Biblical Problems for Young Earth Creationism?

Michael Jones of Inspiring Philosophy has posted a video on what he considers the top 10 reasons from the Bible on why young earth creationism cannot be correct. These are biblical arguments on the error of creationism, not purported scientific errors.

His top 10 problems are:

10. Genesis 17:17. Abraham's age when he was to father Isaac.
9. Genesis 8:5-9. The extent of the Flood.
8. Genesis 2:24. Metaphors in the creation account.
7. Genesis 3:22. Are humans mortal or immortal?
6. Genesis 2:4. Genesis 2 recaps Day 6 of creation.
5. Jeremiah 4:23-26. Jeremiah alludes to creation.
4. Genesis 1:14. Creation of light before the sun.
3. Genesis 1:28. The meaning of subdue and rule.
2. The meaning of bara. It does not mean "create out of nothing".
1. Genesis 1:1. Earth created or modified.

Now Jones is well read on a variety of claims around the early chapters of the Bible, and the Christian appeals to reading the Bible through an Ancient Near East perspective, and a variety of archaeological claims. My concerns are several-fold: he does not appear to be well read on creationism, many of the issues he raises have been discussed for years; he gives too much credence to secular opinions that are often very antagonistic to Scripture; and, while he reads some things in Scripture closely, oftentimes he does not read Scripture closely enough.

Here are my brief responses to these claims and why I think they do not argue against God creating over 6 days a few thousand years ago.

10. Genesis 17:17

The claim is that God told Abraham that he was to father Isaac at age 100 and Abraham is incredulous. Jones thinks that Abraham had no reason to be incredulous because many of his ancestors fathered children over the age of 100 in the recent past, including his own father Terah. Presumably if Abraham's ancestors lived much further in the past, or if the ages given are non-literal then 100 would be too old, but if the genealogies are literal then why is Abraham incredulous?

And God said to Abraham, “As for Sarai your wife, you shall not call her name Sarai, but Sarah shall be her name. I will bless her, and moreover, I will give you a son by her. I will bless her, and she shall become nations; kings of peoples shall come from her.” Then Abraham fell on his face and laughed and said to himself, “Shall a child be born to a man who is a hundred years old? Shall Sarah, who is ninety years old, bear a child?” And Abraham said to God, “Oh that Ishmael might live before you!” God said, “No, but Sarah your wife shall bear you a son, and you shall call his name Isaac. I will establish my covenant with him as an everlasting covenant for his offspring after him. As for Ishmael, I have heard you; behold, I have blessed him and will make him fruitful and multiply him greatly. He shall father twelve princes, and I will make him into a great nation. But I will establish my covenant with Isaac, whom Sarah shall bear to you at this time next year.”

Note carefully what Abraham says: "Shall a child be born to a man who is a hundred years old? Shall Sarah, who is ninety years old, bear a child?" Abraham's age is given in the context of his wife's age. Abraham knows he has already had a child at age 86. Sarah even suggested Abraham take her maidservant as a concubine (Gen 16:2) which implies that Sarah thought Abraham was virile enough for this. Abraham is incredulous because of the promise that Abraham will father a son to Sarah. He will become a father with Sarah for the first time at age 100, and her at 90, despite them trying for children for decades. God had promised Abraham that he will father peoples before Abraham left Ur at age 75. God made a covenant with Abraham mentioning posterity when Abraham was possibly in his 80s (Gen 15). So this next promise when Abraham is 99 seems unbelievable. And more importantly, Sarah was not just barren, she was past the age of childbirth. Shortly after his promise to Abraham the Lord appears to Abraham and says

The Lord said, “I will surely return to you about this time next year, and Sarah your wife shall have a son.” And Sarah was listening at the tent door behind him. Now Abraham and Sarah were old, advanced in years. The way of women had ceased to be with Sarah. So Sarah laughed to herself, saying, “After I am worn out, and my lord is old, shall I have pleasure?” The Lord said to Abraham, “Why did Sarah laugh and say, ‘Shall I indeed bear a child, now that I am old?’ Is anything too hard for the Lord? At the appointed time I will return to you, about this time next year, and Sarah shall have a son.” But Sarah denied it, saying, “I did not laugh,” for she was afraid. He said, “No, but you did laugh.” (Gen)

"The way of women had ceased to be with Sarah" means that her periods had ceased, Sarah was past menopause. This is why Abraham is incredulous. Yes, Abraham was old and he recognised this (Rom 4:19). But the predominant reason for incredulity is that Abraham and Sarah had tried for years to have children together but Sarah remained barren all that time, and now was past menopause. Could such a thing happen? Sarah conceive? The age of Abraham's ancestors fathering children is far less relevant in his own situation.

9. Genesis 8:5-9

Here it is argued that Genesis talks about the entire earth being covered. This is correct, Scripture is quite adamant on this: the entire earth, even all he mountains under the whole heavens, to 15 cubits.

The flood continued forty days on the earth. The waters increased and bore up the ark, and it rose high above the earth. The waters prevailed and increased greatly on the earth, and the ark floated on the face of the waters. And the waters prevailed so mightily on the earth that all the high mountains under the whole heaven were covered. The waters prevailed above the mountains, covering them fifteen cubits deep. (Gen 7:17-20)

This does not seem to Jones to be compatible with the landing of the ark some months later.

God made a wind blow over the earth, and the waters subsided. The fountains of the deep and the windows of the heavens were closed, the rain from the heavens was restrained, and the waters receded from the earth continually. At the end of 150 days the waters had abated, and in the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the month, the ark came to rest on the mountains of Ararat. And the waters continued to abate until the tenth month; in the tenth month, on the first day of the month, the tops of the mountains were seen. (Gen 8:1-5)

Then Noah releases a dove which returns

But the dove found no place to set her foot, and she returned to him to the ark, for the waters were still on the face of the whole earth. (Gen 8:9)

So "whole earth" apparently can exclude the tops of the mountains because Noah could see the tops of the mountains after the Ark came to rest on a mountain; and "whole earth" is subsequently mentioned  in Genesis 8:9. The argument is that "whole earth" is hyperbolic in Gen 8:9 and therefore hyperbolic in Genesis 7. Further, because the waters dried from the earth, but there is still water over most of the globe, then "earth" cannot mean the globe.

The problem here is that this reasoning does not follow. Something can be essentially true and still true, or it can be hyperbolic to illustrate a point. But being essentially true is not the same as hyperbolic language.

To use an example, if a school has 984 students and the  principle says he runs a school of a thousand, this is essentially true, though not fully precise. One doesn't get to say that because 1000 is not the same as 984, then the principle is using hyperbolic language and he really only has 18 kids at the school. That's not how language works.

In Genesis the author is using many words to emphasize the extent of the flood. Specifically, the noun "everything" (kol) describes both the earth and under the heavens.

The water prevailed more and more upon the earth, so that all the high mountains which were under all the heavens were covered. (Gen 7:19 NASB footnote)

The author really does mean the entire earth and goes out of his way to emphasize this. He specifically includes the mountains which give added clarity, and then the mountains are repeated to mention that the water is above them.

The later passages in Genesis 8 then specify that the mountain tops can be seen. We have a picture of the entire earth still covered with water, but which some mountain tops are seen. And the Ark seated on one of the mountains. So the author has again specified the environment carefully but adding the the waters were still over the earth. This is descriptive of the waters still essentially covering the earth, it not at all suggestive of hyperbole.

8. Genesis 2:24

Jones states that this passage has a metaphor and thus is not literal. This argument is a non sequitur. Creationists claim that they take the Bible in its straightforward reading. This often means that we take passages literally, especially historical narrative. The problem with the term "literal" is that it is misconstrued: either by pointing out non-literal passages, as here; or by insisting on hyperliteralistic readings of Scripture.

Genesis 2:24 says that the man and his wife shall become one flesh which is not literal because they are two beings and not one being. Granted, but the extended passage reads

And the rib that the Lord God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man. Then the man said,

“This at last is bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh;
she shall be called Woman,
because she was taken out of Man.”

Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh. And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed.

That the man and woman are two beings suggests that "one flesh" here has a more metaphorical meaning. Which is fine as Scripture has many non-literal readings: metaphors, fables, idioms. Even in Genesis chapters 1 through 3.

Interestingly though, even here, the metaphor has an element of literalism. The rib (or the side) refer to a literal part of Adam containing literal flesh and bone. Adam recognises that the woman like him in a way that the animals are not, and that she is made from him. It is not just that she has flesh and bone, as do other animals, but human flesh and bone from Adam. And the meaning of becoming one flesh carries more than the concept of companionship or marriage, it also alludes to coitus. And in coitus we see an act in which the male and the female are becoming one entity, one flesh in as much as it is possible for two creatures to do so. So much so that the act creates new flesh. So, there is an aspect to this metaphor, "one flesh", that is more literal than a standard metaphor (which solely seeks to show a similarity between two distinct items).

7. Genesis 3:22

Creationism states that death came about because of the Fall. Jones is arguing that the requirement to eat from the tree of life means that humans were created mortal, not immortal, thus they would have died had they not eaten from the tree of life.

All this is true enough. The question is: Are humans intrinsically mortal or intrinsically immortal (at least with regards to this life). 

1. Did God create Adam intrinsically immortal such that he would not die? But God caused him to die after he ate the fruit of knowledge. Or;
2. Did God create Adam conditionally immortal such that he would not die if he continued to eat the fruit of life? And then God bared Adam and Eve from the fruit of life so that he would die because he had eaten the fruit of knowledge.

This is an interesting question, and I favour the later of these two explanations: conditional immortality. But I fail to see how either of these options are fatal to creationism. Jones says that death is a possibility before the Fall. But only a theoretical possibility, not an actual possibility. Clearly death came to Adam because he ate the forbidden fruit. God says that Adam will die if he eats the forbidden fruit (Gen 2:17), then God prevents Adam from eating the tree of life so that he will not live forever (Gen 3:22), and Paul says that death came through one man:

Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned—for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law. Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come. (Rom 5:12-14).

So there is no doubt that death came to Adam after he ate the forbidden fruit. Further, it is clear that the Fall affected creation. God cursed childbirth and work; both became a burden or toilsome. And elsewhere Paul says,

For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to corruption and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now. (Rom 8:20-22)

Further, I think that Jones gets the dust reference wrong as well. He says that Adam is called dust because dust is an idiom for mortality. Which may well be true, but this ignores what God specifically says,

By the sweat of your face

you shall eat bread,

till you return to the ground,

for out of it you were taken;

for you are dust,

and to dust you shall return. (Gen 3:19)

This is a reference back to God creating Adam from the ground. Jones gets causation precisely backwards here.

6. Genesis 2:4

This verse states,

These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created.

Which is a toledoth. There are 11 of these within Genesis. They introduce subsequent narratives and may represent underlying source documents for Genesis. Jones' claim is that toledoth always introduce what follows the phrase, it does not recap what came earlier. The first problem with this is that Genesis 1 is not introduced by a toledoth. And it is not clear whether Genesis 1 or Genesis 2 was written first. Chronologically Genesis 1 belongs before Genesis 2 but because Genesis 1 does not form part of the toledoth structure of Genesis it is hard to see why the first use of toledoth in Genesis 2 cannot cover material in Genesis 1, whether that be days 6 and 7, or even the entire week.

Secondly, this claim is not correct elsewhere in Genesis. Compare

When God created man, he made him in the likeness of God. Male and female he created them, and he blessed them and named them Man when they were created. (Gen 5:2)

And

God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. And God blessed them. (Gen 1:27-28)

Also, the toledoth of the sons of Noah (Genesis 10) gives Shem's descendants through Arpachshad, Shelah, Eber then Peleg. The toledoth of Shem (Genesis 11) repeats these 5 generations and then further.

There are two toledoths of Esau (Genesis 36) that largely cover the same material.

The material of Genesis 2 clearly covers Adam being placed in the garden and the creation of Eve which is largely parallel with Day 6 of creation in Genesis 1 and there is no convention that prohibits this. Even Jesus links the creation of man and the marriage of man

Jesus answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female [Gen 1:27], and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh [Gen 2:24]’? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.” (Mat 19:4-5)

5. Jeremiah 4:23-26

When prophesying the destruction of Judah Jeremiah uses language that alludes to Genesis 1. The claim is that Jeremiah is metaphorical not literal, therefore Genesis can be metaphorical rather than literal.

The passage in Jeremiah uses several terms from Genesis and it is likely that Genesis 1 influences this prophecy. Though this is hardly unique in Scripture. Frequently authors of Scripture borrow from other passages. There are thousands of quotations and allusions in Scripture to other Scripture.

We need to consider the nature of prophecy, and the nature of historical narrative. Further, Jeremiah is not necessarily metaphorical as opposed to descriptive. To say something is empty and void can be somewhat descriptive. Darkness can be void of light without there being a complete absence of light. There can be a relative absence of men and birds compared to usual. If the town square is empty, it does not need to have no one present at all for this statement to be true. The claim it is metaphor in Jeremiah therefore metaphor in Genesis, is not true. Rather Jeremiah is using the concept of reversing creation to describe judgment. His language may be metaphorical, though it may be descriptive in a more literal sense, or both.

But a greater principle is that history can be used allegorically without denying history. Jesus is our Passover lamb and there really were actual Passovers with actual lamb slaughters even though Jesus was not literally ovine. Even in this passage Jeremiah calls for men to circumcise themselves and remove the foreskin of their hearts (Jer 4:4). Jeremiah is applying a metaphor to the Jews, but this in no way calls into question that Abraham and his household were literally circumcised.

4. Genesis 1:14:19

God made the sun and moon on Day 4 and appointed them to rule over the day and the night. It has been argued by creationists that God can make light on Day 1 without the sun and all that is needed is a light source to provide day and night to earth. This is correct. Jones addresses a peculiar argument about how the sun was made from gathered light. I do not intend to address this as these are speculative ideas that are worth pursuing but, if incorrect, do not argue against creationism.

Interestingly, Jones dismisses creationist claims on how the sun was made, but then skips the "made" aspect and offers his interpretation that the sun and moon were merely appointed as rulers. Yet, the passage both specifies that God made the sun and moon and that he appointed them rulers. That the sun and moon are appointed as rulers is fully consistent with creationism.

3. Genesis 1:28

The argument against creationism concerns the meaning of the words for "subdue" and "rule". Creationists argue that the earth was good before the Fall and there was no death of humans or animals. Jones says that the command to subdue and have dominion over the earth and all the animals means that the world was a wild place that needed to be brought under control. Further, that this command gave humans the right to use animals as they pleased including for food and clothing.

This passage and following verses say,

God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it, and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth.” And God said, “Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit. You shall have them for food. And to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the heavens and to everything that creeps on the earth, everything that has the breath of life, I have given every green plant for food.” And it was so. And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day. (Gen 1:24-31)

It is worth noting that the passage itself tells us what God intends. God specifically states that plants are food for man and animals. Thus an argument that claims an intrinsic meaning for a word, and then what that meaning might imply, and then that this implication means something contradicting the very passage in which it occurs, is false on the face of it. It is a convoluted argument that overinterprets and misinterprets. Word studies are fine, but this illustrates how they should not be done. Even if the word "to have dominion" could be interpreted to include using an animal for food in certain contexts, it clearly does not mean this in this context where it says that plants are for food.

But do these words have only negative connotations? A word can have an intrinsically positive or negative connotation, or it could be relatively neutral with the context being positive or negative. Further, over time a neutral word can gain a positive or negative connotation if it is predominantly used in only positive or negative contexts.

"Subdue" is the Hebrew kabash which basically means "to place under". It occurs 14 times in the Old Testament. It is used concerning people or land (meaning the people of the land) in the majority of occurrences. Any context describing the subduing of people is going to have a somewhat negative connotation as the people are not subdued prior to becoming subdued. Nevertheless, the use of "subdue" need not imply that the land or animals are not good. Nor that it is inappropriate to put things under man's power that are supposed to be there. Further, something can be good and still be improved upon.

To "rule" or "have dominion" is the Hebrew radah having the meaning "to rule". It occurs 22 times in the Old Testament. It does not intrinsically mean "rule harshly". There are a couple of passages in Scripture where it as a neutral meaning. Leviticus (25:43; 46; 53) warns men against ruling (radah) ruthlessly; this implies one can rule kindly. Solomon is said to rule in several passages (1Ki 4:24; Psa 72:8) and Solomon was noted to have a peaceful kingdom. Solomon's chief officers ruled over the workers (1Ki 5:16; 9:23; 2Ch 8:10) and there is no hint that they were harsh. Benjamin is a ruler (Psa 68:27) and it is noted that his tribe is little, not descriptive of harsh ruling at all. The claim that this word (radah) implies injustice or oppression is just not true. 

What does the Genesis passage say? That man is the culmination of God's creation and that we are to rule over the earth. We are made kings of the realm.

The meaning of bara

Does the Hebrew "bara" intrinsically mean creation out of nothing? Jones argues no and many creationists agree with him. The word bara occurs 48 times in the Old Testament. It appears to only occur with God as the subject. It is frequently used (if not always) for God making something that did not previously exist, whether out of something that exists or out of nothing (ex nihilo).

(Jones reference to David eating is a different Hebrew word that sounds similar: "barah".)

But "bara" can refer to creating out of nothing depending on the context. So the issue is what does it mean in Genesis 1? And the context of Genesis 1, especially Genesis 1:1 suggests creation out of nothing.

Genesis 1:1

The first few verses of the Bible read,

In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. And the earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the surface of the waters. (Gen 1:1-2)

Jones proposes that a better translation starts,

When God created the heavens and the earth the earth was formless and void,...

I do not have the knowledge of Hebrew to address this issue. It is worth noting that there is a long history of translating the first verse: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." In fact, a large number of English translations do not differ at all (save minor variability of "heaven" versus "heavens"): KJV, ASV, ESV, RSV, NIV, NASB, NKJV, NET, JB, HCSB, NLT. So one should really treat this as speculative (unless there is a strong argument otherwise).

But even if (for the sake of the argument) we allow for an ancient heavens and/or earth, we still have nothing on the earth. There is no vegetation, no animals, no birds, no humans. An ancient earth without flora and fauna does not achieve what it proponents want.

Summary

Several of Jones' claims are incorrect. Some of them rely on a specific creationist claim that he has come across but which is not necessarily intrinsic to creationism and, if false, says nothing about the creationist worldview.

Yet there are bigger issues here. One is the reliance on the ancient near eastern (ANE) perspective that has gained ground. Of course, there is nothing wrong with better understanding the thought processes of the ancients, but they do not have priority. Much can be gained by reading the Old Testament and seeing how the narrative unfolds. And the common practice of placing the Old Testament alongside ANE texts but often subtly underneath them, is somewhat reminiscent of the previous practice of comparing Luke with Josephus and assuming Luke is errant when they differ. There are many reasons to assume that the Old Testament has priority over both ANE texts and modernist claims for ANE worldviews.

Further, Jones added this comment to his video,

Let's remember YECs constantly claim theistic evolutionists have to add meaning to the Biblical texts, and they just take the plain reading. Well, in order to deal with the issues I brought up in the video they will have to add meaning to several of the passages I went over.

But this is not what creationists are arguing. Of course we need context. We can't even interpret the Bible if we don't know how to read or speak a language. And the better we understand the meaning of words and textual context, and the cultural context, and allusions to other Scripture, the better we can read the Bible. 

In the video Jones confuses imprecision with hyperbole; makes a word imply the exact opposite of what the text clearly states; uses non sequiturs; references books that make claims that are likely false. The Bible is not unclear in many places. It can be read in a relatively straightforward manner. That often means literal. Not everything is literal, but you don't get to turn factual statements into metaphor at will. Many difficult passages are known to be difficult. Readers can identify difficult passages readily. But there are clearer passages and there are less clear passages, and we don't get to reinterpret the perspicacious with the obscure.

The process of hermeneutics clarifies the apparent meaning, it may modify it, it seldom reverses it. And if it does, then this has to be demonstrated very carefully and rigorously.