General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, 59th Session

<p>Free sharing permitted under the Creative Commons <a rel="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/us/">BY-NC-ND 3.0 (US)</a> license.</p>

General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists

Kwabena Donkor

Yes, Creation!

Evolutionary thought, Spiritualism and the End of Time

Lee Spencer

How Many Dinosaurs Were On the Ark?

Ariel Roth

Some scientific data that favors a recent creation

Stan Hudson

The Biblical creation is central to the local church

Greg King

Is Biblical Creation Passé?

Nikolaus Satelmajer

Rollin Shoemaker

Sabbath and Creation

Paleontology and the Bible: Science in action

John Baldwin

Why Does a Good Creator Permit Evil?

JoAnn Davidson

...and it WAS good

Jim Gibson

Lions in the Garden of Eden

Richard Davidson

Does Genesis Really Teach a Recent, Literal, Seven-Day Creation Week and a Global Flood?

Tim Standish

DNA and Design

Jacques Doukhan

Creation, the Heart of SDA Theology

How to share creation in outreach on secular campuses

Do millions of years solve the problem?

Ed Zinke

Theistic evolution and the end of Adventism

Ronny Nalin

Dealing with uncertainty

Ted N.C. Wilson

God’s Literal, Six-day, Recent Creation--The Church’s Position

Creation and Evolution: A brief history

Clifford Goldstein

Seventh-day Darwinians

The topic of our discussion here this, this afternoon is does Genesis really teach a recent literal seven day creation week and a global flood? Now I realize this is a discussion that could take us many hours, but in the next few minutes, I would like to summarize some of the biblical evidence that has led me to give an affirming yes to this question. I also point to my website address. I have written several articles that deal with this material in more detail. So if you want to go to the website and download these articles free of charge, you can do that www.andrews.edu/, and then the curvy Tilda sign, and then the name Davidson. Let's go to the first aspect of this foundational biblical issue. Does Genesis one and two teach a literal beginning? Why is this so important? Well, it's Im, it's important, first of all, because the first three chapters of Genesis are linked inextricably with the last three chapters of Revelation. And the way you interpret one means the way you interpret the other. So without a literal beginning, why should Adventists argue for a literal end? It's that important. Now, there are numerous scholars who have argued for non-literal interpretation. Some suggest that Genesis one and two is mythology. Others see it as a literary framework or as theology, and therefore not history as liturgy, as symbolism, that is metaphor or a parable or vision. And there may be others that I have omitted here. Common to all these views is the assumption that the account of origins and Genesis is not a literal, straightforward, historical account. The question I want to ask us today is, is there any evidence within the text of Genesis itself that shows us whether this was intended by the author Moses, to be literal or not? And I'd like to suggest the evidence is very strong. Let's look at some of the lines of evidence. First of all, the literary genre, the literary form of Genesis one to 11. Numerous studies have been done, done on this literary form of Genesis one to 11. And it's basically concluded that what is written there in those opening chapters of Genesis is not any mythology or symbolism, but it's written in straightforward historical prose, historical narrative, prose. Now, what makes me so sure that that is true is a second point that throughout the book of Genesis, Genesis is structured by a specific term. And this is the term which in many English translations has translated generations. We have this 13 times in the book of Genesis. These are the generations of the heavens and the earth. This is the book of the generations of Adam, chapter five. This is the generations of Noah, generations, of the sons of no generations, of shim, of Tara, of Ishmail, of Isaac, of Esau, of Jacob. It goes through the entire book, every major heading throughout the entire book. It identifies what kind of writing it is, and it calls it in Hebrew, Toledo. And this word Toledo is a genealogical term. It's a term which implies history. It implies the accurate account of time and history. It literally means beginnings or bringings, forth and Genesis. The is the history of beginnings. And the point that I want to make here is that this word is used throughout the Book of Genesis. So that one cannot say, well, Genesis one to 11 is not literal, but the rest of Genesis is literal because it's heading is the same for all of these sections. If Jacob was a literal figure, if Joseph was a literal figure, then the heavens and the earth in their creation and the story of Noah and the flood are intended by the author to be literal. So here is a terminological indicator that we have literal history here in Genesis one to 11. The word generations, the word Toledo. Also, as you look at Genesis one, you find that each day of Genesis ends with this term. Each day of the six days of creation ends with the phrase, and there was evening and there was morning, evening, morning, the rhythm of evening and morning at the conclusion of each of the six days. And if you look elsewhere in the Bible, wherever you find evening and mourning together without exception, 57 times, it's referring to a literal 24 hour day. And so here is another indication within Genesis that we're talking about literal time, also the word day in Hebrew <unk>. Now, it's true that sometimes the word day can have a figurative meaning. Just like in English, we can say, well, we're living in this day and age. You know, we're not talking about a literal time. But whenever the word day <unk> in Hebrew is connected to a number, first day, second day, third day, fourth day, fifth day, sixth day, throughout the entire world Testament 359 times, it's always a literal 24 hour day. And this is what we have for every day of the creation week. So here we have indicators, right? Within Genesis one and two, moving beyond Genesis one and two, we have the reference to creation, the six days of creation in the fourth commandment. And if the six days of creation are less than literal, something symbolic or metaphorical of some kind, then the argument of the fourth commandment simply doesn't work. Because the fourth commandment acquaints the six days of man's work followed by the seventh day with the sixth days of God's work, followed by the seventh day as one scholar put it, the references to the days of creation in Exodus 20, verse 11 and 31 17 in connection with the Sabbath law makes sense only if understood in terms of a normal seven day week. It should be noted that the references to creation in Exodus are not used as analogy that is your rest in the seventh day ought to be like God's rest in creation. It is rather stated in terms of imitation of God or a divine precedent that is to be followed. God worked for six days rested on the seventh, and therefore you should do the same. Unless there is an exactitude of reference, the argument of exodus does not work. And so the fourth commandment is strong evidence that we are to see these six days of creation as literal. Moving to the broader context, as we move to the New Testament, we find that Jesus and all the New Testament writers refer to Genesis one to 11 and assume it to be literal reliable history. Every chapter in Genesis one to 11 is referred to explicitly or alluded to in the writings of the New Testament. And Jesus himself refers to Genesis one and two and to five and six and seven. And then of course, Adventists have an evidence which affirms this biblical text. And I'm thankful that Ellen White has written firmly on this in the book's Spirit of prophecy, volume one, page 85, I was then carried back to the creation and was shown that the first week in which God performed a work of creation in six days and rested on the seventh was just like every other week. That's one SP 85. So I have to conclude, based upon the testimony of Genesis and later illusions to Genesis and the, the testimony of of Ellen White, that the six days of Genesis one and two are literal, contiguous, creative, natural, 24 hour days, and God then rested on the seventh day. But this leads us to the second point of our question for the heading. Actually, it's the first word that's used here in the question, does it teach a recent creation week? Now, some will acknowledge that there was a six day creation week, but we'll put it millions of years ago and then say, well then God created millions of years ago. And then Satan messed up this creation and then it's been now millions of years and they have different lines of reasoning that put it way back before recent times. Again, the evidence from Genesis verse chapters one to 11 to me is decisive. There are two chapters in Genesis, Genesis five, Genesis 11, which are genealogies. Genesis five takes us from Adam down to Noah. Genesis 11 takes us from Noah's son Shem down to Abraham. And there are genealogies in the Old Testament and in the ancient near East, which are not complete, which just have a list of representative names. But these gen genealogies and Genesis five to 11 are unique. You won't find them like this anywhere else in the h and e East or in scripture. That's why the scholars called them chrono genealogies. They don't just have a list of names, but they are linked one to the next generation by these interlocking features which don't allow for intrusion of any additional names. And so you've got this, this setup of patriarch lives X years and begets a son. Then he be, after he begets this son, he lives y more years and begets more son and daughters. And all the years of this patriarch were Z ears. So these interlocking, chronological features, unlike anywhere else in the genealogies places, an emphasis upon the aspect of time and not just a list of pedigree, not just a list of names, to further substantiate the absence of gaps in the genealogies of Genesis five to 11. Wherever it says in these chapters and such and such a patriarch begat, it uses a special grammatical form that is in the causative form. And this special hk, the special Hebrew hfi form, has only found seven other times with this, with this word begat. And every time it uses this special causative form, it doesn't just mean a general to become the descendant of or to talk about descendants in general. This special term in its causative strongest causative form means a direct physical descendant father son relationship. And here in Genesis five and 11, every time we have this special grammatical form that implies there are no gaps, well, if you count up the, the number of years in Genesis five and 11, it, it, it varies slightly depending upon whether you're using the Hebrew text or whether you're using the Greek text or the Samaritan Pentateuch varies by a few hundred years. But regardless of which of those you use, the conclusion is still the same. One has to come to the conclusion of a recent six day creation week. I believe there are enough ambiguities that we can't do, like Bishop Usher did and say, that man was created on, on the sixth day of October 21, 4,004 BC at nine o'clock in the morning. No, we can't get precise like that, but we can say recent a few thousand years, not tens of thousands, not hundreds of thousands, certainly not millions according to the biblical record. A third issue that's in this question, a global flood. Once again, the global, the, the flood story is introduced by this word Toledo, which is a term saying, I'm writing real history. Moses is indicating that he's writing history and not just some mythology. And then as we start looking at the phraseology used in the flood narrative for the story of the flood, we find some, well in the entire biblical records, some 30 different terms that imply universality. I don't have time to go over all of them here in these few minutes we have left. But in Genesis six to nine, for example, we have terms such as the face of all the Earth, which has a link with the terminology of creation. The face of the ground, again, paralleled with creation, talking about the ground of the entire earth, all flesh, every living thing under the whole heaven, all the fountains of the great deep all existence, the most penetrating one of all, I think is that all exist. And then it, it says, except those that went in the ark and the the creatures that were in the sea. And then to cap it all off the, the flood story in Genesis six through nine uses this term <unk>. Now, my students don't remember a lot of Hebrew 10 years after they leave the seminary sometimes, but I can always guarantee they'll come back with, with the the word mabu, something about that they like, they like to think of the mabu special term that's used in Genesis and throughout the whole Bible. It's just for this flood, just for Genesis, the Noah flood, something about this flood was different than all the other floods. And the thing that was different is that it was global in its extent. It covered all, all flesh, every living thing under the whole heaven, all the fountains of the great deed besides the terminology, we have other evidence of universal flood in the biblical record. Just looking at the, the data in Genesis 1, 2 11, it starts out with, with universal themes, creation, universal creation, and then the sin universal. And then after the, after that universal judgment. And finally the universal flood. The purpose of the flood is specifically given in Genesis six, it is to wipe out all of those who have rebelled against God of all mankind. And it uses this term humanity. The same term that's used in Genesis one and two of humanity in general. My wife this morning alluded to the covenant that was made with humankind and with all creatures. It was a universal covenant. And if it was only a limited flood rather than a universal flood like many people suggest, then that means the covenant was only universal. It means that that rainbow that everyone sees around the world doesn't apply to everyone cuz it was just a local flood. That that goes against the evidence there of Genesis six to nine. And to me, one of the most significant arguments, just from a logical point of view, God promised never to bring a flood again like this. And if it was only a local flood, then how many times has God broken his promise? It's only if this were a universal flood that it would make sense just from a logical perspective, let alone to think of an enormous arc. Why an arc at all? If it's only a local flood? Why do the birds have to go into an arc when they can just fly over to the next valley? Doesn't make any sense. And the duration of the flood over a year and the the New Testament evidence of a universal language, which swept them all away, the flood came and destroyed them all. Luke says, second Peter, the flood was upon the world of the ungodly first Peter three, a few were saved. Hebrews 11 condemned the world. And second Peter three uses this typology in which Peter argues that just as there was a universal flood, so soon will come a universal judgment. And if his argument is based upon only a limited flood, then his argument falls flat. The typology doesn't work. I believe the question of the extent of the Genesis flood is not just a matter of idle curiosity with little stake for the Christian faith. For those who see the days of creation as literal six days, The universal flood is an absolute necessity to explain the existence of much of the geological column. A literal creation week is inextricably linked with a worldwide flood. My professor who taught me at the seminary, Gerhard Hazel, after examining all this evidence about the flood, he wrote this, there is hardly any stronger way in Hebrew to emphasize the total destruction of all existence of human and animal life on earth than the way it has been expressed. In Genesis six to nine, the writer of the Genesis flood narration employed termino terminology, formulate syntactical structures of the type that could not be more emett in explicit in expressing his concept of a universal worldwide flood. I find it interesting that critical scholars who don't even believe the Bible is true. They have no problem in seeing Genesis one to 11 as presenting what the author thought was literal history. So for example, James Barr, that great Hebrew scholar, university of Oxford, he wrote, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew World Testament, any world class university who does not believe that the writers of Genesis one to 11 intended to convey to the readers the idea that one creation took place in a series of six days, which were the same as the days of 24 hours. We now experience two. The figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provide by simple addition to chronology from the beginning of the world up to the later stages of the biblical story. And three, Noah's flood was to understood to be worldwide and to have extinguished all human and land animal life except for those in the arc. That's critical. Scholars, the only ones that are questioning this are evangelical scholars who claim to believe Genesis one to 11. But they gotta find a way to escape the force of those chapters in order to square it with what they understand to be the the almighty findings of science. But in a recent paper that I presented in the Evangelical Theological Society, I was talking about the universal flood. And one of the most venerable scholars of Old Testament in the evangelical world, Gleason Archer, who has just since passed to his death, came up to me afterwards and he said, thank you for your paper affirming a literal creation and a literal global flood. He said, your church, the seventh, the Adventist Church is just about the only church left that still state takes a stand on this issue. Most of my evangelical friends have given up. He says, he's told me, don't let your church remove this powerful teaching. Amen. Amen. And I think that our church has taken again recently, just in the last couple of years, a strong stand on this point. Praise God for his clarity in his word about this. Amen. Amen.

Back to Menu

Series

Yes, Creation!

Does Genesis Really Teach a Recent, Literal, Seven-Day Creation Week and a Global Flood?

Parent Series

Parent Conference

Sponsor

Recorded

Other Teachings in Series

Evolutionary thought, Spiritualism and the End of Time

How Many Dinosaurs Were On the Ark?

Some scientific data that favors a recent creation

The Biblical creation is central to the local church

Is Biblical Creation Passé?

Sabbath and Creation

Paleontology and the Bible: Science in action

Why Does a Good Creator Permit Evil?

...and it WAS good

Lions in the Garden of Eden

Does Genesis Really Teach a Recent, Literal, Seven-Day Creation Week and a Global Flood?

DNA and Design

Creation, the Heart of SDA Theology

How to share creation in outreach on secular campuses

Do millions of years solve the problem?

Theistic evolution and the end of Adventism

Dealing with uncertainty

God’s Literal, Six-day, Recent Creation--The Church’s Position

Creation and Evolution: A brief history

Seventh-day Darwinians

Sound Doctrine