Brought up in a household with no encouragement to find my faith, I was left to find God on my own. Through the years I've struggled trying to understand how science and the bible tell the same past. My heart tells me God is there but science is factual.
According to the bible, our Earth is only 6,000 years old. Science tells us the world is actually 4.54 BILLION years old. Evidence of this comes from fossils and artifacts. A big confusion to me is the era of dinosaurs and why they aren't specifically mentioned in the Bible. In addition, there are many fossils that date back to millions of years ago.
I've never believed in evolution but recently evidence has shown that all dogs descend from wolfs. If this is true, this transition would've taken thousands and thousands of years. Much longer than 6,000 short years. And of course this raises the question of evolution. Still, I have a hard time believing we come from monkeys. (Again I do not believe in evolution- my example is in reference to the timeline of creation.)
The list of science examples can go on and on. I love science but the more I learn the more I question God and that terrifies me. Please help
Nicole,
Here is an excerpt from the Commentary I have been working on for the past 11 years.
1 In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.
1 At first, God created the heavens and the earth.
Most translations translate ’B’reeshiyt’ as “In the beginning”; but, while Hebrew has a definite article “Ha(w)”, it is not used here. Accuracy demands “In beginning” or “At first”.
The Hebrew word ‘bara’, used to signify creation from nothing, occurs in the first verse and is not seen again until the fifth day when God created sea creatures and birds
For classification purposes, science divides living things into Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, and species. While the Bible is not specific about how broad “kind” is, when it says that God created life “after its kind”, it is certain that common usage does not allow an interpretation less narrow than Family. This precludes dogs having evolved from anything but dogs; but allows all dogs (foxes, wolves, coyotes, dingoes, hyenas, etc.) to have come from the same ancestral parents. If you are inclined to interpret ‘Kind’ more narrowly than ‘Family’; I have no quarrel with you. There is nothing in the original language to preclude a narrower interpretation, and I believe that in areas where the Bible is not specific, any interpretation which does not depart from the idiom and common usage of the original language is permissible. If we elect to believe something that is inaccurate and which is not essential to salvation then I believe the Lord will correct us in His own time. (“Howbeit, when He the Spirit Of Truth is come, He will guide you into all truth....”) ( Jn 16:13) If you elect to interpret ‘Kind’ less narrowly than ‘Family’, you break with idiom and common usage and I believe that failure to treat the Bible as a higher standard of authority puts one’s salvation in question. It is not my role to determine where you will spend eternity; but I am told to be concerned about your salvation when you put your own thoughts above Biblical teaching.
We know from Jn 1:1-3 and Col 1:13-16, that God performed this creative work in the person of Jesus (Yeshua).
See Jn 1:3. {Return to: Ge 1:10, Lk 1:2, Jn 1:1, Jn 1:3 }
2 And the earth was without form and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
2 Sometime later, the earth was a desolation and a waste and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
While there are no errors in the KJV translation of this verse, my alternate reading is equally free from errors and is set forth as another possible reading NOT as a correction.
In any case, it is noteworthy that the waters are already present.
{Return to: Is 24:10, Is 34:11, Jer 4:23 }
3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
3 Sometime later God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
(See note 1:2)
There is nothing to indicate whether God is creating light for the first time or allowing light from a previously created sun to penetrate the atmospheric mists. In any case, the light already had the cycles of evening and morning which are commonly attributed to the sun’s relatively constant position with respect to the earth’s rotation around its polar axis. (See verse 5) {Return to: Jer 1:10 }
4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God distinguished the light from the darkness.
(See note 1:2) To account for the different treatment of ‘and’ here, I see no reason to apply the grammatical notion of subsequence to events within a single creative day or between days that have morning and evening (the 24 hour variety).
5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
{Return to: Lk 22:7 } 6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
6 And God said, Let there be a horizon (or an expanse) in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
Adding more order to the chaos, God places a horizon between the seas and the atmospheric mists.
7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
7 And God made manifest the horizon, and divided the waters which were under the horizon from the waters which were above the horizon: and it was so.
The Hebrew word translated “God made” (yaahs
יַּעַשׂ ) signifies ‘made’ in the broadest sense and includes such ideas as: called forth, made manifest, allowed to appear or observed. Here again there is nothing in the language to help us to determine whether made is intended (original creation) or made manifest is intended (re-creation). We have a clue in that it seems strange that God would create light apart from the sun when he planned to have a sun. If in this verse, He called forth or allowed to appear a sun which was previously created but hidden and was the source of the light in verse 3; it would be much less problematic. I believe that this is re-creation after a cataclysmic upheaval engendered by the fall of Satan.
(See Is 14:12-15 ) {Return to: Gen 1:16 , Ge 7:11 }
8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.
{Return to: Lk 22:7 }
9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear and it was so.
Here, with no changes in the translation, we see that the dry land is already present and only needs to be uncovered. This seems to me far more consistent with re-creation than original creation.
10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.
As in English, the Hebrew text uses the same word ‘haweretz’ for the planet Earth.
(Ge 1:1) and the dry land (Ge 1:10)
11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
Here God says nothing about creating or making plants at this time. Rather He calls upon the earth to bring them forth. Furthermore the antecedent of the pronoun itself is the earth NOT grass, tree, or herb which are presented collectively and can not be represented by a singular pronoun. If this seed is already present in the dry land when it appears, then it seems reasonable that it is a vestige of a previous creation.
Whether you accept the ‘gap theory’ or cling to a more traditional view of creation; it is still the same God who made it all.
12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.
{Return to: Lk 22:7 }
14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide The day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
(See note 1:7)
17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, 18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.
{Return to: Jer 31:35 }
19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.
{Return to: Lk 22:7 }
20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
Whether Gen 1:3-31 refers to original creation or re-creation; the use of ‘bara’ here signifies that sea life and birds were created from nothing on the fifth day of this creative epoch.
22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.
See: Lk 1:25. {Return to: Jer 16:2 }
23 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.
24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
made Here the verb used is ‘asah’ just as in verse seven yet the use of ‘bara’ in verse 27 against ‘asah’ in this verse suggests that creation is intended here also. In fairness, one might question why we treat ‘asah’ differently here than in verse seven. The fact is that there is linguistically no compelling reason to do so; but there is no compelling reason not to. It comes down to a matter of preference. 26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
(See note 1:25) Let us consider in what way we are in the image of God. Certainly if I look in the mirror and say that I see God, that would be blasphemy or at least a grave misunderstanding. So the reference must not be to the physical image of God. What characteristics does man have in common with God? Intellect, will, and emotions are the characteristics we share with God. God reasons (Is 1:18), God decides
(2 Chr 25:16), God loves (Jn 3:16), becomes angry (Ex 4:14), and grieves (Ep 4:30). I believe that at creation, man’s intellect, will and emotions were aligned with God’s. The fall, when Adam ate the forbidden fruit, disrupted the alignment; and the indwelling Holy Spirit (when we follow his leadership) restores it.
{Return to: Ge 5:1, Ge 5:3}
27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
Nothing has been said to this point about the creation of woman; so we have here a clear indication that Chapter Two is not a second creation narrative: but rather a more detailed account of the sixth day of this narrative. See note: Genesis 2:4.
{Return to: Ro 1:20, Ro 2:12 }
28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
While there is certainly a commandment here to procreate, it does not necessarily follow that there is a mandate against contraception after the world was populated. I am not sure whether the Bible gives a specific command on this issue; and until one is convinced that it does, he is free to follow his own conscience. {Return to Is 4:1 }
not all that represents itself as 'science' is at all scientific! While genetic mutations do occur in nature they are always detrimental to the organism in which they occur.
There is no evidence in the fossil record that suggests a transition between families anywhere at any time.
When I was working toward my teaching credential I remember sitting in a lecture hall with about 300 other students hearing the professor teaching Zoology 101 present the 'Big Bang Theory' of the origin of the universe. after the lecture he accepted questions and comments.
I responded: "Sir I have a big bang theory of my own.. namely that the Encyclopedia Britanica was published accidentally when a printshop exploded. The only difference I see between my theory and yours is that I have the good sense not to believe mine"
I continued " your theory violates all three of Newton's Laws of motion and energy; but I'll give you that, I'm sure you will agree that the genetic code of a paramecium, if linguistically codified, would easily fill at least a 300 word essay. To demonstrate that information can NOT be greated by random events, print out your favorite novel one letter at a time on 3x5 cards , take them to the observation deck on the 135th floor of the Empire State Building, and try to publish a 300 word essay on 5th avenue"
I concluded " Sir I'm not trying to be obnoxious; but people in the room are having their faith challenged and I want to demonstrate that you don't need to assassinate your intelect to believe the Bible"
I hope this helps!
