Against this way of thinking, the Word of God authoritatively teaches a six day creation, which today is vastly unpopular with most people.
Of the early Church Fathers who wrote on Genesis, all but Augustine who erred by teaching instantaneous creation, affirmed a literal, historic six day account of creation.
It's important that we understand that these men weren't primitive, unscientific goat-herders but rather came from backgrounds of evolutionary pantheism and pagan animism thus were intimately familiar with much of what passes for modern science: Big Bang and Steady State theories, vast ages, the doctrine of emanation and evolution (the universal life force).
Long before Darwin, Greek nature philosophers (600–100BC) were teaching primitive evolutionary conceptions, abiogenesis, natural selection, transmigration, reincarnation and vast ages together with many other modern assumptions. The fragments of Anaximander (c. 610–546 BC) show that he taught that ‘humans originally resembled another type of animal, namely fish’ while Democritus (c.460–370BC) taught that primitive people began to speak with ‘confused’ and ‘unintelligible’ sounds but ‘gradually they articulated words.’
The Greek Atomist Epicurus (341–270BC), the father of contemporary materialism and many of its’ modern assumptions, taught that there was no need of a God or gods, for the Universe came about by a chance movement of atoms. (Evolution: An Ancient Pagan Idea, Paul James Griffith, creation.com)
Darwinism affirms the claim made by Epicurus that living beings created themselves.
With respect to long ages, Plato and many other Greek philosophers taught that the present Universe came about millions of years ago. Writing in the fourth century AD, Lactantius said:
“Plato and many others of the philosophers, since they were ignorant of the origin of all things, and of that primal period at which the world was made, said that many thousands of ages had passed since this beautiful arrangement of the world was completed … .“ (ibid)
After the Greeks, the Roman naturalist Pliny the Elder (AD23–79) said we are so subject to chance,
“….that Chance herself takes the place of God; she proves that God is uncertain.” (ibid)
Greek and Roman philosophers received these ideas from ancient Sumerians (Babylonians), Egyptians and Hindus, whose nature philosophies extended back centuries before Greek and Roman civilization. For example, one Hindu belief was that Brahman (the Void or Universe) spontaneously generated itself (the modern theory of abiogenesis) as something like a seed or singularity about 4.3 billion years ago and then evolved under its’ own power by which it expanded and formed all that exists:
“These Hindus believed in an eternal Universe that had cycles of rebirth, destruction and dormancy, known as ‘kalpas’, rather like oscillating big bang theories. We also read in the Hindu Bhagavad Gita that the god Krishna says, ‘I am the source from which all creatures evolve.” (ibid, Griffith)
In India the doctrine of evolution/reincarnation/karma was thoroughly established from ancient times. It was expounded first in the Upanishads (c. 1000 BC - AD 4), the philosophical-mystic texts held to be the essence of the Vedas.
The idea that the soul reincarnates is intricately linked to karma, the idea that jiva-atmas (souls) pass from one plane of existence to another and carry with them samskaras (impressions) from former states of being. These karmic impressions on the soul are taken to the next life and result in a causally-determined state of being. In some schools of Hinduism liberation from the cycle of death and rebirth (samsara), is considered the ultimate goal of earthly existence. This is known as Moksha in Hinduism or nirvana in Buddhism. Other traditions assert that liberation from samsara is merely the beginning of real spiritual life and beyond nirvana, activities continue, but are no longer of a worldly nature. Both sides agree on the phenomenon of evolution/reincarnation.
Paul, representing six day special creation, contended against Greek Atomists and Stoics, representatives of Cosmic Egg theories (Big Bang), vast ages, universal life force, void, atoms, evolution, etc. And of course they mocked, ridiculed, and derided him unmercifully.
The framework behind this very ancient way of thinking is naturalism: things made themselves. Naturalism is like a leopard. Its' spots cannot be changed even by modern Christians who espouse the Big Bang, billions of years, unfolding processes, etc.
When Peter prophesied about the "scoffers" in "the last days" who claim that "everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation" (2 Peter 3:4) he is speaking of modern people who willingly reject six day, special creation in preference of ancient ways of thinking revised and revamped for our own age.
If God is really Who He said He is, if He is the God Who revealed Himself to man through Jesus Christ, then He can call everything into existence in six literal days, bring about a virgin birth, resurrect Himself from death, ascend unto Heaven, for all of these things are very simple matters.
The real issue behind objections to special creation is what kind of God one believes in. There is an amazing inconsistency to allow that He created in six days that occur at the end of billions of years of evolutionary process. This means that possibly millions of creatures lived and died long before man arrived on the scene, making God the author of death rather than the fall, the sin of Adam.
If God cannot call or sing creation into existence in six literal days then He is not much of a God.
"n the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2He was in the beginning with God.…" John 1:1
Dr. Arnold G. Fruchtenbaum is a messianic Jew and one of the foremost authorities on the nation of Israel, Judaism and Messianic prophecies. In his study of what is known theologically as Messianic Christology Fruchtenbaum surveys all of the messianic prophecies in the Hebrew Scriptures which were fulfilled at the First Coming of Messiah. In Appendix 10 he summarizes all messianic prophecies which have been studied. A few of them are:
Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
He would be human: Gen. 3:15
He would be both God and man (Messiah is Jehovah): Gen. 3:15; Isaiah 7:14; Jeremiah 23:5-6; Micah 5:2; Zechariah 12:10 & 13:7; Psalm 80:17;1 Chronicles 17:10-14
He would remove the curse due to Adam's fall Gen. 5:21-29
He would be the son of God Psalm 2:7-12
He would be full of the Holy Spirit Isaiah 11:1-2; 42:1-4; 61:1-28
He would appear before 70 A.D. Gen. 49:10; Isaiah 7:14, 8:9-10, 9:6-7; Zechariah 11:1-17; 1 Chronicles 17:10-14; Daniel 9:24-27
He would be rejected at first Isaiah 49:1-3, 52:13-53:12; Zechariah 11:1-17, 12:10; Psalms 22 & 110:1-7
He would only be accepted by a small believing remnant of people Zechariah 11:1-7
The Word is all powerful. Calling creation into existence in six literal days is a simple matter for Him.
toric 6 day creation. It's important that we understand that these men weren't primitive, unscientific goat-herders but rather came from backgrounds of evolutionary pantheism and pagan animism thus were intimately familiar with much of what passes for modern science Many people today believe that modern science has proven the earth to be billions of years old, and that every living thing descended from a single cell which itself is the result of chance combination of chemicals.
As for me, I am both YEC and OEC.
Please, do not ping me to anything you post again. Thank you
Those two "beliefs" are in no way related to each other, dear sister in Christ.
What science has shown is that the age of the earth is around 4.7 billion years; the age of the universe around 14 billion years. I do not find this at all alarming. The disparity between the Bible's statement, interpreted literally, that the Earth is 6,000 years old, is completely reconciled to these scientific observations, it seems to me, if one grasps the concept of relativistic time, so beautifully illustrated by Alamo-Girl and TXnMA.
Regarding Hugh Ross' statement RE: God's Word (Logos) being "both the energizing force behind the Big Bang and the director of [the] evolutionary process" — I agree with it. But it's important to understand that Ross is NOT referencing anything like Darwinian evolution here.
We know that the ways of our Lord "far surpasseth human understanding." Yet we also know that the Word of God is Truth: God does not ever lie to us.
I believe God gave us, not only the Revelation of Himself in the Holy Scriptures, but three other revelations of Himself as well: The Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ, Logos, Son of God; the Book of Creation (i.e., the natural world); and the Holy Spirit Who abides with us. Romans 1:20 underscores the third revelation: God wants us to glorify Him by seeing His glory in the things He has made. So I do not scorn or fear the natural sciences. It is only the abuse of science that I deplore, with the uttermost contempt.
Which brings us to Darwin's theory. Darwin's theory does not deal with the origin of life. But I note that most Darwinists attribute the origin of life to matter, which somehow willy-nilly bootstraps itself up to life and consciousness for no reason at all. It "just happened." And then "evolution" got started.
Of course, this idea is patently absurd. For these Darwinist ninnies can't even tell you what "matter" IS, let alone how it makes itself "alive" and, eventually, conscious.
Recently, theoretical physicists' researches are turning up some extraordinarily arresting insights into the nature of "matter." Increasingly, it is being hypothesized as a form of Light.
Thus the Word of God in the Beginning — "Let there be Light," or "Let Light Be" — acquires a significance more profound than we humans have ever imagined heretofore. This was the Word of Creation....
As far as earlier men being "primitive" compared with ourselves now living, an important distinction needs to be made. I believe that the nature of man is a created nature that does not change. That is, human nature, and as a corollary, the human condition does not change over all of time. What does change is human knowledge of the world. It is on that basis alone that we can say that earlier men are "primitive" as compared to ourselves. But again, in no other way.
Important to note: The progress of science over the course of human history has been built on the successive insights of men more "primitive" than we....
Of course, if human nature, as God-created and -endowed, is the Truth of the matter — and I do not doubt that it is — then Darwinian evolution is a fairy story which somehow, through malfeasance, constitutes a revolt against the Creator God. Notwithstanding, it is probably the most powerful myth of our time.
It is, simply put, an abuse of science. But that doesn't mean that the universe can't somehow be an evolutionary process.
If God wanted to unfold His Creation thattaway, what's our beef?
Anyhoot, my credo, FWIW....
Thank you so very much, dear sister in Christ, for your spirited essay/post! May God's Love and Grace and Peace and Light be with you always!