Is Young-Earth Creationism Christian?
By James D. Seward
(Last updated: 10/27/04)
Copyright © 2000 by James D. Seward

Key Words: YEC = young-earth creationism of Protestant fundamentalism
                     Adam = humankind’s Biblical progenitor, a perfect man

Introduction: YEC is composed of two tenets:
                       1) The Genesis creation account of six days and a seventh of rest are solar days of twenty-four hours.
                       2) Before Adam’s sin all fauna were herbivorous and everlasting.[1]

Table of Contents:
Was fauna intended to live forever?
YEC and dinosaurs
Conclusion
Appendix 1: Other scriptures used to support the second tenet
Appendix 2: Regarding the length of Genesis creative days

Was fauna intended to live forever?
            The fundamental problem with YEC is its fundamental premise: all fauna had an opportunity to live forever before Adam sinned.[2] This premise nullifies YEC’s belief in Jesus Christ as the Savior.[3]
            When Adam sinned, only mankind was affected—not animals. Including animals in Adam’s sin nullifies Christ’s redemption. No Bible writer ever attributed animal death to Adam. For instance, Romans 5:12 states: “That is why, just as through one man [Adam] sin entered into the world and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men because they had all sinned.”[4] The main point being, as a result of Adam’s sin, only mankind was directly affected. The writer of Romans, Paul, never once included fauna in his explanations of the mechanics of Christ’s redemption. Rather, as stated at Romans 5:17, “For if by the trespass of the one man [Adam] death ruled as king through that one, much more will those who receive the abundance of the undeserved kindness and of the free gift of righteousness rule as kings in life through the one person, Jesus Christ.” The ones benefiting from Christ would rule as kings with Christ: this can only mean humans. The next verse restates how only humans are involved: “So, then, as through one trespass [of Adam] the result to men of all sorts was condemnation, likewise also through one act of justification [of Jesus] the result to men of all sorts is a declaring of them righteous for life.” If animals were involved, what a grand place to explain it! Yet, animals were left unmentioned—only “men of all sorts” are involved. This omission of animals is explained by their absence in the mechanics of Christ’s redemption.
            If animals were indeed cursed with death as Adam’s descendants were when Adam sinned, then animals would also be included in Christ’s redemption—yet there is no such inclusion in Scripture. There are two scriptures, however, that some would point to in support of animals being included in Adam’s death curse: Romans 8:22 and 1 Corinthians 15:22. The former says: “all creation keeps on groaning together and being in pain together until now.” The later says: “in Adam all are dying, so in Christ all will be made alive.” Do not let these verses lull you into a false sense of security. The context of these verses points only to mankind. While it is true that animals suffer as a result of man’s sin, there is simply no indication that animals fit into this formula of redemption. By using the phrase “all creation,” it could be said that Paul was primarily referring to Christians—as in the next verse—and non-Christians together. That mankind is meant exclusively is shown in the preceding verse (21), where it states that “the creation” will “have the glorious freedom of the children of God.” Brute beasts will simply never be children of God, but are forever the creation of God. (To argue otherwise is an argumentum ad absurdum.) Regarding the use of “all,” Pr. BeDuhn states: ““All” is commonly used in Greek as a hyperbole, that is, an exaggeration.”[5] So it’s no exaggeration to say “all” or “all creation” is an exaggeration meant only for mankind.
            To clinch this point even further, Paul at 1 Timothy 2:6 used the Greek word antilytron, meaning “corresponding ransom,” to describe the mechanics of Christ’s redemption.[6] As shown in Romans 5:12-22 and in 1 Corinthians 15:21, 22, 45, Christ corresponds to Adam. Antilytron would therefore call to mind scales of justice—Adam on one scale and Jesus on the other scale balancing them. Antilytron is a “corresponding ransom for all (or, all sorts of people [footnote])” (1Tim. 2:6). No animals were placed on Adam’s scale. “The loss of a perfect human life [Adam’s] would require the payment of a perfect human life [Jesus’]—nothing more, nothing less.”[7] (See Figure 1.) This is the mechanics of Christ’s redemption. Including anyone or anything else on Adam’s side of the scales would upset this delicate balance—it would defeat and nullify Christ’s corresponding ransom sacrifice.
            Actually, the only way for Christ’s corresponding ransom sacrifice to not be nullified with the inclusion of animals is to create from “scratch” everlasting animals representing every kind that YEC claims was cursed with Adam and then sacrifice them together with Jesus. No such account is documented in the Bible. Therefore, claiming that animals are included in Christ’s corresponding ransom sacrifice not only nullifies it but also violates the Bible rule at 1 Corinthians 4:6, “Do not go beyond the things that are written.”
            In fact, Adam was likely familiar with animal death before he sinned. For instance, when he was warned at Genesis 2:17 that he would die if he rebelled, he did not have to inquire as to the meaning of death. This may imply that he had lived long enough to see animals die (suggesting a period exceeding twenty-four hours), and perhaps even see the remains of animals that he did not see die. Since only man was made in the image of God at Genesis 1:26, animals were placed in subjection to him. But if animals were given everlasting life like man, that would dignify the animals to the same extent as man (in regards to length of life). But since they were in subjection to man, it seems reasonable then that they did die, and that perhaps Adam witnessed it. Harmonizing with Genesis 1:26 is Psalm 8:5, where only man is spoken of as originally being “a little less than godlike ones [or angels (footnote)]” and crowned “with glory and splendor.” 8:6-8 further states that man is dominating over all of God’s “works,” including animals. So even from the start, animals were in subjection to man and were dominated by him, and only man was a “little lower than angels.” This separation of man from beasts strengthens the likelihood that Adam was familiar with animal death.
            In harmony with man’s domination of the animals is Genesis 1:28, where God commanded the first couple: “fill the earth and subdue it.” Subduing the earth would include cultivating it, spreading out the borders of the garden they dwelled in. Such cultivation would also disturb creatures in the ground such as worms, ants, and even moles, unintentionally killing many of them in the process. Thus, the divine command and invitation to cultivate/subdue the earth indirectly spelled death for many animals. Since God knew this unintentional death of animals would happen, this demonstrates that animals were not purposed to be everlasting like humans.
            Consider also: is it loving to condemn animals to death for a sin they did not commit—especially if it was foreknown (see Appendix 1)? The Bible shows that God condemns only after a warning.[8] There is no Biblical documentation indicating that the animals were warned of Adam’s impending sin (or that Adam was warned about the effects of his sin on the animals for that matter). Is there justice in condemning animals without a warning—especially if they were everlasting like humans? Failure to warn is serious, as Ezekiel 33:6,7 states. There, the authority that fails to warn will receive the same judgment as the judged—so God would have to die for failing to warn the animals of death! That God would have issued a warning about animals loosing everlasting life becomes unavoidable considering that He had Moses issue a warning to Pharaoh about Egyptian animals in Exodus 9:3-4. Egyptian animals died in verse 6 and were sickened in verse 10—only after the warning was issued! Thus, if animals ran the risk of loosing everlasting life if Adam sinned, there is no reason to think Adam would not have known about it. He would have been warned like the Pharaoh was warned. Consider also Numbers 22:22-30—the same God who warned a she-ass that its rider Balaam would die if it continued on its course, and even caused it to speak words to Balaam, definitely had the power to 1) warn the animals of Adam’s impending sin and 2) cause them to speak so they could at least plead with Adam like the she-ass pleaded with its rider Balaam. The absence of this warning is strong evidence that animals were not intended to live forever like Adam. Please consider one more point on Balaam’s she-ass: its life was not in danger,[9] yet it still pleaded with its rider. So how much more so should the animals—whose lives were in danger—have pleaded with Adam? This too becomes unavoidable considering that Satan had just caused the serpent to speak to Eve, in this case deceiving her. (Genesis 3:1,4,5; Revelation 12:9) Therefore, the contention that animals were created with everlasting life is unscriptural. (Actually, even allowing for everlasting life in animals causes serious problems! Consider: preserving animals’ everlasting life in the face of Adam’s sin would have been a good teaching point to sinners—“You have sinned, and now you have descended lower than the wild beast!”) To include animals with Adam’s sin makes God look unwise, unjust, and unloving.
            That animals are excluded from Adam’s sin is indicated at 2 Peter 2:12, where abusive men are spoken of as “unreasoning animals born naturally to be caught and destroyed.” Notice that animals being “caught and destroyed” is natural and is not spoken of as sinful. If animal death is sinful like human death, that verse could have emphasized that those sinful men were acting like sinful animals, yet it did not—it compared them to natural animals. Further, Ecclesiastes 3:11 implies that “time indefinite” was given only to mankind. In other words, animals were not purposed to live forever, but man was. The first human pair was created not to die but to live eternally—provided they were obedient to God.[10] Consider also 3:19-20. Since both animals and man die, “there is no superiority of the man over the beast.” This comparison would be rather lame if both man and beast were intended to be everlasting—“no superiority” would be a given. Since man has fallen into sin and death, he is now at the same level as the beast. This comparison is effective only if beasts were intended to die and man intended to live for “time indefinite.” (See also Psalms 49:12,20, where sinful man “cannot keep lodging” on earth due to death and is therefore “comparable with the beasts that have been destroyed.” If both man and beast were meant to live forever, then this comparison would also be lame since it would also be a given. Again, this comparison is effective only if beasts were intended to die and man intended to live for “time indefinite.”)
            The truth is a beautiful thing. It sets us free from ignorance and falsehood. Searching for truthful understandings of Genesis is a responsible endeavor, and it is my sincere hope that this has been an aid.

YEC and dinosaurs
            YEC correctly states: “dinosaurs were land animals.”[11] While other extinct reptiles flew and swam quite nicely (pterosaurs and plesiosaurs respectively), they are not classified as dinosaurs. Dinosaurs were primarily terrestrial.
            Thus, YEC’s contention that a sauropod dinosaur, even the mighty Brachiosaurus, is referred to in Job 40:15-24 as Behemoth is rather contradictory. YEC takes this passage as proof that dinosaurs lived with man even after the Genesis Deluge. Verse 17 is pointed out since it describes Behemoth as ‘bending down its tail like a cedar.’[12] However, the contradiction is this: verses 21 and 23 state that Behemoth dwelled in swamps and rivers! Therefore, Brachiosaurus and kin cannot be this enigmatic Behemoth. It’s been well known for some time now that sauropods, and especially Brachiosaurus, would be in dire straights if they dwelled in such places—since their immense weight would make them sink into the mire. For instance, there is an Apatosaurus (formerly known as “Brontosaurus”) known from the Morrison Formation that appears to have died due to being trapped in a swampy place—its legs evidently sunk into the mire![13] Also, fossilized sauropod trackways that show only the front footprints that were once interpreted as the result of swimming behavior have since been reinterpreted as underprints caused by the front feet sinking deeper than the hind feet.[14] Hence, sauropods were primarily terrestrial behemoths—and evidently not Job’s Behemoth. Many scholars understand Job’s Behemoth to be referring to the hippopotamus (Hippopotamus amphibius), which dwells in watery places and can set its thick twenty-inch-long tail rigidly upright or swing it about like a “cedar.”[15] (See Excursus: Identifying Behemoth.) (Interestingly, bones fossilize better when deposited in a flood plane and are buried in mud, thus protecting them for preservation. Thus, finding dinosaur bones in flood deposits is not necessarily evidence for them being deposited during the Genesis Deluge.)
            Regarding other, non-Biblical references to “dinosaurs” living in recent times as recorded by primitive peoples,[16] please refer to Adrienne Mayor’s enlightening book The First Fossil Hunters.[17] This work persuasively contends that ancient dragon folklore has its origin—not in living dinosaurs—but in ancient paleontology. Ancient—even modern—people would discover monstrous assemblages of alien bones and conclude that those beasts may still be alive somewhere—and then made restorations and legends of them! In all reality, dinosaurs (and other like-reptiles) included such monstrous forms that they were probably best living in and dominating their own environment. According to the fossil record, after their waning and disappearance, a vast array of mammals and birds dominated the earth. This appears to be the time when Adam was created, since this would be a most comfortable environment for him. Thus, it can be reasonably concluded that dinosaurs (and other like-reptiles) predate man. And, since the field of paleopathology reports that dinosaurs experienced disease or pathologies,[18] it can also be reasonably concluded that pathologies predate man, and therefore Adam’s sin. This need not contradict the repetitive divine appraisal of “good” though in Genesis 1 (see Appendix 1), as God was appraising, not pathologies, but his overall creative works for that period. Again, as indicated in Exodus 9:3, 10, if animals were to be cursed with pathologies along with mankind, then a warning would have been issued. No, instead only Adam was warned in Genesis 2:17, with no reference to animals. This only underscores the fact that animals were not purposed for everlasting life and are thus vulnerable to pathologies.

Conclusion
            To answer the title’s question, and in view of the Scriptural documentation presented (including that of the appendices), YEC’s first tenet—while not unchristian—is certainly unscriptural. (And Christians should certainly strive to be scriptural.) YEC’s second tenet, on the other hand, is unchristian in that it upsets the redemptive correspondence between Adam and Jesus Christ. As a whole then, YEC must ultimately make an appeal to sentiment to support its second tenet, and poor Hebrew and Biblical scholarship to support its first tenet.

Appendix 1
Other scriptures used to support the second tenet
            The second tenet begs the question: “What did animals that are built for only eating meat eat?” YEC answers: “There might have been changes to some animals after the Fall [of Adam] if latent genetic information (programmed by God who foreknew the Fall) for defence–attack [sic] structures was switched on.”[19] In other words, all carnivores were originally herbivores until Adam sinned. Then, some changed into carnivores. But if animals were not meant to be everlasting, then such speculation is unnecessary. The following explains how YEC supports its “everlasting animals” tenet.
            One popular support is Ge. 1:25, where God saw that his animal creation was “good.” It’s reasoned that, ‘If the animals were “good,” they didn’t die.’[20] However, this same divine appraisal is used for both sea and flying creatures in 1:21. Sea creatures in particular were left unmentioned in a “vegetarian” diet described at 1:29, 30, allowing them to eat anything they wanted—including other animal life. Yet, the divine appraisal was the same: “good.” Since this “vegetarian” diet was described after Adam’s appearance, it could be said that pre-Adam land animals could also eat anything they wanted. (Contrast 1:29, 30 with 9:2, 3 where “fishes of the sea” are included in a diet description—indicating that the omission of “fish” in 1:29,30 meant that they were not being described as vegetarians.) So the divine appraisal of “good” does not by itself mean that they were everlasting. Additionally, Ge. 1:31 closes the chapter with: “After that God saw everything he had made and, look! [it was] very good.” This grand divine appraisal fittingly describes God’s creation of light (1:4), sea-earth division (1:10), flora (1:12), night-day division (1:18), sea and winged creatures (1:21), land animals (1:25), and climactically, humans (1:31) as working as he meant them to work. They are all “good,” and together with human creation, they are “very good.” This divine appraisal, taken in context of Genesis chapter one, does not mean that animals were everlasting.
            Another support is Pr. 12:10[21]: “The righteous one is caring for the soul of his domestic animal [Hebrew: behemah], but the mercies of the wicked ones are cruel.” While other translations offer “animal” or “beast,” behemah can also be translated as “domestic animal.” This scripture refers to humans caring for the animals under their care or ownership. It does not refer to “unreasoning animals born naturally to be caught and destroyed” (2 Pe. 2:12). This is natural for animals in the wild, but not for animals under the ownership of humans—that is, for animals a person is responsible for. “The person who is brutal with his animals, causing them needless suffering, shows disregard for God’s creation.”[22] Thus Pr. 12:10 does not, by itself, support the second tenet.
            Further, YEC pointedly states: “The Bible plainly teaches from Genesis to Revelation that there was no death of animals or humans before Adam sinned. (Consider just a few of the many passages, such as: Romans 5:12; Genesis 2:17; Genesis 1:2930 [sic]; Romans 8:20-22; Acts 3:21; Hebrews 9:22; I Corinthians 15; Revelation 21:1-4; Revelation 22:3.) This means there could not have been any animal fossils (and no dinosaur bones) before sin.”[23]
            An analysis of this claim is in Table 1:

Table 1

No.

Scripture Quotation and/or Summary Plainly teaching no death of animals or humans before Adam sinned?

1

Romans 5:12 “death spread to all men” Humans only

2

Genesis 2:17 Warning of death to Adam. Humans only

3

Genesis 1:29-30 Vegetation diet description for couple and animals. No

4

Romans 8:20-22 “All creation” hyperbole. Humans only

5

Acts 3:21 “times of restoration of all things” Humans only

6

Hebrews 9:22 “unless blood is poured out no forgiveness takes place.” Humans only

7

I Corinthians 15 v. 21: “For since death is through a man [Adam], resurrection of the dead is also through a man [Jesus].” Jesus redeems mankind from death. Humans only

8

Revelation 21:1-4 Death no more among mankind. Humans only

9

Revelation 22:3 No more curse among the nations. Humans only

These nine cited scriptures together with the associated claim indicate that YEC resorts to “reaching” to support its beliefs. These verses are being stretched to include fauna in Adam’s sin—all of which unintentionally in effect nullifies Christ’s corresponding ransom sacrifice.
            A more exhaustive list of scriptures from YEC that “plainly teaches” the “no death of animals” tenet is: “Genesis 1:29,30; Genesis 9:3; Genesis 1:31; Genesis 2:17; Genesis 3: 17-19 [sic]; Genesis 3:21; Hebrews 9:22; Romans 5; Romans 8: 20-22 [sic]; 1 Corinthians 15; Acts 3:21; Isaiah 11:6-9; Revelation 21:4; Revelation 22:3.”[24] (Italics added to the nine repeated scriptures.) Five others are added, totaling fourteen. Hence, the claim that the initial group was “just a few of the many” is suspect. Aside from that, consider Isa. 11:6-9. Notice, the various mammalian predators listed are not spoken of as everlasting, just peaceful towards humans, towards “prey” animals, and eating straw. In fact, the parallel description at Isa. 65:25 adds that the serpent’s food “will be dust.” But does this mean that it will live forever?
            An analysis of the five additional scriptures is in Table 2:

Table 2

No.

Scripture Quotation and/or Summary Plainly teaching no death of animals or humans before Adam sinned?

1

Genesis 9:3 Meat included in mankind’s diet after the Deluge. No

2

Genesis 1:31 Creative works “very good.” No

3

Genesis 3:17-19 Sinful Adam to eat “the vegetation of the field,” and will return to dust at death. Humans only

4

Genesis 3:21 “Long garments of skin” for the couple. No

5

Isaiah 11:6-9 Animals at peace with one another and with the Jews. No

            No scripture used by YEC in support of “everlasting animals” requires animals to be everlasting. Not one of the above passages has everlasting animals as a basis. Instead, they can more fittingly be used to teach that only humankind needs redemption from Adam’s sin. Moses never said that the animals were to live forever, nor did any other Bible writer. Instead, the second tenet appears to be based largely on sentimental grounds.[25]

Appendix 2
Regarding the length of Genesis creative days
            The fossil record is surprisingly organized. Within the layers of sediment are remains of creatures that are consistently grouped together in levels or periods. For instance, dinosaurs do not appear throughout the fossil record. They only appear in strata corresponding to the Mesozoic period, and the same can be said for other types of fossil life. While small mammals lived in the Mesozoic, the larger varieties appeared only after the Mesozoic—there are no large mammals found before. The names of two of these other periods and how they harmonize with the creative days is described below.
            It is no compromise to say that the order of events in Genesis harmonizes with the order of events in the fossil record. A reasonable and scholarly reading of Genesis shows no conflicts with the fossil record. It is no compromise to say that Genesis allows for an “old earth.”
            One objection to the above is: ‘While Genesis does have marine creatures being the first animals in harmony with the fossil record, it has birds predate land animals which is out of harmony with the fossil record.’ In the fifth creative day, both sea creatures and flying creatures appeared, which was followed by the land animals of the sixth creative day. But that does not necessarily require birds to have predated dinosaurs and other land animals. The fifth day merely represents the start of the appearance of flying creatures. This matches the fauna of the Cambrian to Carboniferous periods, which had sea-life, amphibians, and flying insects. The Cambrian is the first period with animal sea life—a virtual explosion of life marked the Cambrian. Later, amphibians came on the scene, accompanied by flying insects in the Carboniferous. One such insect was the giant dragonfly Meganeuropsis, which had “a wingspread of around two feet.”[26]
            The events of the creative days are not necessarily restricted to their respective creative days, the creative days only mean when the events began—it is allowed for in Genesis and even indicated.[27] One indication is Ge. 2:19, “Now Jehovah God was forming from the ground every wild beast of the field and every flying creature of the heavens, and he began bringing them to [Adam].” The verb “form” is in the imperfect state and denotes continued, progressive action (footnote). Hence, God was evidently making flying creatures even in the sixth “day.” Thus, it should be no surprise to find birds and bats appearing after land animals appeared. Another indication is found in Ge. 2:8,9, describing the planting of the garden of Eden, where “every tree desirable to one’s sight and good for food” was planted for Adam. This shows that plants and trees were evidently created outside of their respective creative day, the third. The manifestation of the celestial bodies was also progressive (see point 3 below). Thus, the first, third, and fifth creative days did not complete what they started. The first “day” was completed in the fourth, and the third and fifth were completed in the sixth.
            Genesis actually gives at least three clues leading a researcher to conclude that the six creative days cannot be limited to literal twenty-four hour days:

1) The Hebrew word for “day,” yohm,[28] as used in Genesis allows for a longer period for three reasons:
 

a)

All six of them are called one day (Ge. 2:4).
 

b)

Adam was warned that he would die the same “day” as he ate of the tree, yet he lived to be 930 years old (Ge. 2:17, 5:5).
 

c)

The seventh day has evidently not ended. The preceding six days concluded with the phrase: ‘an evening and a morning, the (first, second, etc.) day,’ the seventh day did not. Instead, Ge. 2:2 states: “he proceeded to rest on the seventh day from all his work that he had made.” “Rest” is in the imperfect state denoting incomplete or continuous action, or action in progress (footnote).[29] 2:3 adds, “And God proceeded to bless the seventh day and make it sacred, because on it he has been resting from all his work that God has created for the purpose of making.” “Resting,” shavath, is perfect. It shows the characteristic of an individual, namely, God, on the seventh day of his creative week. This rendering of shavath agrees with Heb. 4:3-11 (footnote), where Paul confirmed that the seventh day continued in the first century AD. There is simply no Scriptural basis for concluding that Paul’s words are to be taken any other way. The seventh yohm is not a solar day and there is no Scriptural indication that it has ended. (See Excursus: The Length of the Seventh Day.)
2) The division of the creation period into seven days is made into an analogy of the Israelite workweek at Ex. 20:9-11 (six days of work ending with the Sabbath rest day). Such an analogy would have dignified the Israelites. “By completing his work toward the earth in six creative days and resting on the seventh day, Jehovah set the pattern for the whole Sabbath arrangement, from the seven-day week to the Jubilee year that followed the seven-times-seven–year cycle. (Ex 20:10; Le 25:2, 6, 8) The Festival of Unleavened Bread and the Festival of Booths were each seven days long. (Ex 34:18; Le 23:34) Seven appears often in connection with the Levitical rules for offerings (Le 4:6; 16:14, 19; Nu 28:11) and for cleansings.—Le 14:7, 8, 16, 27, 51; 2Ki 5:10.”[30] “Seven” is also used here for completeness, like it is elsewhere in the Bible (Re. 1:20).
3) The Hebrew verbs used in Ge. 1 are in the imperfect state, indicating a progressive period of time. “Anyone who reads the Hebrew language can find this form [the imperfect state] some 40 times in Genesis chapter 1, and it is a key to understanding the chapter.”[31] This imperfect state harmonizes with the appearance of light in Genesis. For instance, there is the account of how light appeared on day one, but it was not until day four when the luminaries of the sun, moon, and stars became visible to an earthly observer. This supports a gradual length of time for the creative days. Regarding the gradual revealing of the celestial bodies, Insight on the Scriptures explains:

            Previously, on the first “day,” the expression “Let light come to be” was used. The Hebrew word there used for “light” is ´ohr, meaning light in a general sense. But on the fourth “day,” the Hebrew word changes to ma·´ohr', which refers to a luminary or source of light. (Ge 1:14) So, on the first “day” diffused light evidently penetrated the swaddling bands, but the sources of that light could not have been seen by an earthly observer. Now, on the fourth “day,” things evidently changed.
            It is also noteworthy that at Genesis 1:16 the Hebrew verb ba·ra´', meaning “create,” is not used. Instead, the Hebrew verb `a·sah', meaning “make,” is employed. Since the sun, moon, and stars are included in “the heavens” mentioned in Genesis 1:1, they were created long before Day Four. On the fourth day God proceeded to “make” these celestial bodies occupy a new relationship toward earth’s surface and the expanse above it. When it is said, “God put them in the expanse of the heavens to shine upon the earth,” this would indicate that they now became discernible from the surface of the earth, as though they were in the expanse. Also, the luminaries were to “serve as signs and for seasons and for days and years,” thus later providing guidance for man in various ways.—Ge 1:14.[32]

            Thus, contrary to YEC’s position,[33] the celestial bodies—including the sun and the moon—were created prior to the creative days, and were not created on “day” four, but were “made” in the sense from an earthly observer. The earth with no sun and moon for three days violates the fact that they were created in Ge. 1:1: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.”[34] “The heavens and the earth” were created before the first creative day began. This is important because 1:2 begins, not with the creation of the earth, but with its development. God evidently used the sun’s natural forces of gravity and heat while he proceeded with the creative days. He used natural forces that he created to aid his development of the earth.
            Contrarily, YEC supports its “literal days” by using the “Waw Consecutive” rule to convert the imperfect states in Genesis to perfect states.[35] However, this rule was evidently invented in later times to force this conversion. The New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures—With References, Appendix 3C explains:

            Throughout the centuries scholars have been amazed at the capability of the Hebrew language to express past events by using verbs in the imperfect state, and to express future events by using verbs in the perfect state. In an attempt to explain this peculiarity, they developed the theory of Waw Consecutive. Concerning this theory, O. L. Barnes, in his work A New Approach to the Problem of the Hebrew Tenses and Its Solution Without Recourse to Waw-Consecutive, Oxford (1965), pp. 4, 5, wrote: “The matter has been needlessly complicated by the introduction and slavish adherence to the doctrine of Waw Consecutive, or its more ancient forebear Waw Conversive (the latest name proposed for it is Waw Conservative). Very briefly, though there have been a variety of modifications of the theme, this states that the ‘and – Waw’ appearing before the first of a series of consecutive Hebrew Verbs in the Imperfect Tense, if preceded by a Hebrew Verb in the Perfect Tense, indicates that all of them should be read or taken as Perfects (instead of what they really are: Imperfects) and vice versa, provided of course certain vowels associated with the Waw in the Imperfect are present.”
            Regarding the validity of this theory, O. L. Barnes wrote on p. 1 of his work: “We may rightly ask why the ‘and – Waw’ has this strange converting power. Some recent grammars, in an attempt to by-pass the absurdity, state that it is not really the ‘and – Waw’ that has this converting power, but it is the key or guide we must look for to indicate the conversion; in end-result, therefore, it amounts to precisely the same thing. I trust it will be evident from what is stated here that in fact the ‘and – Waw’ neither has this power, nor is its assumption necessary to explain the rapid, sometimes abrupt, change in sequence of the Hebrew Tenses. In other words, we may dispense completely with the mythical Waw-Consecutive theory invented by grammarians.”
            About one hundred years ago, Benjamin Wills Newton, in his work The Altered Translation of Genesis ii. 5, London, 1888, pp. 49-51, took a firm stand against the theory of Waw Consecutive. After giving a sample translation of Ge 1:3-8, Newton concluded on pp. 50, 51: “Throughout the chapter the future is used to denote progression. In our translation we rightly enough use the past, for we are unable by our future tense similarly to mark progression. There is an expansiveness in the Hebrew use of the future which our future has not; and, consequently, greater accuracy of statement. I may add that there certainly is no room for the theory of Vav [or Waw] conversive in this chapter, and no ground for saying (because our future cannot adapt itself to the elasticity of the Hebrew future) that therefore the Hebrew future is to be shorn of its prerogatives and commuted into a past. It is marvellous [sic] that any one should have ventured to propose anything so preposterous.”[36]

Thus, it could be said that the “Waw Consecutive” rule is no rule at all. The imperfect states remain imperfect.
            It must also be addressed that, from time to time, YEC’s “creation scientists” write technical papers arguing that geological, atmospheric, and astronomical data supports only a young earth and universe.[37] However, these “creation scientists” are interpreting their data within the framework of their interpretation of Genesis. They are doing their “science” with a preconceived bias. Therefore, all their technical papers must be taken with extreme caution.

Genesis Defended | An Analysis of the Creation Week

[1] Reference for the first tenet: Stambaugh, James. “How long was the seventh day?” Impact No. 197. 1989. <http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-197.htm> (31 December 2000). Reference for the second tenet: (see endnote 3).

[2] I have chosen this as YEC’s fundamental premise because it is unique to YEC. For instance, while Catholics are at liberty to believe in “young-earth creationism,” the second tenet is not Catholic. See the first three paragraphs of: “Creation and Genesis.” Tracts. 1996. <http://www.catholic.com/library/creation_and_genesis.asp> (13 July 2005).

[3] Conversely, YEC makes the counterclaim that not believing in this premise is what nullifies the belief in Jesus Christ as the Savior. See: [Sarfati, Jonathan. “Hugh Ross lays down the gauntlet!” News. 2000. <http://www.answersingenesis.org/news/ross_gauntlet.asp> (4 December 2000)] and [Batten, Don. “Some questions for theistic evolutionists (and ‘progressive creationists’).” Past Articles. 2001. < http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1273.asp> (22 March 2001)]. This counterclaim, though, is based on grouping humans and animals together in Adam’s sin.

[4] All Biblical quotations here come from the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures—With References. Brooklyn: Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc., 1984. This translation was used due to it being a literal translation in modern English. (Italics in any Biblical quotations are mine.)

[5] BeDuhn, Jason. Truth In Translation. Lanham: University Press of America, 2003: 84.

[6] Antilytron, from anti, “against; in correspondence to; in place of,” and lytron, “ransom (price paid)” (1Timothy 2:6 footnote). Both Mat. 20:28 and Mark 10:45 use the expression “a ransom in exchange for many,” which is derived from the Greek lytron anti. Thus, the corresponding value of Christ’s lytron—using the same Greek words—is expressed three times.

[7] “Christ’s Ransom—God’s Way of Salvation.” The Watchtower. 15 February 1999: 14. The Scriptural precedent for this formula of “perfect human life for perfect human life,” or “perfect soul for perfect soul,” is found at Exo. 21:23 (“human life for human life” or “soul for soul”). Paul confirmed at Gal. 3:24 that that this law is a “tutor leading to Christ.” Christ was the perfect soul that corresponded to Adam: hence a ransom of redemption.

[8] Refer to Ex. 21:29, where a killer bull is executed only after a warning (in this case, to its owner). Still though, a warning is served before condemning the bull, revealing God’s character with animals. Consider also: Noah warned the Antediluvians (2Pe. 2:5) and Jonah warned the Ninevites (Jon. 1:2). Sodom and Gomorrah were evidently warned also (Ge. 18:20, 21). And the Canaanites were warned in part by the supernatural deliverance of their executioners from Egypt (Ex. 15:4). There are also the ten plagues (Ex. 7-11) where there was a warning before each plague (see above for a specific example involving animals). Thus, warning precedes condemnation.

[9] In Numbers 22:33 the angel told Balaam that his she-ass would have been spared for his sin, but he would have been executed. This underscores the reality that God does not execute animals for the sin of man. (Man of course had to sacrifice animals to God for man’s sin, but God does not execute animals for man’s sin, especially so without a warning.)

[10] “Living Forever—Is It Just a Dream?” The Watchtower. 15 August 1984: 4. See also in The Watchtower: “‘Death Will Be No More.’” 1 February 1960: 68, “Animal Worship—Ancient and Modern.” 1 September 1955: 518, “May Christians Eat Meat?” 15 July 1954: 426, and “Questions from Readers.” 15 October 1950: 399.

[11] “Where Did Dinosaurs Come From?” Dinosaurs: Discover the Truth. 2000. <http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1600.asp> (5 January 2001).

[12] Ham, Ken and Carl Kerby. “The Bible’s Claims—A Chronology of Dinosaur History.” Commentary on The Lost World. 2000. <http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1592.asp> (31 July 2000).

[13] Bakker, Robert. “Raptor Family Values.” Dinofest International Proceedings. (1996): 55.

[14] Lockley, Martin. “Footprints and Trackways.” Encyclopedia of Dinosaurs. 1997 ed.

[15] “Behemoth.” Insight on the Scriptures. 1988 ed.

[16] “Messages on Stone.” Dinosaurs: Discover the Truth. 2000. <http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/2494.asp> (7 August 2000).

[17] The First Fossil Hunters: Paleontology in Greek and Roman Times. New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2000.

[18] For a notable example, see: Pickrell, John. “First Dinosaur Brain Tumor Found, Experts Suggest.” National Geographic News. 2003. <http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/11/1124_031124_dinocancer.html> (19 August 2004)

[19] Sarfati, Jonathan. “Skeptic labels AiG as ‘Intellectual cave dwellers called young-earth creationists.’ ” News. 2000. <http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2/4321news6-9-2000.asp> (1 August 2000).

[20] Ham, Ken. “Evolution: The Anti-God Religion of Death.” Answers in Genesis Creation Resource Catalog. 1998: 32. Sarfati, Jonathan. “Hugh Ross lays down the gauntlet!” News. 2000. <http://www.answersingenesis.org/news/ross_gauntlet.asp> (4 December 2000). The Hebrew word translated “good” is towb (Strong’s #: 2896), which can also mean “excellent (of its kind),” “valuable in estimation,” and “right (ethical).” (Definitions from: <http://www.blueletterbible.org> [28 December 2000].)

[21] Weiland, Carl. “First-ever dinosaur brain tumour [sic] found.” News. 2003. < http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2003/1027dinotumour.asp> (3 November 2003).

[22] “Questions From Readers.” The Watchtower. 1 March 1973: 159.

[23] “What Did Dinosaurs Eat?” Dinosaurs: Discover the Truth. 2000. <http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1601.asp> (1 August 2000) (Italics added).

[24] Ham, Ken. “What’s wrong with ‘progressive creation?’” Past Articles. 2000. <http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4077.asp> (1 August 2000).

[25] “Questions from Readers.” The Watchtower. 15 October 1950: 399.

[26] Ostrom, John et al. “The Carboniferous & Devonian.” The Age of Reptiles Mural at the Yale Peabody Museum. 1998. <http://www.peabody.yale.edu/mural/carbdev/Text.html#mega> (25 July 2001).

[27] See “Did Each Creative Day Always Finish What It Started?” Awake!. 8 June 1991: 12.

[28] Yohm (Strong’s #: 3117) first means: “day, time, year.” It can also mean: “a division of time,” “days, lifetime (pl.),” “time, period (general),” “year,” and “temporal references,” as well as: “day (as opposed to night)” and “day (24 hour period).” (Definitions from: <http://www.blueletterbible.org> [28 December 2000].)

[29] “The Hebrew verb has two states, the perfect state and the imperfect state. The perfect state indicates completed action. The imperfect state indicates incomplete or continuous action, or action in progress”; New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures—With References, Appendix 3C: “Hebrew Verbs Indicating Continuous or Progressive Action,” 1572. (See endnote 4 for citation.)

[30] “Number, Numeral: Seven.” Insight on the Scriptures. 1988 ed.

[31] Is There A Creator Who Cares About You?. Brooklyn: Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc., 1998: 94.

[32] “Creation.” 1988 ed.

[33] YEC’s position being: “According to God’s Word, the Bible, the sun did not always light the earth. It wasn’t made till Day 4 of Creation Week, while the earth was created on Day 1…. For the first three days of existence, the earth was lit by the light created on Day 1 (Genesis 1:3), while the day/night cycle was caused by the earth’s rotation relative to this directional light source (italics added)”; Sarfati, Jonathan. “THE SUN: our special star.” Past Articles. 2000. <http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4180.asp> (30 December 2000). Notice how YEC’s “directional light source” is not equated with the sun. Further, YEC provides no description of “this directional light source.” In fact, no consideration is given to Ge. 1:1 either, which has “the heavens and the earth” created before “Day 1.” YEC then apparently criticizes the scholarship of the above Insight “Creation” article. But, frankly, based on this rather remarkable omission of Ge. 1:1, it becomes rather difficult to take YEC’s arguments on this seriously (which appear to be based on the prejudice that all who disagree with YEC are either evolutionists or evolution compromisers). One point made though (in their endnote 1) is that the verbs `a·sah', “to make,” and ba·ra´', “to create,” are used interchangeably in Ge. 1:26-27 (“‘Let us make man’” and “God proceeded to create man”), thus “make” in Ge. 1:16 could be interchanged with “create.” Honestly, though, YEC fails to acknowledge the sun’s creation in Ge. 1:1, thus it could not have been created again on “Day 4.” So, YEC’s comparison of the uses of “create” and “make” to argue that the sun was created on “Day 4” fails to satisfy honest inquiry. Another and final point made is that instead of using “make” if the luminaries were not being created then, the word ru’ah, “appear,” “would” have been used, like it was in Ge. 1:9 (“‘let the dry land appear’”). Again, since the luminaries were created in Ge. 1:1, this point becomes rather trivial and self-serving. What is more, YEC’s omission of Ge. 1:1 contradicts its claim of “upholding the Bible’s authority from the very first verse.” <http://www.answersingenesis.org> (29 October 2002).

[34] Here “created” in Hebrew “is a verb in the perfect state, showing that the action of creating the heavens [including the sun and the moon] and the earth was completed.” New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures—With References, Appendix 3C: “Hebrew Verbs Indicating Continuous or Progressive Action,” 1572. (See endnote 4 for citation.)

[35] Ham, Ken. “Creation at the academy: Ken Ham interviews academic theologian Dr. Douglas Kelly.” Past Articles. 2000. <http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4235cen_m2000.asp> (13 December 2000).

[36] Page 1572. (See endnote 4 for citation.)

[37] See: “The Young Age of the Earth: How Real Science is Consistent With a Biblical Timescale.” 2000. <http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/hot/earth.asp> (30 December 2000). In particular: “Blowing Old-Earth Belief Away: Helium gives evidence that the earth is young” that is hyperlinked at that site.

Hosted by www.Geocities.ws

1