days out of order since they are not defined by a definite article. Ibid, p. 15.

  In the Hebrew mind, the number seven represented a quality of perfection about whatever is modified, rather than representing merely a quantity.   Ibid, p. 16.

Earth needs 3.5 billion years of bacterial life—abundant and dominant bacterial life—for subsequent human life to be possible. But, for bacterial life to survive that long, the planet’s star must stay between those two spiral arms. If the star goes in and out of the spiral arms, the radiation there and the light from nearby super-giant stars can exterminate the essential bacteria. Ibid, p. 129.

 During the 1980s British cosmologist Brandon Carter extended the principle even further, calling his findings “the anthropic principle inequality.” Time is the key element. Carter first noted the fact that to get human beings on the cosmic scene in as little as 14 billion years requires virtually perfect orchestration of multiple cosmic factors. Left to ordinary (undirected) physics, life’s components would likely take much longer to develop, if they ever developed at all. Ibid, p. 130.

Famed physicists Tippler and Barrow, in their seven-hundred-page book on the anthropic principle, propose a recalculation of Carter’s figure. Based on various planetary environmental conditions they deduce that the window of time for human survival or, more specifically, for human civilization, cannot be longer than a few tens of thousands of years. Ibid, p. 131.

As of November, ’06 Hugh Ross has listed 816 different aspects of the Universe that MUST be fine-tuned for advanced life to exist now. In practical math the probability of this happening is about the same as a person buying one lottery ticket per week and winning a state-run lottery 132 consecutive times. [We all know that ain’t happening! But, the God of the Bible fine-tuned this creation for His purposes. That’s the scientific fact! Deal with it!]

Then when God was done creating He judged His creation as “very good.” For some reason many people can’t come to grips with the fact that even though “death” played a big part in the creation up to the time that A & E were created, God would still esteem the creation to be good. How can death be good? It can if it “was perfectly suited for the Creator’s eternal purpose.” [5] He was able to get the Redeemer to the world, which has eternal ramifications for the Evil One. [More on this later.]

So, that’s the simple version of the story of Adam and Eve. When translated correctly, it all lines up with what God and Jesus did a few thousand years later. Adam, God’s “firstborn” human son, messed up. But Jesus, God’s lastborn son, got it all straightened out. And He does that daily by offering His Spirit to come and live inside of those who want to come into Oneness with the Creator of the Universe.

For more information on these subjects I recommend that you get hold of the books I used for some of my research, though there may be others just as good that I didn’t find. I’m aware this is a very short version, but with so many subjects in this book I don’t have space to undoubtedly prove all points.

… “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” The Hebrew word for “created” (bāra’) means, in this context, “to bring into existence something brand new, something that didn’t exist before.” And the expression for “the heavens and the earth” (shāmayim ’eres) refers to all matter and energy and even the space-time dimensions along which matter and energy are distributed. What God Knows, p. 123.

Recently, further calculations for the rate of reef growth have been based on the concentration of dissolved calcium carbonate in seawater and upon the rate at which corals can absorb it and manufacture their shells. This rate turns out to be only about 5 millimeters per year, which means that the Eniwetok reef is more like 280,000 years old, not counting pauses in growth. A similar analysis for the much larger Grand Bahama Reef reveals an age of 790,000 years. And again, this is a minimum age, since that reef also contains numerous unconformities.

Young-earth creationists, of course, object to these great ages. They attempt to find alternative explanations for the formation of reefs. One idea is that the reefs formed as calcium carbonate precipitated out of the waters of Noah's Flood. This is nonsense, however, because precipitation involves dissolved calcium carbonate. How can one explain that the calcium carbonate managed to precipitate in the form of a reef, complete with the five characteristic features mentioned above, and the presence of corals that look just like those that were once alive? Besides, the insolubility of calcium carbonate is such that all the ocean waters of the world could not hold enough to construct past and present reefs in a one-year flood.

In conclusion, the only rational interpretation for the presence of very tall reefs in deep ocean water is that these reefs grew over long periods of time by the natural processes discussed above. As such, reefs are indicators of ages on earth that are far greater than the 10,000 or so years allowed by young-earth creationists. Dr. Perry G. Phillips, http://www.ibri.org/Tracts/reefstct.htm

The God Of The Bible Isn’t A Magician!

God cared enough about us to fine-tune every detail of the universe to make a suitable home for humanity at the perfect time in cosmic history.                   A Matter of Days, p. 226.

Too many people think the God of the Bible is a magician. They think He could just speak this entire creation—the entire universe—into existence at any time. I say that couldn’t be further from the truth. God couldn’t just speak this creation into existence as it existed 7-10,000 years ago as so many young-earth creationists contend.

That’s like saying that all the intricate organisms in the creation could just appear out of thin air. That’s what that teaching is saying. However, the truth is that science has proven the process that God had to use to make everything as it is presently. There was no possible way without “magic” that what we see in creation today could have been created without a long term process.

Look at what science says. The stars, planets, etc. must be a long term process when coming into being; not some flash in the pan instantaneous creation. That would be impossible. Not even God can do that. What we see was made by what does not appear. In other words, God made this creation that we see from elements He had in the spiritual realm, but He still can’t do magic.

 “When I consider your heavens, the work of your fingers, the moon and the stars, which you have set in place, what is man that you are mindful of him, the son of man that you care for him? (Ps. 8:3-4) As David studied the heavens, he saw only five other planets and about 6,000 stars (the limits of unaided human vision). He couldn’t see the 100 billion galaxies, each of which contains an average of 100 billion stars that we see today with the help of modern telescopes. He didn’t know that all the components of this vast heavenly host play an essential role in sustaining life on Earth, human life in particular. He didn’t recognize that Earth’s location in the Milky Way galaxy, in the Local Group of galaxies, in the Virgo super-cluster of galaxies offers humans a unique vista on God’s creation. Nor did David comprehend the fine-tuning required for humanity’s existence and opportunity to be able to view God’s creative splendor. Ibid, p. 221

With the point of view—in Genesis 1—and the initial conditions correctly identified, the sequence of Genesis creation events harmonizes beautifully with the record of astronomy, paleontology, geology, and biology.

Ibid, 234.

As mentioned earlier, I have been amazed for many years how Churchians can sometimes be so dishonest, and it is the young-earth Creationists who are the most dishonest. The scientific evidence is too overwhelming to believe that God is a magician and can just create everything in the universe 7-10,000 years ago. God is good, but He ain’t that good.