The strongest biblical evidence for young-earth creationism, refuted

Do the 10 Commandments contain the death blow for old-earth theology? Do the 10 Commandments contain the death blow for old-earth theology?

The young-earth creationists face an uphill battle in their righteous war against heresy. For one thing, the text they believe relates the history of the world is mostly out-of-whack with everything we know about the history of the world. What’s more, the text they say MUST BE READ LITERALLY actually has most of the reliable markers of a figurative text: obvious metaphors like trees whose fruit has magical powers and talking animals whose ability to speak is not treated as a miracle, characters who have no names (Eve is known only as “the woman” until the end of Genesis 3; Adam essentially has no name, since his name means “the man”), an indeterminate time and place (yes, the text seems to make an effort to describe its setting; then again, the description doesn’t fit any geographical location that we know of), etc.

But, there’s no need to despair. For God left his brave warriors an ace in the hole — a reassuring confirmation of their enduring correctness to give them comfort and strength in their long and lonely fight. And, actually, God — being the good God that he is — gave the young-earthers two aces in the hole. You can find them in the Bible at Exodus 20:11 and 31:17:

“For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.” — Exodus 20:11

“It is a sign forever between me and the people of Israel that in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested and was refreshed.” — Exodus 31:17

I’ll be honest with you: I do see these two texts as legitimately difficult challenges for both the old-earth and allegorical Genesis views (both of which I firmly hold). This is because I believe that — since the Bible is an ancient and complicated book — we should seek to interpret it holistically, and allow the parts of scripture that are more clear help us interpret the parts of it that may be less clear.

This is why I, for example, think the fact that scripture says nothing about Adam and Eve being responsible for animal carnivorism in the natural world is a serious weakness in the young-earth exegesis. I mean, if all death and evil and pain and suffering in the natural world really is due to nothing more than the actions of the first two people, we should reasonably expect the biblical authors to have reflected on that far more than they do (you know, like once or twice, at least).

But it is also why I must acknowledge that these two verses in Exodus seem to teach that Genesis 1 means exactly what the young-earthers say it means.

Now, this isn’t to say that the YEC view of the Bible doesn’t have problems of its own; it’s got them out the wazoo. But that doesn’t change the matter at hand: Do Exodus 20:11 and 31:17 represent a death blow for the allegorical view of Genesis?

I say absolutely not. And here’s why.

First of all, as I’ve already said, I think we should let scripture help us interpret scripture. And, since Jesus (the author and finisher of our faith) often provided perspectives on the Jewish law that were profoundly counter-intuitive, I think we should — whenever possible — look to his example for guidance in how to understand the Old Testament.

Jesus discussed many things besides the Torah, though — as a rabbi — his perspective on the text colored much of what he said and did, and he was frequently questioned on his views. Fortunately, one of the Old Testament teachings he specifically addresses is the one contained in both of the Exodus passages. And — apologies to the young-earth faction — but he doesn’t take it literally:

So, because Jesus was doing these things on the Sabbath, the Jewish leaders began to persecute him. In his defense Jesus said to them, “My Father is always at his work to this very day, and I too am working.” For this reason they tried all the more to kill him; not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God.

The context here, of course, is that the Jewish leaders were angry because Jesus was working — rather than resting — on the Sabbath. Like the YECs, they interpreted Exodus 20:11 superficially; it says God literally rested, and so, they, too, should literally rest.

But Jesus pointed out that their interpretation was bunk. God has never actually “rested” — not on the seventh day of Creation Week or any other time in history. Therefore, those parts of both Genesis and Exodus that say that he did should not be read literally.

Interestingly, you can reach this same conclusion without even going to the New Testament. For whatever reason, the word for “rest” is different in Exodus 20:11 than the word translated “rest” in Genesis 2:3. The Exodus word (nuwach) was typically used in scripture to refer to the actions of material beings (soldiers, slaves, even beasts of burden). God clearly has no need to “rest” as soldiers and cattle rest, so we must admit that “nuwach” clearly is not being used literally here, lest we risk imposing some kind of anthropic limitations upon God — who is a spiritual being.

This need for caution is made even more plain in Exodus 31:17, which says, “on the seventh day [God] rested and was refreshed.” Obviously this “refreshment,” and the implicit need for refreshment, are not literal, either.

Critics will argue — and right they will be — that these arguments address only part of the text in question. They do not directly concern whether or not the “days” of Genesis 1 should be read as literal 24-hour days that occurred sometime within the memory of modern man. However, since the central teaching of these verses is contained in statements that are plainly non-literal, why would we presume the more incidental parts of these passages (“For in six days the Lord made…,” e.g.) are literal?

I suppose it would not be completely unthinkable for the Holy Spirit to have hidden a truth that is as vital as YECs say it is within the introductory clauses of verses that otherwise convey moral and theological teachings through symbolism and metaphor.

But it would be pretty strange.

Tyler Francke is founder of God of Evolution and author of Reoriented. He can be reached at tyler@godofevolution.com.

  • Rick Hartzog

    Congratulations, Tyler. You’re getting there. If man was created on the sixth day, and God has never rested, that means we’re still in the sixth day. See? Evolution is no big deal! God is still creating.

    • Excellent point! Thanks, Rick 🙂

    • Matthew Funke

      I actually think we’re in the seventh day, since it’s not closed like the other six days in Genesis 1-2 and because of Hebrews 4. But the power of language like that used in Genesis is that you can get useful metaphors and analysis out of all different kinds of perspectives. (I also think God is still creating; I just never really thought about referring that to which day we might be in.)

      • John

        I agree with you Matthew, the seventh day doesn’t have an evening and morning sequence like the others. And Hebrews 4 does point to a specific day of rest of God which can still be entered into “today” as it were(Heb.4:7).

        But disagree with Tyler’s “holistically” arrived at conclusion in the post that Jesus’ words — “My Father is always at His work to this very day, and I too am working.”– meant God did not rest, that interpretation ignores Hebrews 4

        Jesus is talking here about the work of redemption as seen on the cross when He said “It is finished” but as to the work of creation Heb.4:3(b) “although His works were FINISHED from the foundation of the world.” and Heb.4:10 “For the one who has entered His rest has himself also rested from his works, as God DID from His.”
        I don’t think He is still creating in the strict sense, but I believe He is loving His creation, and that love is a major part of His rest.

        • Matthew Funke

          What do you mean by “creating in the strict sense”?

          • John

            I meant he is finished creating His creation of Genesis, but He is still sustaining that creation with interactive(on His part) creative processes. I.E. the new person physically and spiritually knit together in the womb of their mother. Or the “creation” of a new weather system (storm) or even species etc. Although these things have the appearance of being creative acts they are just a part of the original, finished creation.

          • John

            You can also see ever changing beauty in a snowflake or a sunset. But you wouldn’t say a sunset is a new creation. Another Quick example can be seen in the complexity of creating: for example, you may say a painter is finished creating when the painting is on the wall, but the painter in reality was hoping to create a complex response in the one who viewed his “finished” painting. He was finished creating the work of art but creating the response in those who saw it remains present. God’s is of course more complex than that but it hints at my point.

          • Matthew Funke

            Okay. How do you think His creation in Genesis was different?

        • Jesus is talking here about the work of redemption as seen on the cross when He said “It is finished”

          Except that the work of redemption is not finished either. I mean, I don’t know about you, but I certainly am a far cry from God’s restorative work in me being complete. Even Paul wrote about how we must continually press forward for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ.

          Yes, Christ on the cross accomplished his mission, to triumph over sin and death in the flesh. But his work in us is far from over.

          but as to the work of creation Heb.4:3(b) “although His works were FINISHED from the foundation of the world.” and Heb.4:10 “For the one who has entered His rest has himself also rested from his works, as God DID from His.”

          I don’t think He is still creating in the strict sense, but I believe He is loving His creation, and that love is a major part of His rest.

          Did you notice that extra little “s” at the end of the word “works” in Hebrew 4:3? That means we’re talking about a different sense of the word than in the Pharisaical use of the word “work” in John 5, as in “God rested from absolutely all work, so absolutely no work of any kind is allowed on the Sabbath.”

          “Works,” on the other hand, also translated “deeds” in other places it’s used in the New Testament, refers to specific actions. The point is, non-exclusivity. One can cease from one’s “works,” and still be “working,” because one began a different “work.” Like I finished my work planting strawberries in the garden, but kept working because I began a new work of collecting eggs in the barn.

          Also, I think you’re ignoring the teaching of John 5. Specifically, the fact that the Jewish leaders tried to kill Jesus after he said what I quoted him saying above. Pretty sure they weren’t upset because he was suggesting that God is continuing to “love his creation.” They understood, clearly, that he was 100 percent challenging and upending their interpretation of the Sabbath and what it calls for, and they took it personally.

          • John

            Sorry don’t have time for the in depth reply that your response deserves, but thank you for it, you made some good points.

            However, His work of redemption as spoken through prophesy to the
            serpent in Genesis is finished. Jesus on the cross defeated Satan (that serpent
            of old), and conquered death (as you said). Hebrews 10 clearly says that work
            was completed in Christ’s sacrifice. The resulting
            work of that finished work, are what you are talking about which is seen in Philippians
            1:6. As you said Paul points us to that prize (finished work) We cannot achieve
            redemption through our works but through faith and the Spirit working in us. “Therefore
            they said to Him, “What shall we do, so that we may work the works of God?”
            Jesus answered and said to them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in
            Him whom He has sent.” We must abide
            in His Spirit and Christ’s finished work, through faith and perseverance, to
            enter His rest. I am not saying God doesn’t still work I am saying that Christ
            was not referring to the work of creating creation. You yourself seem to agree
            God’s work of redemption is different than His work of making creation.

          • John

            –Did you notice that extra little “s” at the end
            of the word “works” in Hebrew 4:3? — Yes, but the inspired writer of
            Hebrews who is explaining the truth Hidden in Genesis 2:2-3 said while inspired
            by the Holy Spirit “For He has said somewhere concerning the seventh day: “And
            God rested on the seventh day from all His works” Heb. 4:4 notice the s on the
            end. Hebrews writer’s words not mine; I was just agreeing with them. So it
            doesn’t that Hebrews was talking of a different sense. Plus verses like
            Jeremiah 17:22,24 , Exodus 35:2, Lev.23:3, Deut. 5:14 all point to the reason
            the Jewish leaders said what they did in Luke 13:14 although Jesus points out
            they were being hypocrites. Jesus and the father were still doing good work,
            but that does not mean Jesus was referencing the work of creation.

            –“Works,” on the other hand, also translated
            “deeds” in other places it’s used in the New Testament, refers to specific actions. The point is, non-exclusivity. One can cease from one’s “works,” and still be “working,” because one began a different “work.” Like I finished my work planting strawberries in the garden, but kept working because I began a new work of collecting eggs in the barn.– Agreed, not sure of your point here, or how it helps the argument in your post above though.

            — Also, I think you’re ignoring the teaching of John 5. —
            –They understood, clearly, that he was 100 percent challenging and upending their interpretation of the Sabbath and what it calls for, and they took it
            personally. — I was not ignoring John 5 but, As seen “holistically” in Luke 13:10-17 and Exodus 35:2 The breaking of the Sabbath held the death penalty and
            they themselves were breaking it being hypocrites.

          • John

            As to John 5 “But He answered them, “My Father is working until now, and I Myself am working.” For this reason therefore the Jews were seeking all the more to kill Him, because He not only was breaking the Sabbath, but also was calling God His own Father, making Himself equal with God.. John 5:17-18” They wanted to kill Him for breaking the Sabbath and making Himself equal to God not merely because He was –challenging and upending their interpretation of the Sabbath and what it calls for–

            We can see Jesus purpose also in Mark 2:27-28 that He was reinterpreting their understanding of not the law but the intent behind it while displaying HIs authority to them “Jesus said to them, “The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath. So the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath.” which also corresponds to the Sabbath rest Hebrews is talking about.
            Thanks for your responses Tyler

          • I’m replying to all three of your comments here: The overall point is that God’s “work” never stopped, such as it is. He may have ceased one work and began something new, but he continued to work, without rest, just as John 5:17 says.

            And my point is that that flies in the face of the literal interpretation of the core teachings of Exodus 20:11 and 31:17, which YEC proponents try to use as their trump card.

            So my question is, if the central teaching of those passages is, although spiritually and theologically true, not meant to be taken literally, then how does it possibly follow that we should take the secondary parts of these verses literally?

          • John

            Thanks again for the reply, it’s nice when a mod keeps in
            touch on older posts too.

            –I’m replying to all three of your comments here: The overall point is that God’s “work” never stopped, such as it is. He may have ceased one work and began something new, but he continued to work, without rest, just as John 5:17 says. —
            Agreed, His overall work continued/continues in redeeming, and loving/sustaining His creation, but you give a slight addition that God never had a “rest” from His work of creation. John 5 never says “He continued to work, WITHOUT REST” That goes against Hebrews 4 interpretations of Genesis, and Exodus, when it says that
            there is a rest in which God did cease from His labor. After all, the work of redemption was seen in Genesis only after the fall. I am not trying to invoke a literal interpretation, but if God is beyond time, then His rest can be entered “today”
            ,as Heb.4 says (through Christ’s finished work). If He is to share that rest with us, it must also be within the limits of His creation and our understating for us to be partakers of it, being in some sense a real day (without evening or morning) of “rest.”

          • John

            –And my point is that that flies in the face of the literal
            interpretation of the core teachings of Exodus 20:11 and 31:17, which YEC proponents try to use as their trump card.–

            Hmm.. maybe, but how can we (apart from new revelation)
            reinterpret what the inspired writer of Hebrews 4 says to us? As he seems to interpret it fairly literally, and also Christ doesn’t renounce the Pharisees literal interpretation of the Sabbath by saying that God never had a day of
            rest, He merely instructs them that He and the Father are at work, (so shouldn’t we interpret John 5:17 holistically (with the other gospels and Christ’s teaching about the Sabbath that I mentioned) before using it to re-interpret
            Exodus?) also the Pharisees didn’t put to death the healed man caring his mat who was more literally defying the law, so it wasn’t their interpretation but hatred of Jesus, that led them to crying for the death penalty.

            –So my question is, if the central teaching of those
            passages is, although spiritually and theologically true, not meant to be taken literally, then how does it possibly follow that we should take the secondary parts of these verses literally?–

            I think the question is: Can we use that statement in John
            5:17 taken to literally mean that exodus shouldn’t be taken literally?

            As you said to take the Bible holistically, I’m not sure
            that the other gospel verses I shared in my last comments or the other OT verses would imply that Jesus was denouncing their literal interpretation here. Even considering also Matthew 5:17-48 where He is saying He came not to destroy but to fulfill the law. In this section of Matthew He is explaining certain popular Jewish interpretations of the law, yet doesn’t include literal interpretations of the Sabbath here.

            So if you are taking John 5:17 a bit too literally,
            to explain how two other verses are to be taken non-literally, then I think that using this verse as a trump card is no different then the YEC argument.

          • John 5 never says “He continued to work, WITHOUT REST”

            I think that is the implication of John 5:17, especially in the context of discussing the Sabbath, but you’re welcome to your own opinion.

            That goes against Hebrews 4 interpretations of Genesis, and Exodus, when it says that there is a rest in which God did cease from His labor.

            I don’t believe Hebrews 4 is talking about a literal “rest” any more than I think Genesis and Exodus are. Most commentators I have seen argue, and I agree, that Hebrews 4 is talking about a non-temporal, non-earthly state of “rest” (i.e., heaven). Which, if nothing else, is certainly a wildly different view of the Sabbath and Sabbath-rest than the ones held by the Jewish leaders in Jesus’ day.

      • myklc

        I think the Exodus verses quoted above and others place the seventh day in the past. As I view the days of creation as figurative, this is not an issue for me. That story is complete in itself, now we’re in another chapter entirely.
        Surely we have better, more urgent matters to address?

        • Matthew Funke

          If you like. =shrug= Of course, following that train of thought to its logical conclusion would seem to indicate that we can *only* discuss the most important matter there is. Which would mean that mentioning that a particular subject is beneath your contempt is not worth discussing.

          Fortunately, we humans can discuss more than one thing at a time, and even discuss matters that appear relatively trivial to see where they lead.

          • myklc

            Following trains of thought sometimes seems to be a trait missing in many of the discussions hereabout. Incidentally, that’s an ad absurdam argument. Where did I say anything about contempt?
            Discussing more than one thing at a time? Sure, that’s why I used the plural.
            I was expressing an opinion about the topic Rick Hartzog started. Did you consider at all my comment about the 7th day being finished? I think the figurative days of creation served their purpose and that trying to draw the metaphor out is going well beyond the intent of the authors. An interesting exercise perhaps, like Thielicke’s A Little Exercise for Young Theologians, but ultimately to no effect.

          • Matthew Funke

            > Incidentally, that’s an ad absurdam argument.

            Actually, that’s part of the point. The notion that conversations should only address the better and more urgent matters is itself absurd.

            > Where did I say anything about contempt?

            You didn’t have to. It was pretty clear that you thought the topic wasn’t as worthy as others. Unless you meant something else by “Surely we have better, more urgent matters to address?” That *sounds* pretty contemptuous. ‘Course, if I misunderstood, that’s my bad.

            > Did you consider at all my comment about the
            > 7th day being finished?

            Sure, but I didn’t say anything about it because you seemed to want to move on. For whatever it’s worth, I don’t see anything amiss with such an interpretation. There’s an extent to which we’re all groping in the dark, anyway, and as I mentioned before, I think multiple analyses with different results are possible — and more than one of those results might be useful and correct.

  • Ethan Fuqua

    This was a very interesting read! You’ve brought up some very good points.

  • meshuggahzen

    Where in the bible does it talk about evolution at all?

    • Paul Braterman

      The same place, I imagine, as it talks about Newton’s inverse square law, or quantum indeterminacy. Or, to put it more plainly, would you really expect it to refer to scientific concepts that would have made no sense to the people of the time?

      • Exactly, Paul. Great answer. Thanks! 🙂

      • BRIAN HUGH GRIFFITH BHG

        ..Jesus aka the creator God in the flesh is a Geocentrist Young Earth Creationist King James Bible Onlyist

        “Where the word of a king is, there is power” (Ecc 8:4)

        King “James” James = English name for “Jacob” aka prince of Israel (Jesus/God = KJV only)

        But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. Mark 10:6 ( Jesus = YEC)

        For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it. Exodus 20:11 (God the father= YEC)

        But in those days, after that tribulation, the sun shall be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, Mark 13:24 (Jesus believes moon gives off own light separate from sun)

        the moon gives it’s own light glowing like a glow stick not just reflecting sunlight, modern “science” is baloney

        ” avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called” ( 1 Timothy 6:20)

        “And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies” Joshua 10:13 ( God aka Jesus English for Joshua = Geocentrist

        Jesus aka the creator God in the flesh is a Geocentrist Young Earth Creationist King James Bible Onlyist so why aren’t you too if you are a CHRISTian and read English

  • Jim Cole

    Hey Tyler, great stuff! Thanks for pointing these verses out so clearly. It seems that Exodus 31:17 is rarely mentioned in YEC literature, while verse 20:11 is ubiquitous. And hadn’t thought about Jesus’ comment that way, but you make a good point.

  • Alan Christensen

    I admit my view of Scripture is more liberal than yours seems to be, but to me the two passages from Exodus are neither here nor there. Despite the fact that God is cited as speaking these words personally, I think they’re explainable as culturally-conditioned rationales for honoring the Sabbath. I stil see the six days in Gen. 1 as mainly a literary device and certainly not six literal anythings.

    • Ben Amend

      I’d agree. Maybe it also has something to do with the notion that the number 7 (in this case, including the final “day” of rest) is a common Biblical number considered to be perfect/complete in those times.

    • Thanks for your thoughts, Alan. I appreciate your view very much. You might be interested in looking up Deuteronomy 5:11-15. In this passage, Israel is again admonished to remember the Sabbath and keep it holy, but the reason for doing so is — rather than the creation account — a reminder about the Israelites’ enslavement in Egypt and God’s rescue. In both cases, however, the Sabbath commandment is linked to an appeal to Israel’s history and religious traditions. In my mind, it seems to lend support to your perspective. Your thoughts?

    • BRIAN HUGH GRIFFITH BHG

      Jesus aka the creator God in the flesh is a Geocentrist Young Earth Creationist King James Bible Onlyist

      “Where the word of a king is, there is power” (Ecc 8:4)

      King “James” James = English name for “Jacob” aka prince of Israel (Jesus/God = KJV only)

      But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. Mark 10:6 ( Jesus = YEC)

      For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it. Exodus 20:11 (God the father= YEC)

      But in those days, after that tribulation, the sun shall be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, Mark 13:24 (Jesus believes moon gives off own light separate from sun)

      the moon gives it’s own light glowing like a glow stick not just reflecting sunlight, modern “science” is baloney

      ” avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called” ( 1 Timothy 6:20)

      “And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies” Joshua 10:13 ( God aka Jesus English for Joshua = Geocentrist

      Jesus aka the creator God in the flesh is a Geocentrist Young Earth Creationist King James Bible Onlyist so why aren’t you too if you are a CHRISTian and read English

      • Alan Christensen

        Huh?

        • BRIAN HUGH GRIFFITH BHG

          Alan, are you confused?
          Goes much deeper

          Jesus aka the creator God in the flesh is currently a:

          Geocentrist

          Young Earth Creationist (YES)

          King James Bible Onlyist (KJV Only)

          “Where the word of a king is, there is power” (Ecc 8:4)

          King “James” James = English name for “Jacob” aka prince of Israel (Jesus/God = KJV only)

          But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. Mark 10:6 ( Jesus = YEC)

          For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh

          day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it. Exodus 20:11 (God the father= YEC)

          But in those days, after that tribulation, the sun shall be darkened, and the moon shall not give her

          light, Mark 13:24 (Jesus believes moon gives off own light separate from sun)

          the moon gives it’s own light glowing like a glow stick not just reflecting sunlight, modern “science” is

          baloney http://www.realityreviewed.com/Moonlight.htm

          http://postimg.org/image/cc78huhjt/

          http://postimg.org/image/6nhtls34p/

          ” avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called” ( 1 Timothy 6:20)

          “And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies”

          Joshua 10:13 ( God aka Jesus English for Joshua = Geocentrist

          Jesus aka the creator God in the flesh is a Geocentrist

          Young Earth Creationist

          King James Bible Onlyist

          so why aren’t you too if you are a CHRISTian and read English?

          http://www.geocentricity.com/

          http://whichbiblewouldjesususe.com/

          Astronomy and the young Universe see http://www.geocentricity.com/

          http://www.realityreviewed.com/Moonlight.htm

          http://postimg.org/image/roal38bz7/

          http://postimg.org/image/i8gpbcjrf/

          • Alan Christensen

            I still can’t tell if you’re serious or joking.

          • BRIAN HUGH GRIFFITH BHG

            What is confusing about it?

            Jesus aka the creator God in the flesh is currently a:

            Geocentrist (Earth centered universe)

            Young Earth Creationist (YES)

            King James Bible Onlyist (KJV Only)

            “Where the word of a king is, there is power” (Ecc 8:4)

            King “James” James = English name for “Jacob” aka prince of Israel (Jesus/God = KJV only)

            But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. Mark 10:6 ( Jesus = YEC)

            For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh

            day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it. Exodus 20:11 (God the father= YEC)

            But in those days, after that tribulation, the sun shall be darkened, and the moon shall not give her

            light, Mark 13:24 (Jesus believes moon gives off own light separate from sun)

            the moon gives it’s own light glowing like a glow stick not just reflecting sunlight, modern “science” is

            baloney http://www.realityreviewed.com

            http://postimg.org/image/cc78h

            http://postimg.org/image/6nhtl

            ” avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called” ( 1 Timothy 6:20)

            “And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies”

            Joshua 10:13 ( God aka Jesus English for Joshua = Geocentrist

            Jesus aka the creator God in the flesh is a Geocentrist

            Young Earth Creationist

            King James Bible Onlyist

            so why aren’t you too if you are a CHRISTian and read English?

            http://www.geocentricity.com/

            http://whichbiblewouldjesususe

            Astronomy and the young Universe see http://www.geocentricity.com/

            http://www.realityreviewed.com

            http://postimg.org/image/roal3

            http://postimg.org/image/i8gpb

          • BRIAN HUGH GRIFFITH BHG

            completely serious

        • Perfect response. Sorry, Alan, guess my spam filters don’t pick up on crazy.

  • Ivan A. Rogers

    So what’s the big deal? According to Genesis 2:2-3, “…so on the seventh day he [God] rested (Heb. shabath = “ceased”) from all the work of creating that he had done.” This does not suggest that God was tired and, therefore, needed a physical break (God is a spiritual being and cannot tire), but, rather, that his ‘original creation’ was completed. Nor does it suggest that having completed the original creation in six days and ceasing all such activities on the seventh day, that he did not take up new divine activities having nothing to do with the original creation of the cosmos on the eighth day (e.g., I finished painting my house on Friday, took Saturday off for golf, and started a new line of interest on Sunday.) C’mon, give God a break! (pun intended)

    • Not a bad argument, and the Hebrew word “shabath” can indeed mean “cease,” as well as “rest,” but I imagine there must be some reason the majority of English Bible translators think the word should be rendered “rest” in the Genesis and Exodus passages we are discussing.

  • BRIAN HUGH GRIFFITH BHG

    Tyler, Jesus is God and the Sabbath was made for man not God by the way Jesus broke the extra rules that man added to scripture not the actual law.

    But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. Mark 10:6

    For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it. Exodus 20:11

    Jesus is a Geocentrist Young Earth Creationist King James Bible Onlyist

    http://www.geocentricity.com/

    http://www.whichbiblewouldJesususe.com

  • BRIAN HUGH GRIFFITH BHG

    Tyler, as a Christian I believe you completely contradict scripture no matter which bible you use not believe but “use” and you would never had accepted unbiblical evolution if you hadn’t first accepted unbiblical heliocentrism. Rejecting Geocentrism led to long ages being accepted that then evolutionists piggy backed on it.

    It really makes no sense for young earth creationists to be heliocentrists so Answers in Genesis and CMI and ICR kinda fall off on that one.

    I believe Matthew 5:45 tells why God allows you to do what you are doing as well as AIG and CMI with the unbiblical heliocentrism

    “he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good”

    That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust. Matthew 5:45

    I believe there is a bit of satanic evil in what you are doing with your evolution stuff and there is a bit of satanic evil in AIG and CMI and any other heliocentrist professing Christians.

    You either believe what God said or you call him a liar and I believe any professing Christian that is a heliocentrist an Old Earth Creationist or an evolutionist or rejects the KJV in favor of the Alexandrian and Rome based text bibles are calling God a liar while same time asking him to save you.

    Here are my beliefs and I can defend them to anybody on the street whether Phd or GED
    Myself, I stand with Jesus Christ and believe the KJV Gideons Bible placed by The Gideons in a hotel room drawer in 1985 is the infallible inerrant word of God from Genesis 1 to Revelation 22

    A lot of people get mad at KJV Only yet no way Satan is going to lead anybody to believe “The Bible” in their hands is the inerrant and infallible word of God.

    I 100% believe Jesus aka the creator God in the flesh is currently a:

    Geocentrist (Earth centered universe)

    Young Earth Creationist (YEC)

    King James Bible Onlyist (KJV Only)

    “Where the word of a king is, there is power” (Ecc 8:4)

    King “James” James = English name for “Jacob” aka prince of Israel (Jesus/God = KJV only)

    But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. Mark 10:6 ( Jesus = YEC)

    For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh

    day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it. Exodus 20:11 (God the father= YEC)

    But in those days, after that tribulation, the sun shall be darkened, and the moon shall not give her

    light, Mark 13:24 (Jesus believes moon gives off own light separate from sun)

    the moon gives it’s own light glowing like a glow stick not just reflecting sunlight, modern “science” is

    baloney http://www.realityreviewed.com

    http://postimg.org/image/cc78h

    http://postimg.org/image/6nhtl

    ” avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called” ( 1 Timothy 6:20)

    “And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies”

    Joshua 10:13 ( God aka Jesus English for Joshua = Geocentrist

    Jesus aka the creator God in the flesh is a Geocentrist

    Young Earth Creationist

    King James Bible Onlyist

    so why aren’t you too if you are a CHRISTian and read English?

    http://www.geocentricity.com/

    http://whichbiblewouldjesususe

    Astronomy and the young Universe see http://www.geocentricity.com/

    http://www.realityreviewed.com

    http://postimg.org/image/roal3

    http://postimg.org/image/i8gpb

    • Chris

      LOL

      That is one of the most hilarious, deluded, and ridiculous things I’ve ever read. While most of what you’ve said is so blatantly ignorant that it doesn’t even warrant a response, I’m curious what you would say about this:

      I 100% believe Jesus aka the creator God in the flesh is currently a:
      […]
      King James Bible Onlyist (KJV Only)

      Just curious, what text do you expect those non-English speakers to rely on, considering the KJV is itself a translation of former writings? Might make some sense to a sheltered, bigoted ‘Merican who thinks the whole world should speak English, but that’s not how Jesus spoke or how Scripture was written.

      I mean as little disrespect as I honestly can when I ask, but my curiosity got the better of me. KJV-Only is probably the least absurd thing you proposed in your little cockamamie diatribe there (that’s saying more for the rest of it, believe me), and I know people follow that cult as well, I’m just wondering why.

  • Wow, your whole concept is flawed miserably….
    LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

    LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

    Sorry… continue
    your fantasy

    • Wow, what a mature and well thought out response! You must be what, 8? Are you sure your mommy and daddy are OK with you talking to strangers on the Internet?

    • yo mama

      Wow, nice argument there, buddy….
      LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

      LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

      Sorry… contine
      your fantasy

  • summers-lad

    Tyler, you may have covered this elsewhere, but here are some thoughts:
    1. Exodus 20 commands rest from work as God rested from his work (of creation). This doesn’t mean he rested from everything or fell asleep (see e.g. Psalm 121:4). It’s not a legalistic, rule-bound Sabbath.
    2. This begs the question of what God did on Day 8 – resume his work (of creation)? Evidently not.
    3. In Genesis 1, day 6, like the others, comes to an end, but Day 7 doesn’t. This tells me that in Biblical terms, we are now living in the Day 7 of Genesis 1.
    4. Jesus seems to reflect this idea in John 5:17, which you quoted – “my Father is at work” probably makes more sense if referring to God’s Sabbath (as per Gen 1) than the Jews’ time-bound weekly Sabbaths.
    5. Hugh Miller, pioneering geologist and Christian author, related the “rest” of Genesis 1 to our entering into God’s rest as described in Hebrews. His exposition of “the two testimonies” (natural and theological) is a profound and inspiring read. (“Testimony of the Rocks”, published 1854.)

    • Thanks, summers-lad. Yeah, I often use John 5 to demonstrate that Jesus did not take Exodus 20:11 literally.

  • David

    Weak argument alert!
    “being the good God that he is — gave the young-earthers two aces in the hole. You can find them in the Bible at Exodus 20:11 and 31:17:” Only two…hardly, despite the fact you ignored all the specifications Moses gives in other verses on how the Jews were to obey the Sabbath and why they interpreted “literally” the way they did.

    “This is because I believe that — since the Bible is an ancient and complicated book — we should seek to interpret it holistically, and allow the parts of scripture that are more clear help us interpret the parts of it that may be less clear.” Oh good then might like this my scholarly friend HEBREWS CHAPTER 4:1-13! BOOM! (mind blown!) or do you mean holistically defined as – just one verse spoken by Christ and paired with a interpretation bias to your own views trumps all? You know you have to read the whole Bible to take it as you say “holistically” right… so yeah all YEC start crying but don’t read your Hebrews 4 it’s probably just a metaphor anyway…

    • John

      Ugh… David, arrogance is never the way to go, but Hebrews 4 does seem pretty compelling.

      • Why do you think so? Hebrews 4 is theology, inspired and recast by theological teachings in the Old Testament. Whether one interprets certain parts of the OT as literal or allegorical does not change one’s ability to accept and believe the theological teachings as inspired and true.

    • Only two…hardly, despite the fact you ignored all the specifications Moses gives in other verses on how the Jews were to obey the Sabbath and why they interpreted “literally” the way they did.

      I’m not “ignoring” anything. It is young-earth proponents who constantly use Exodus 20:11 and 31:17 (although, typically just 20:11) as their de facto trump cards, not me. Just because I’m responding to the argument doesn’t make me responsible for it.

      Oh good then might like this my scholarly friend HEBREWS CHAPTER 4:1-13! BOOM! (mind blown!) or do you mean holistically defined as – just one verse spoken by Christ and paired with a interpretation bias to your own views trumps all? You know you have to read the whole Bible to take it as you say “holistically” right… so yeah all YEC start crying but don’t read your Hebrews 4 it’s probably just a metaphor anyway…

      Wow, super impressive. You drop that mic, my man. Please give us poor, disgraced evolutionary creationists just a few minutes to close up shop. Why, oh why, did we always skip directly from Hebrews 3 to Hebrews 5?! Why did we just presume there was nothing of any importance in Hebrews 4? Why??!!

      … Said no one ever. See, this is exactly what I hate about YEC proof-texting. You find one verse that says a word you think supports your point of view, interpret said one word strictly literally, and then apply the same mindless, reductive “technique” to the entire passage. You take a beautiful, deep, meaningful and complex rumination on multiple theological issues like Hebrews 4 and reduce it to “SEE?! BIBLE >>>>>> DARWIN! YEC 4EVA! SUCK IT, EVOS! BOOM!!”

      If you want to actually discuss what I think Hebrews 4 is about and what it means for a fruitful Christian life, I’d welcome that. If you, more likely, just want to want to revel in your self-deluded, Dunning-Kruger-inspired feelings of superiority, then I will continue to not take you seriously at all.