Divine Origin and Sacred History: Genesis in Job (Part 2)

                      The Curse

Beyond its allusions to Creation (see Scripturosity article Genesis in Job – Part 1), the next reference to the primeval history of Genesis remarkably detailed in the book of Job is the Fall of Man and nature’s Curse.

There is no way to intellectually reconcile faith in a good and loving God with the suffering that so indelibly defines our world without an intrinsic understanding of the cause for nature’s groaning.

A naturalistic explanation of human emergence is that death and misfits and suffering and mutations eventually brought about man. The biblical explanation of life’s inherent pain and misery is that man brought death. “Wherefore, as by one man (Adam) sin entered the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men…(Romans 5:12).”

According to the Bible, suffering is a remnant phenomenon of the Curse placed on the creation at the time of Adam’s sin. His disobedience would be shown to have implications far more reaching than his own mortality. Man’s obedience to God had been key to the preservation of Paradise. Now perfection became flawed and innocence condemned. All of creation was cursed with mankind because of mankind.

John Calvin wrote the following concerning the curse and what we see in nature today…

“The Lord…determined that his anger should, like a deluge, overflow all parts of the earth, that wherever man might look, the atrocity of his sin should meet his eyes. Before the fall, the state of the world was a most fair and delightful mirror of the divine favour and paternal indulgence towards man. Now, in all the elements, we perceive that we are cursed. And although the earth is still full of the mercy of God (Psalm 33:5), yet at the same time appear manifest signs of his dreadful alienation from us, by which, if we are unmoved, we betray our blindness and insensibility.”

It is fascinating to find in the writings of Job, a keen awareness and comprehension of creation’s Curse.

“Cursed is the ground for thy sake,” said the Lord to Adam, “Thorns and thistles shall it bring forth unto thee (contrasting the previously cooperative earth that he dressed and kept)…In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return (Gen. 3:17-19).”

Job ended his discourse with his “comforters” with a reminder of the Curse’s strangle-hold on their environment. “Let thistles grow instead of wheat, and cockle instead of barley (31:40).”

Earlier he prays within earshot of the others, “Remember, I beseech Thee, that Thou hast made me as the clay; and wilt Thou bring me into dust again (10:9)?”

Elihu sarcastically advised with a similar acknowledgement, “Yea, surely God will not do wickedly, neither will the Almighty pervert judgment…If He set His heart upon man, (or) if He gather unto Himself His spirit and His breath (Gen.2:7); All flesh shall perish together, and man shall turn again unto dust (Job 34:10-15).”

Job references the Curse and the futility of protecting your offspring from its effects in 14:1-4. In protest of the friend’s insistence of his guilt based solely upon the tragic turn of circumstances, Job recounts of the testimony of old, “Man that is born of woman is few of days, and full of trouble. He cometh forth like a flower, and is cut down: he fleeth also as a shadow, and continueth not… Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? Not one.”

Job had a remarkable grasp of the sentence of sorrow placed upon woman at the time of the Fall (Gen.3:16).

Woman’s curse was an engagement of sorrow. There is something very interesting; however, about the words translated “sorrow” in verse 16. They actually represent two different Hebrew words.

The first sorrow, the sorrow that is to be “greatly multiplied,” is defined by Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon as “pain” or “toil” and specifically “of travail.”

The second “sorrow” (“…in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children…”) is a different word. It is defined (B-D-B) similarly as “pain, hurt, toil,” also noting travail but it points out that the same word is found in Proverbs 10:22. This passage is contrasting sorrow as the antithetical reality to the Lord’s blessing. There is no allusion to or connection to physical pain at all. This word in its very essence is probably best defined by Ungers Bible Dictionary as “grief arising from the privation of some good we actually possessed.”

The “sorrow” that was to be “greatly multiplied” is descriptive of the physical pangs of childbirth. The second “sorrow” of Genesis 3:16 is referencing the inevitable grief that will now be associated with protecting and rearing offspring after the Curse.

Job was simply saying, “My suffering is the result of original sin and the curse – nothing more.”

Eliphaz aligns with Job’s perspective in his previous comments. “Yet man is born into trouble, as the sparks fly upward (5:7).” He follows up with a similar recognition, “What is man, that he should be clean? And he which is born of a woman, that he should be righteous (15:14)?”

Bildad offered the same appreciation for the initial context of Job’s circumstances. “How then can man be justified with God? Or how can he be clean that is born of woman (25:4)?”

Job even expresses knowledge of the original sin, references the catalyst, and makes personal application. “If I covered my transgressions as Adam, by hiding mine iniquities in my bosom: Did I fear a great multitude…or the contempt of families…that I kept silence, and went not out of the door (31:33,34)?”

This record makes it quite clear that Job and those with whom he associated had a coherent appreciation for the history of mankind as it was preserved from the beginning and eventually compiled by Moses. Either their knowledge was based on an indirect passing down through oral tradition or they had a more direct access to the Sacred Annals in some way. Regardless, the references cannot be considered coincidental.

The next article in this series will address the chronicled recognition of a hydrological cataclysm that had rocked the earth only a few short centuries prior.

Read Full Post »

Divine Origin and Sacred History: Carbon Dating – The Basic Measurement (Part 1)

Carbon dating is a form of measurement classified as radiometric. Radiometric dating is a scientific technique used to estimate the ages of rocks and fossils. The reason that this method of measurement is important to the believer is because most lab results reflect ages that are in profound contrast to the history of earth and humanity established in the biblical timeline. Conversely, carbon dating also raises serious suspicion regarding the accuracy of the assigned epochs of the geologic column. Let’s see if we can add some clarity to the measurement muddle.

All matter is made up of atoms – the basic building blocks of all things. Atoms are constructed of smaller particles known as protons, neutrons, and electrons. The nucleus of each atom is made up of the protons and neutrons at the center, while its outer layers consist of the electrons.

It is the number of protons in the nucleus that gives the atomic signature to each element. As an example, all carbon atoms have 6 protons, all nitrogen atoms have 7 protons, and each oxygen atom has 8. However, within the nucleus of a given isotope (established proton signature) can be a variant number of neutrons. It is the combination of both the protons and the neutrons that determines the mass of each atom.

An atom is considered “stable” when the number of its nuclear protons and neutrons are equal. Since there are 6 protons in a carbon atom, its stable form has 6 neutrons giving it a mass of 12 and the common reference of Carbon-12. Carbon-14 is an unstable isotope because it has 8 neutrons to its 6 protons. Unstable isotopes, such as Carbon-14 (also known as radiocarbon), are always seeking nuclear equilibrium (that is an equal proton/neutron count) and this is accomplished by a process known as “radioactive decay.” Radioactive decay demands that the original element upon which the action takes place will become a different element. In the case of Carbon-14, the “beta decay” process (signified by an ejected electron) essentially causes it to lose a neutron and gain a proton changing it to the stable element Nitrogen-14.

If this is the case, then wouldn’t all the Carbon-14 atoms be stabilized into Nitrogen-14? Earth’s biosphere is never without Carbon-14 because it is continuously being added to the atmosphere through high-impact, atomic collisions with cosmic rays. The most prominent element in our atmosphere is nitrogen making it the most likely to be impacted by these violent intrusions. These high energy bombardments separate some of the nitrogen atoms from one of their protons and replace them with a neutron creating a new Carbon-14 atom.

The logical question becomes, “How does Carbon-14 become relevant in dating measurements?” These newly transformed radiocarbon atoms now behave similarly to the stable carbon isotopes (Carbon-12) and combine with oxygen (the second most plentiful element in the atmosphere) to form Carbon Dioxide (CO2). Because of this, atmospheric carbon dioxide has a proportionate distribution of radioactive and non-radioactive carbon atoms that indiscriminately enter earth’s biosphere (regions occupied by living organisms) through photosynthesis (a process critical to the existence of earth’s plant covering). With radiocarbon in the food chain, all creatures (including humans) have trace levels of Carbon-14 within their physical composition. As long as an organism is alive, it will maintain its 1-to-1 trillion radioactive carbon ratio with its stable (Carbon-12) counterpart. But once a creature dies or a plant fades (see Scripturosity article “Planting Seeds of Doubt”) it no longer can add molecular carbon to its structure. This is point at which the measurement starts.

Scientists are able to measure the ratio of Carbon-14 to Carbon-12 in an organic subject by using an Accelerator Mass Spectrometer. As time goes by and as the natural process of radioactive decay takes place, less of the radio-carbon will exist reducing the ratio with its stable counterpart. The standard expression used to communicate the rate of radioactive decay is “half-life.” This is the amount of time needed to reduce the number of unstable atoms by half in a given sample. While the decay is not simultaneous, half of the radioactive atoms will be reduced within a specific and consistent timeframe. Scientific consensus places the half-life of Carbon-14 at 5,730 years. So this means after 5,730 years, a given sample of ancient organic matter will only have half of the Carbon-14 atoms that it had at the moment it ceased to interact with earth’s biosphere. In 11,460 years those remaining will be halved again. When you halve the percentage of radiocarbon 10 times (57,300 years), there are virtually no unstable atoms left to decay.

This places the effective measurement range of Carbon-14 (or Radiocarbon) Dating at around 60,000 years (though some would argue a maximum effectiveness around 100,000 years) creating quite the dilemma for those whose worldview posits ancient earth strata separated by hundreds of millions of years. Carbon dating discovery of not-so-ancient organics within assigned deep-time sediment layers is ever giving heartburn to the hardcore zealots of naturalism.

But the obvious quandary for the Biblicist is that much of the carbon dating data still bears out ages which are radically conflicted with the history presented in our Premier Text. Part 2 of this short article series will address this informational impasse and offer a rational reconciliation scenario for the believer’s apologetics toolbox.

Read Full Post »

Biblical Relevance in Modern Culture: Answering Skeptics (Part 11)

This article is one of a series designed to offer a reasoned defense of the true creationist position in response to representations, claims and rebuttals published by “America’s skeptic,” Dr. Michael Shermer.

 

A college professor for 20 years, teaching psychology, evolution, and the history of science, Dr. Shermer has emerged as one of the most respected voices of reason in this generation. He is the Founding Publisher of “Skeptic” magazine, is a monthly columnist for “Scientific American,” and is currently the Executive Director of the Skeptics Society. He has authored more than 10 books primarily focused on science and reason with multiple appearances on various television shows and documentaries over the years.

 

In his book, “Why People Believe Weird Things,” Dr. Shermer commits a full chapter to “Confronting Creationists” trying his best to represent (or not) various planks of the “creation” platform and then offering a philosophical, naturalistic rebuttal to each claim. These articles will focus on Dr. Shermer’s representation of the creationist position and respond to his instruction on how to answer their assertions.

 

The purpose of this short series is not to encourage confrontation with skeptics, but to give answers to those seekers who may be at the same reflective crossroads that Michael Shermer found himself when his faith was challenged by the intellectual flair of naturalistic belief during his graduate training at California State University.

Alleged creationist claim #12 – Something cannot be created out of nothing, say scientists. Therefore, from where did the material for the Big Bang come? From where did the first life forms that provided the raw materials for evolution originate? Stanley Miller’s creation of amino acids out of an inorganic “soup” and other biogenic molecules is not the creation of life.

 

As part of his elaboration, Dr. Shermer admits, “Science may not be equipped to answer certain “ultimate”-type questions, such as what there was before the beginning of the universe or what time it was before time began or where the matter for the Big Bang came from. So far these have been philosophical or religious questions, not scientific ones and therefore have not been a part of science.”

Rationally speaking then, naturalism – the belief that all things find context in natural causation – is contradictory and illogical. At some point in the inescapable retrospection the question must be asked, “But where did that come from?” Eventually, there comes a point where every answer is religious.

The problem with using Stanley Miller’s experiment as a model for biogenesis is that he started with various material elements under controlled, laboratory conditions and manipulated the application of energy with calculated precision. How does that represent the evolutionary mantra of life’s random, spontaneous appearance from abiotic elements?

Dr. Shermer does offer the disclaimer that, “Stanley Miller never claimed to have created life, just some of its building blocks.” Let’s go ahead and concede that point to Shermer for the moment (even though intelligence was applied to generate the “blocks”). This proposition is like requiring a random, mountain of bricks to somehow become the Biltmore Estate!

The truth is such contemplations are extremely frustrating for naturalists. A typical example of the high-brow evasion at this point in the discussion can be found in Philip Whitfield’s book, Life: Evolution Explained where he assures the readers that “the precise details are not crucial.”

Seriously? That is the foundation of the dogmatic assertions of evolutionary origins? And my axiomatic adherence to a preserved, ancient document full of precise details that find harmonious context within all the scientific disciplines is considered ludicrous?

Another interesting observation is that while Dr. Shermer recognizes that these are “philosophical or religious questions…and therefore have not been a part of science,” the scientific community has not done a very good job of discouraging the promotion of ideological speculation (see Scripturosity article “Intellectual Invention”). From the classroom to the newsstand, science is endorsed as the only rational approach to our existence. In November of 2006, NewScientist magazine published a 50^th Anniversary Special Edition with the following message boldly positioned in the center of the cover in large print – “THE BIG QUESTIONS-Life, Death, Reality, Free Will, and the Theory of Everything.” I wonder if anyone other than biblical creationists reads Shermer’s books.

My question to Dr. Shermer would be, “If absolute origins are beyond the capacity of observational science to root out, then why the desperate opposition to specific claims of a supernatural Agent?” Why not, likewise, oppose the message of his “shamans of scientism” who are faithfully “proffering naturalistic answers…providing spiritual sustenance” and meeting the philosophical needs of those rejecting the Sacred Record (see Scripturosity article “Answering Skeptics – Part 7”)? That’s not scientific either.

Perhaps the issue is not about being scientific or even being religious. We say “God” and they say “matter.” Creationists can be scientific and naturalists can be religious. The real objection is highlighted in a prophetic dictation of David found in the opening stanza of Psalm 2.

“Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing?

The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the Lord, and against His anointed, saying,

Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us.”

David asked the same question that is under the breath of so many Christians today. The zealous defiance is to the point of absurdity prompting the sincere inquiry, “Why is the opposition so fierce, even to the extent of plotting against sound reason?”

The passage reveals the crux of the resistance in a contrast between Earth’s culture and Earth’s Creator. “His anointed” is a reference to the deliverer who would redeem creation from its Curse (see Scripturosity article “The Gospel Message”). The prophecy unveils the exception of the creature to the notion of accountability or the need to be rescued. “Let us break their bands…and cast away their cords.”

Oh the twisted thinking that turns our Redeemer into our rival.

Read Full Post »

Divine Origin and Sacred History: After Their Kinds

After I publish an article, I will ask my wife, Sheila, to work her techno-magic with her Mac and make the necessary links to various references throughout the piece. Last week it became clear that one of my Scripturosity references had only been drafted and never published – so here it is (I hope you didn’t search too long for it). The “Answering Skeptics” series will continue next week.

“Every beast, every creeping thing, and every fowl, and whatsoever creepeth upon the earth, after their kinds, went forth out of the ark (Genesis 8:19).”

The day finally came. After a full year and 13 days in the Ark, the seafarers stepped out onto dry land.

It had been approximately 1,600 years since the Creator decreed that the earth should be filled. We realize in these verses that God is not deterred from His original purpose. God has desired that the nephesh representation of His creative genius cover the earth as a perpetual testament to His glory. Now with the harsh conditions and landscape into which the creatures were re-introduced, their built in genetic variability would be more of a survival necessity than before the Flood. In the antediluvian environment, speciation would have been, more, an aesthetic expression of diversity rather than an essential for propagation.

This is one reason why there appears to be such a disparity between the creature representation in the fossil record and today’s “kind” remnant. The genetic capacity was pushed harder toward its limits after the Flood due to geographical, climatological, and   ecological barriers that had become the new reality. As the animals dispersed and reproduced, environmental and behavioral factors would cause segments of a “kind” population to become isolated. This isolation would influence the community by favoring characteristics best suited for survival within that environment. As time went on, variations within “kinds” became recognizable; even to the point of sharp distinction.

Objectors to the historicity and authority of Scripture argue that the “kinds” of Genesis are synonymous with the “species” of Linnaean taxonomic hierarchy. It is interesting that they never argue for a broader classification when offering a modern comparison. It is always the most restrictive classification of “species.” And yet, Carolus Linnaeus, the father of modern taxonomy, used his appreciation for the Creator’s design to construct his 7 taxon’s that form his hierarchy in the mid-1700’s (Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, and Species).

The Hebrew word translated “kind” in the Authorized Version of the Bible is also translated “species” and “genus” in the early Latin translations of Scripture. Since both words came from the same Hebrew word, min, it is clear that both translations intended to communicate the same thing – a distinct, genetically fixed class of creature with a broad capacity for variation and adaptation ensuring proliferation to the glory of the Creator.

Bible commentators before the time of Linnaeus, such as John Calvin, John Gill, and Matthew Henry, always recognized that “species” originally meant the same as the later English rendering of “kind.”

The confusion came when the biological classification systems took on more specific definitions. The science community and the churches were using the same term (“species”), but were applying different definitions. Theologians were maintaining that biblical “species” (meaning “kinds”) were created genetically fixed or distinct and could not cross certain assigned barriers. Meanwhile, the scientists were demonstrating change and variability within “species” (meaning the Linnaean “species”). Guess who looked ignorant.

This may have been avoided had Linnaeus used the term “species” in the place of “family,” then the theologians could have continued from their traditional understanding without any negative backlash. In the modern classification, it is “family” that best represents the constitution of the Genesis “kind.”

Because of the ongoing confusion and easy attack on the authority of Scripture, Frank Marsh proposed a new term in his 1941 book entitled Fundamental Biology. From the Hebrew words bârâ meaning “to create” and min meaning “kind,” he constructed the term baramin roughly meaning “created kind.” Baraminology is now a growing field of scientific research that studies the biblical created kinds.

Dr. Todd Charles Wood, biochemist and Director of the Center for Origins Research at BryanCollege wrote the following concerning his research in this new field (April-June Answers magazine).

“Over the past decade, I have worked to develop new methods of studying created kinds using statistics. This research is still very new and preliminary, but a pattern is beginning to emerge. For land animals and birds, the created kind most often corresponds to the conventional classification rank called “family,” which includes many species. There is evidence that the camel, horse, cat, dog, penguin, and iguana families are each a created kind…I would put the coyote, wolf, jackal, and dog in the same kind, and I would include the fox. I would put the lion and the house cat in another kind and the llama and the camel in yet another kind. Today these species (ie., llama and camel) look amazingly different, but they seem to have been generated after the Flood from information already present within their parent kind.”

Keep in mind also that the “kind” delegates that were taken on the Ark did not represent (nor did they have to) the vast diversity (speciation) that had already taken place within the kinds.

Professor of biology, Dr. Daniel Criswell wrote an article published in the April 2009 Acts & Facts entitled “Speciation and the Animals on theArk.” After answering many of the arguments brought by “old-earth” proponents regarding speciation, Dr. Criswell offers the following biblical perspective.

“To maximize the number of animals on the Ark with the genetic potential to produce all the variation we see today requires a genetic engineer who knows the genetic composition of each animal. Genesis 6:20 tells us that God brought the animals to Noah to be put on the Ark. It clearly indicates that God chose the animals to be saved and it is likely that the choice of animal was based on the genetic potential to produce a variety of animals after the Flood. God is the omniscient genetic engineer who chose each animal and made the variation in extant (surviving) animals possible from all the animals on the Ark.”

In the end, after all the scientific analysis and debate, it still comes down to faith. Those promoting a history of millions of biologically evolving years have faith that the 18^th century concepts of Hutton and Lyell (that have a stronghold on nearly every discipline of science today) were rooted in empirical discovery rather than assumptions and presuppositions. Those of us preaching a 6 day creation have anchored our worldview on the authority and inerrancy of an ancient, sacred record detailing the history of the world and mankind.

It just happens to be very satisfying intellectually to see how the evidence favors the “testimonies…of old” (Ps. 119:152). Discovery is ever supplementing the ambiguity built into Scripture. God gives us just enough information to drive our innate curiosity, but not enough that we don’t have to exercise faith. “Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the Word of God (Heb. 11:3)” and God is not about to change that while we are in the “time” dimension. His pleasure is to be sought and His desire is to reward them that do. “But without faith it is impossible to please Him: for he that cometh to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of them that diligently seek Him. (Heb. 11:6).”

Read Full Post »