A Few More Answers from our Q and A
Creation
I believe evolution is the way Satan worms his way into God’s Word once again! Gen. 1 says there was evening and
day for each day of creation. Does evening and day mean more time back then than it does to us today? If we are
to think a day could mean 1,000 or more years, was Jesus in the tomb for 3,000 years or whatever it is a “day”
means?
----------------- I agree that some may think evolution is Satan working his way into God’s Word. I
have had many discussions with scientists who accept evolution and many are strong Christians
doing tremendous work for Christ in this world. Certainly there are some for whom evolution is
their religion and there are some who reject God. However, evolution itself neither proves nor
denies the existence of God.
I believe that Genesis 1 is often misread because we approach it through our western eyes.
The “evening and morning” phrase is used in Genesis 1 to describe a day. Of course a normal
day would be “evening to evening” if that were meant literally. So I have tried to go back and
remove that cultural bias to our reading by seeing how Jewish scholars from 1000 years ago
read the passage. They saw that “evening to evening” would be used if a literal day was meant.
Therefore, they said “evening to morning” was used in a poetic sense, and they translated the
phrase as “chaos to order”. That is very important because that is what God does throughout
the Bible. He brings a sense of order to the chaotic life of mankind. On the sixth day when the
phrase “and it is very good” is used the ancient Jewish scholars translated that as “and it was a
unified order”.
When Genesis 1 is read notice how it comes across as a song, or as poetry. There is a
repetition of several phrases. In most translations the text is set as if it were poetry. That is
because the translators recognize it as poetry.
When reading poetry we must be very cautious. Try reading the Song of Songs in a literal way!
If we just took a phrase like “Look, here he comes, leaping across the mountains, bounding over
the hills” (Song of Songs 3:8 ) and jumped to a conclusion we might arrive at the idea that an
Old Testament person could leap across mountains. Of course, this reading would be foolish
because we recognize this as poetry.
Many fail to recognize Genesis 1 as poetry. Thus they think that “day” means a literal day. It
does not mean that at all. It does not mean 1 year, 1000 years, or any amount of time. Time is
not even in the picture! The picture is of God telling His children they are His creation in His
own image. The Genesis 1 picture is not one that is scientific. It is poetic. To me it is like looking
at a beautiful painting. Some get up close and examine each brush stroke and pigment. That is
not seeing the painting. To see the painting, back up and take in the whole thing. Try to see
what the artist is trying to put in a persons mind. That is exactly what God is doing in Genesis 1.
He is painting a beautiful picture. I believe Satan is at work to get us arguing about “what is a
day”, “what was created each day”, etc. when God wants us to see he is the master of all.
So I encourage everyone to realize that evolution may be the method God used to make the
pigment, but Genesis 1 is trying to show us the whole picture. Genesis 1 and evolution are not
in conflict at all.
Context
If we cannot believe the actual words used in Gen. 1, why should we believe any of the Bible at all?
-------------We can believe the actual words used in Genesis 1. We simply have to read them in
context. The context is a poem or song. If we take the words out of that context then we will
most certainly misread the Bible. The Bible is a very believe-able book. But just like any letter,
we must place it in the correct context to understand it. For example, if you had a letter from a
friend you would read it in one way. The same letter, using the same words, from your mother
would be read a different way. Here is what I mean. You read a letter that says, “I love you so
much that my heart is in pain when we are apart.” From your mother you take it one way, from
your friend another. The words are true in either case, but there is a different meaning.
The words in Genesis 1 are the words of a loving father to us about how important and special
we are. They are not some scientific paper with an analysis of creation. We must always read
any part of the Bible in context. Otherwise we will never grow as a Christian because we will
only be drinking the milk of the word and we will me missing the meat. That is why 2 Timothy
2:16 is so important to us. We need to “rightly divide the Word.” That takes study and wisdom.
Indeed, not an easy task.
If the Bible is God’s word, how can we say that certain parts, such as the end of Mark, are less reliable than others?
--------------The Bible is God’s word. We obtain our English translations from the best original
documents that we can find. We do not have the original documents for any text in the Bible.
Therefore, we are forced to rely on copies of the originals, and the copies are often hundreds
and more often thousands of years later than the originals. By comparing copies we can see
where some may be better copies than others. For example, we have about 10 copies of major
portions of the book of Mark. By comparing the copies of those to other copies of Matthew,
Luke and John scholars have determined that 2 of them are the most reliable. If you look at a
modern translation of Mark 16 you will find an entry after verse 8 that explains that versed 9-20
are not found in the, “two most reliable early manuscripts” of Mark. When the King James
translation was done in the early 17th century this level of scholarship was not possible. Now it
is, so Mark 16:9-20 is now considered a later addition to the original text.
My own opinion is that the original ending was lost. This often happened to manuscripts
because the were in scroll form. If the end was on the outside edge it would often become
damaged and separated from the rest of the scroll. Same thing if the beginning happened to be
on the outside. It seems clear to me that Mark would not have ended the book with 16:8. In
writing a book about Jesus and His power, it would not end with “they were afraid”. So I think
some later scholar added a suitable ending. (The later scholar wasn’t that late. The ending
appeared by 400 AD.)
Isn’t the Word only as reliable as its weakest point?
-----------No. Remember that the Bible is our collection of a whole series of scrolls written over
thousands of years by different authors. The Bible is the most studied book (by believers and
non-believers) in the world. Many have tried to pick it apart. While there are some parts that
are disputed, the central message of the Bible is not disputed. The disputed parts are fairly
minor and wise people do not build their theology around those points. But the central points
are clear and are verified by other manifestations of God, such as science and prayer.
How is picking and choosing what is inspired by God or by man, as by Paul in Corinthians, picking and choosing
reliability and in turn what we actually need to follow and obey?
----------I do not believe we should should try to pick and choose what is inspired. The Bible is
inspired. Because it is the original text that is inspired and we do not have the inspired original
text we do have to consider the reliability of the manuscripts that we have and use for
translation. This means we have to study as 2 Timothy 2:16 asks us to do. It also means that we
need to look at the overall picture and not get lost in the details. The God that we need to
follow and obey is pictured in the Bible. He is also evident in nature. Romans 1:20 puts it this
way, “For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine
nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made...” This tells me
that when I study nature (using the methods of science) I will gain an understanding of God!
That has certainly been the case for me! The DNA code that God created for evolution to
happen is a major way to see His eternal power and divine nature.
I am convinced that when we see a picture of God in nature or in the Bible they must agree!
God is the same no matter how we learn about Him. So if I see a different picture then one of
my interpretations is wrong. That is why I work hard at understanding my Bible and at
understanding science. They both lead me to God.
Finally, I suggest that we study both the Bible and science with a lot of prayer. Prayer is
another—very personal—way to see God. As I have grown older I have found that it is through
my prayers- both answered and unanswered- that I have really come to know God in the
closest way.
In conclusion, we should use every method at our disposal to understand God. Read your
Bible. Study science. Pray. If there is a conflict then you are on the wrong path. Go down a
different path until all point to the same brilliant light.