Читать книгу The Modern Creation Trilogy - Dr. Henry M. Morris - Страница 3

Chapter 1

The Biblical Record of Creation

In Volume 2 of this Trilogy, Science and Creation, it is shown that the basic facts of science fit the creation model of origins and earth history much better than they do the evolution model. There are, to be sure, certain unresolved problems in correlating all the scientific data with the concept of recent special creation, but these problems are not nearly so intractable as those which evolutionism encounters.

However, the details of the creation period — such aspects as its duration, the order of events, the methods used, and especially its meaning and purpose — cannot be determined from science. The scientific method is limited to the study of processes as they occur at present, not as they might have occurred in the past. Science in its strict sense can deal with the “how” and “what” and “where” questions, but only rarely with “when,” and never with “why.”

If creation is really a fact, this means there is a Creator, and the universe is His creation. He had a purpose in creation, and man1 is apparently at the center of that purpose, since only man is able to understand even the concept of creation. It is reasonable, therefore, that God, the Creator, would somehow reveal to His creature, man, the necessary information concerning the creation which could never be discovered by himself.

This is exactly what He has done in His book of “beginnings,” the Book of Genesis. Rather than outmoded folklore, as most critics allege, the creation chapters of Genesis are marvelous and accurate accounts of the actual events of the primeval history of the universe. They give data and information far beyond those that science can determine, and at the same time provide an intellectually satisfying framework within which to interpret the facts that science can determine.

The old arguments against the historicity of Genesis no longer carry weight. It once was maintained that neither Moses nor any of his predecessors could have written Genesis, since they could not have known even how to write. No one dare suggest such a notion any more. Writing was practiced even by the common people long before Moses, and even before the time of Abraham. Early man was a highly skilled technologist in many fields at a time far earlier than imagined by evolutionists. There is no reason at all, other than evolutionary preconceptions, that it should not be believed that man has been able to read and write since he was first created.

The general setting of Genesis, from chapter 12 onward (culture, customs, etymology, geography, political units, etc.), is very realistic — so much so that its narratives must have come originally from contemporaries of the people described. There seems no good reason, except for evolutionary preconceptions, to reject the probable historicity of the preceding 11 chapters of Genesis, which merge easily and naturally into Genesis 12.

Finally, all the writers of the New Testament, and Jesus Christ himself, accepted the historical accuracy and divine inspiration of all the early chapters of Genesis, as will be shown in this chapter. To believe these records as being altogether true and reliable is the only position consistent with accepting the Lord Jesus Christ as true and His teachings as authoritative.

Divisions of Genesis

There are several helpful ways of subdividing the Genesis record for effective understanding. The most obvious division is that of the six days of creation. Another important distinction has to do with God’s works of creation and His works of formation. Still another involves the structural divisions of the entire Book of Genesis itself. These divisions are indicated wherever the phrase “These are the generations of . . .” occurs. Each such occurrence marks the termination of one narrative and the beginning of another. This fact strongly implies that each of these divisions had a different original author.

1. The Original Writers of Genesis

As we have seen, the liberal myth that Moses could not have written Genesis because men did not know how to write then was dispelled a long time ago. Nevertheless, certain differences in style and vocabulary still seem to many to justify some kind of “documentary” theory of Genesis, pointing to more than one author of the original documents.

It is significant that, although the Book of Genesis is frequently quoted in the New Testament, nowhere are any of these quotations attributed to Moses. Quotations from the other four books of the Pentateuch, however, frequently are ascribed to him. There is no doubt, on the other hand, that the Jews regarded all five books as the books of Moses. This paradox is easily resolved when it is realized that Moses may have been the compiler and editor, rather than the author, of Genesis. The original writers of the various divisions were the patriarchs themselves, the ones whose names appear in the formula “These are the generations of. . . .”

In accord with the common practice of ancient times, records and narratives were written down on tables of stone and then handed down from family to family, perhaps, finally to be placed in a library or public storehouse of some sort. It seems most reasonable to believe that the original records of Genesis were written down by eyewitnesses and handed down through the line of patriarchs, from Adam through Noah and Abraham and finally to Moses.

All of these ancient records were then compiled and edited by Moses, with the necessary transitional and explanatory comments, into their final form. He later followed this with his own accounts, which we now have in the Books of Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. Realization of this fact makes these primeval histories live in an exciting way. They are not simply old traditions, handed down by word-of-mouth transmission for many generations, but are actual firsthand accounts written by eyewitnesses — men who knew and observed and reported things as they really happened.

The word “generations” in Hebrew became “Genesis” when translated into the Greek language for the Septuagint version. Genesis was adopted for the title of the entire book, a book of the collected “generations” of the ancient patriarchs. The word “genesis” conveys the idea both of origin and chronological records.

It was common in antiquity, when a chronicler completed a tablet, to affix his signature at its end. “These are,” he would write, “the historical records of Nahor” (or whatever his name was). Then, if some other writer later were to continue the same chronicle on another tablet, he would key it in to the previous one by some identifying word or phrase which corresponded to the closing portion of the preceding tablet.2

Although there is some uncertainty about whether the “generations” formula applies to the verses preceding it or following it, the weight of evidence seems to favor the former. In every case, the events described in each section could have been known by the man whose name followed it, but not by the man whose name preceded it. For example, the so-called “second creation account,” from Genesis 2:3 to 5:1 is identified as “the book of the generations of Adam,” but Adam could not have known all the events described from 5:1 through 6:8. The latter was identified as “the generations of Noah” in Genesis 6:9.

Following this line of reasoning, there really are two creation accounts, the second written by Adam, from his viewpoint. The first (Gen. 1:1–2:3) could not have been observed by any man at all, and must have been written directly by God himself, either with His own “finger,” as He also did the Ten Commandments (Exod. 31:18), or else by direct supernatural revelation. This is the only one of the “generations” not identified with the name of a particular man, but instead, “These are the generations of the heaven and of the earth when they were created” (Gen. 2:4). In a very direct and unique way, this constitutes the Creator’s personal narrative of heaven and earth. It would be well not to try to explain away its historicity by calling it merely a literary device of some kind. Rather, men should bow before its author in believing obedience, acknowledging that He has clearly spoken, in words that are easy to be understood, concerning those things which they could never discover for themselves.

2. God’s Works of “Creating” and “Making”

The first creation account is concluded with the statement “He had rested from all his work which God created and made” (Gen. 2:3). There are evidently two types of “work” accomplished by God in the creation week and reported in His record. In some cases, His work was to create (Hebrew bara); in others, it was to make (Hebrew asah) or form (Hebrew yatsar). This statement provides another important direction for classifying God’s works as recorded in this chapter.

God’s work of creation, in other words, was that of calling into existence out of nothing (except God’s own power, of course) that which had no existence in any form before. Only God can create in this sense, and in all the Bible no other subject appears for the verb “create” than God. It is possible for man with his God-created intelligence and abilities to “make” things, assembling complex systems out of simpler components, but he cannot “create” anything.3 God also can “make” things, and can do so far more effectively than man. He was, in fact, doing just this during the creation week, along with His work of creating, and both types of works — creating and making — were terminated at the end of that week. “The works were finished from the foundation of the world” (Heb. 4:3).

It is significant that only three works of real creation (that is, as specified by the verb bara) are recorded in Genesis 1. These are (1) the creation of the basic elements of the universe (space, matter, and time — or “heavens,” “earth,” and “beginning”) as recorded in Genesis 1:1; (2) the creation of consciousness (Hebrew nephesh, the “soul”), which is also associated with the “breath of life” (Hebrew ruach, the “spirit” or “mind” or “breath”) — recorded in Genesis 1:21, where “creature” is nephesh, which in the Hebrew is usually translated as “soul” or “life”; and (3) the creation of the “image of God” in man, as recorded in Genesis 1:27.

Thus, there are three basic created entities: the physical elements of the cosmos, of which all inorganic and unconscious organic systems4 (e.g., plants) are “made”; the animal world, whose physical systems consist of the same physical elements, but which also has the created capacity of consciousness; and the human realm, which shares the physical matter of the cosmos and the consciousness of the animal world, but which also has the uniquely created capacity for God-likeness — the “image of God.”

3. The Work of the Six Days

Between these great acts of creation were placed innumerable acts of formation, climaxed finally by the formation of man’s body out of the physical elements, the “dust of the ground,” and his soul and breath from God’s own Spirit (Gen. 2:7). These acts of formation were spaced out in an effective and logical manner during the six days of creation, as follows:

Day	Formation
One	Energizing of the physical elements of the cosmos.
Two	Formation of the atmosphere and hydrosphere on earth.
Three	Formation of the lithosphere and biosphere on earth.
Four	Formation of the astrosphere and its heavenly bodies.
Five	Formation of life in the atmosphere and hydrosphere.
Six	Formation of life for the lithosphere and biosphere.
Seven	Rest from the completed work of creating and making all things.

The logic and symmetry of the formative works of the six days are evident from the above outline. It is not the purpose here to give a full biblical exposition of these verses,5 but only to point out certain basic principles involved in their application.

Characteristics of the Creation

It is not feasible to discuss in detail here all aspects of the creation record in Genesis. Certain important points need to be recognized and emphasized, however, right from the beginning.

1. God’s Purposive Progress in Creation

Note, for example, that each stage of the creation was an appropriate preparation for the succeeding stage, and all of them for the ultimate purpose of providing a suitable home for man. Note also that each created entity had a specific purpose — none was the mere outworking of natural random forces. This implies that God directly fitted each for its own purpose: no “trial and error” system of evolutionary meandering was involved.

The theological objections to the notion of theistic evolution will be listed shortly, along with similar objections to its semantic substitute, progressive creation. Each system and each organism were created specifically the way God designed them to be, and He intended and constructed each to retain its own character. Similarly, the creation week was continuous, with no “gaps” and was a true week; in fact, it was the very prototype of all subsequent weeks — consisting of seven literal days, no more and no less. The “gap theory” and “day-age” theory will be considered in detail shortly, and it will become evident that neither one is based on legitimate biblical exegesis, nor is either harmonious with science.

2. Appearance of History

Another point important to recognize is that the creation was “mature” from its birth. It did not have to grow or develop from simple beginnings. God formed it full-grown in every respect, including even Adam and Eve as mature persons when they were first formed. The whole universe had an “appearance of history” right from the start. It could not have been otherwise for true creation to have taken place. “Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them” (Gen. 2:1).

We do not have all of the details, but this surely means that the light from the sun, moon, and stars was shining upon the earth no later than the end of day four, since their very purpose was “to give light upon the earth” (Gen. 1:17). As a matter of fact, it is possible that these light-waves traversing space from the heavenly bodies to the earth were energized even before the heavenly bodies themselves in order to provide the light for the first three days.6 It was certainly no more difficult for God to form the light-waves than the “light-bearers” that would be established to serve as future generators of those waves.

Note that this concept does not in any way suggest that fossils were created in the rocks, nor were any other evidences of death or decay so created. That would have involved the creation, not of an appearance of history, but of an appearance of evil, and would be contrary to God’s nature.7

3. The “Very Good” Creation

After each of His activities during creation week, God pronounced His work to be “good” (verses 4, 10, 18, 21, 25). It was perfect, exactly as He desired, fully planned and prepared for His “image” to be reproduced in man. Finally, He pronounced it all “very good” (verse 31).

What state of affairs could the God described in Scripture declare to be “good,” and what could He label “very good”?

God is living, and a giver of life, not a cause of death. Therefore, there must have been no death of “living” things when He declared His completed creation to be very good! Thus, He ordained that all of conscious animal life were to be plant eaters (verse 30), as also were Adam and Eve (verse 29). There could have been no carnivorous activity, no bloodshed, no death. He certainly would not have employed such a sadistic process as survival of the fittest, struggle for existence, and natural selection to create and maintain His “very good” masterpiece.

Even the presence of previous life in the form of fossils could not have been “good” in His eyes, for many of the fossils give evidence of having died a horrible death. Thus, the fossil record must have been emplaced at some time after creation.

4. The World That Then Was

It must also be recognized that this primordial-created world was different from the present world in many significant ways. There were, in that world, “waters which were above the firmament” (Gen. 1:7), and this corresponds to nothing in the present world. The word “firmament” (Hebrew raqia, meaning “stretched-out thinness”) is essentially synonymous with “heaven” (note Gen. 1:8), and thus means simply “space,” referring either to space in general or to a specific space, as the context requires. In this case, the firmament was essentially the atmosphere, where birds fly (Gen. 1:20). The waters above seem to have been in the form of a vast blanket of invisible water vapor, translucent to the light from the stars but productive of a marvelous greenhouse effect which maintained mild temperatures from pole to pole, thus preventing air-mass circulations and the resultant rainfall (Gen. 2:5). Such a layer would have had the further effect of efficiently filtering harmful radiations from space, markedly reducing the rate of somatic mutations in living cells, and, as a consequence, drastically decreasing the rate of aging and death.

Another great difference was in the antediluvian geography. The Edenic river system (Gen. 2:10–14) obviously does not exist in the present earth. The artesian nature of the source of the four rivers, plus the later references to the breaking-up of the fountains of the great deep (Gen. 7:11) indicate that there were great reservoirs of water under pressure below the earth’s crust. These waters, and the waters above the firmament, must now be in the present oceanic systems, and this, in turn, implies that the antediluvian oceans were much less extensive than now. Therefore, the lands were more extensive, and the mild climates and fertile soils would have supported far greater numbers of plants and animals all over the world than is now the case.

In addition to all this, there was in the beginning no death! Death came into the world only when sin came into the world (Rom. 5:12; 8:22). Man would have lived forever had he not sinned, and so, apparently, would have the animals (at least all those possessing the nephesh, the “soul”). Plant life, of course, is not conscious life, but only very complex replicating chemicals. The eating of fruits and herbs was not to be considered “death” of the plant materials since they had no created “life” (in the sense of consciousness) anyhow.

All this has changed now. Decay and death came with the curse, and the antediluvian environment changed to the present environmental economy at the time of the great flood sent by God in the days of Noah. With that event, “The world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished” (2 Pet. 3:6).

1 “Man” is used here and frequently in this book, as in the Bible, in the generic sense, as synonymous with “human beings.”

2 P. J. Wiseman, New Discoveries in Babylonia about Genesis (London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1946). The “patriarchal documentary” theory of the writing of Genesis is developed fully and convincingly in this book. Also see the commentary on Genesis by Henry M. Morris, The Genesis Record (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1976), p. 22–30.

3 Sometimes a literary work, an artistic design, or even a new dress, is called a “creation,” but this is not really correct. A new combination of matter or ideas is a formation, or manufacture, not a true creation.

4 The exact boundary line between unconscious replicating chemical systems and creatures that have life in the biblical sense (that is, creatures possessing nephesh) is not yet clear from either science or Scripture. It may be possible that some of the simpler invertebrate animals are in the former category. In the case of plants, at least, the fact that they were designed by God to be used as food by men and animals means that they did not really possess life and, therefore, they could not “die.” Death came into the world only as a result of man’s sin (Rom. 5:12).

5 From our present viewpoint, there is little difference between entities that were “created” by God and those that were “made” by Him. For practical purposes, it seems likely that He made things (e.g., land, water, stars, animal bodies) essentially instantaneously, so that in effect they were specially created. Nevertheless, only one specific act of physical creation is recorded as such, since at that time (Gen. 1:1) God created the basic space/mass/time continuum out of whose elemental structure all other physical systems must be formed. Similarly, only one act of biological Creation is recorded (Gen. 1:21), though the nephesh principle then created would likewise be implanted thereafter in every subsequent animal (or man) either formed directly by God or indirectly through reproduction.

6 The light for the first three days obviously did not come from the sun, moon, and stars, since God did not make them and place them in the heavens until the fourth day (Gen. 1:16–19). Nevertheless, the light source for the first three days had the same function (“to divide the light from the darkness”) as did the heavenly bodies from the fourth day onward (Gen. 1:4,18). This “division” now results from the sun and moon and the earth’s axial rotation. For practical purposes, therefore, the primeval light must essentially have come from the same directions as it would later when the permanent light-sources were set in place.

7 This does not involve “deception” by God, since He has clearly revealed what He did in His Word. True creation, by definition, means that any object so created must look at least superficially like it was already there and thus would appear to have had some kind of history.