by

Joel D. Stevey

I was born to Christian parents. My father was a Chaplain the U. S Army, who was endorsed under the Christian and Missionary Alliance. My mother was and is a faithful wife and mother. Even before I could comprehend what they were saying, they would tell me that Jesus loved me and pray with me. Going to Sunday school and church also became a regular part of my life. At the age of ten and even my father was stationed at Fort Meade, Maryland. Since the position was in an administrative capacity, we were free to visit churches in the area.

One Sunday evening my parents decided that we would visit a church in Baltimore where a friend was the pastor. To this day I do not remember what the message was. All I know is that when the message was over, I asked my father to take me to the altar to accept Jesus as my Savior.

As I growing up I was taught that God created not only the world but also the universe and even time. I was also taught about the attributes of God. That He is omnipotent (all knowing), eternal (has no beginning or end, outside of time), omnipresent (eternally is present everywhere) and omnipotence (all-power of God, sovereign). When I was in my teens and twenties I learned about how important it can be to go back to the original Greek or Hebrew to see how the writer and readers would have understood a word, from listening to conversations that my father had with friends.

My father also sparked in me an interest in science. One of the ways he did this was the use of Moody Science Films in the Sunday evening vespers services that he had during our time in Panama. In my teens I also discovered the radio program "Science, Scripture and Salvation", from the Institute for Creation Research. Did I believe that God created the Universe and the Earth in seven-twenty-hour days? Yes!

One Saturday afternoon a number of years ago I was "channel surfing" and came across a channel which hadn't been officially put on our cable system. During the second or two that I paused on that channel and through a snowy picture I saw the word "reasons" go by on the screen and then I changed the channel. My brain kicked-in and asked, "What was that?" Hurriedly, I went back to that channel and watched the program. The program was interesting and so I watched the program the next week. After several weeks of watching the program I found it just as interesting as the "Science, Scripture and Salvation" program or Ken Ham's "Back To Genesis" program.

Several months after I started to watch "Reasons To Believe" program Dr. Ross began talking about not only an "Old" universe, but an "Old" earth as well. On top of that Dr. Ross was saying that the seven days of Creation were not twenty-four hour periods of time. Although I realize that it would make me a prime candidate for a case of cognitive dissonance, I decided that I could always reject the scientific evidence if I needed to do so in order to keep my belief that Creation took seven-twenty-four-hour days. To complicate matters the professors at Nyack College had a saying which said, "All truth is God's truth." It was understood that truth is objective by its' nature. I realized that if I rejected scientific evidence that I would be rejecting what God has let man discover about His creation.

Almost as if he had read my thoughts, Dr. Ross began talking about the Scriptural evidences for both an old earth and long days of creation. When Dr. Ross started explaining that "yowm", the Hebrew word for day had multiple literal meanings, and pointing out where in Scripture this word could not have meant that of a literal twenty-four hour day, I had several thoughts about the news. My first though was to think, "This makes sense." After all Scripture teaches that God is eternal, omnipresent and can view the entire span of time simultaneously. The other thought that I had was, "What if he is misrepresenting what is in the Hebrew?" Naturally I went to my father to ask him about the meanings of this word. To my amazement my father confirmed that this word had multiple meanings. My father also verified that the rules of Hebrew grammar do not require that yowm must refer to twenty-four hours, even when attached to an ordinal. Dr. Ross pointed out passages where this word is used for longer periods of time. The interesting thing which Dr. Ross highlighted was the fact that because there wasn't any mention of an "evening and morning" on the seventh day, the Hebrew mind would conclude that the seventh day of Creation had yet to end.

Soon I found myself listening to other programs about Science and the Bible but with a sharper theological "ear". It astounded me how positions that I would have agreed with a year or two earlier were raising caution flags in my mind. What I hadn't figured out was that some Young Earth Creationists have several major presuppositions which underlie their position. One of their presuppositions is that if one accepts that creation took a long period of time is tantamount to accepting naturalistic evolution which leads to unmitigated evil. Another is that long days of creation create a peril to faith and morality. One other is that there wasn't any death of any kind of life. These presuppositions seem to be reasonable. At least until you use the Scriptures as your plumb line.

Some Young Earth Creationists believe that if one holds to the "Big Bang" theory and an ancient earth, one by implication has a philosophic need to appeal to naturalistic evolution. Fine! One can say that, however, there are some theological landmines inherit in that position. The first landmine is the sovereignty of God. If one says that the "Big Bang" had to have taken place by random chance, that person is unwittingly denying sovereignty of God. Naturalistic evolution could not even take place unless God permitted it to do so. On top of that if had God permitted naturalistic evolution to happen, why would it lead to unmitigated evil? Adam and Eve were created last and sinless! Once again when their position is subjected to the refining fire of Scripture, all that is left is smoke! Or do they want to argue that naturalistic evolution could take place outside of the sovereign will of God? If one takes this path, I have to ask if naturalistic evolution could have taken place outside of the sovereign will of God, one must ask the question, is God sovereign at all? To my amazement I have heard some Christians appeal to the debate over God's sovereignty verses man's freewill. These people don't realize that this argument relies on a false exegesis. Because Creation was exclusively God's doing, their argument is irrelevant.

I also found the idea that the unsaved aren’t capable of discovering objective truth because they have to buy into naturalism to be very strange. Some Young Earth Creationists say that the mind of the unsaved is subject to Satan’s absolute control. "From a biblical perspective, however, the human mind has been created in the divine image to think God's thoughts after him, or to receive through both general and special revelation truth from God. Although the fall has affected the human mind, this has not been eradicated. The new birth involves the Holy Spirit's renewal of the person in knowledge after the image of the Creator (Col. 3:10). . ." ¹ Satan is one of God’s creations and therefore subject to God. God can reveal truth to whomever, however and whenever He wishes to do so. Even to a Naturalistic Evolutionist! If He can’t, what kind of God do we have?

Another tenant that some Young Earth Creationists subscribe to is that Scripture contains a complete and detailed account of history. They then go on to say that if Scripture does not contain a complete and detailed account of history that the Bible isn’t true. First of all nowhere in Scripture is it taught or even suggested that Scripture contains a complete and detailed account of history. Since that is the case, one has no basis to claim that if Scripture does not contain a complete and detailed account of history that the Bible isn’t true. This is a plain and simple error in logic.

Do long days of creation create a peril to faith and morality? It seems to me that if one clings to this position one also has to argue that animals have the capacity to sin and that Satan was able to make them sin. Once again some Young Earth Creationists believe that if one holds to an ancient earth, that would lead to a belief in evolution. But they carry their argument even further. Assuming that if one believes in an ancient earth, one would have believe in evolution which in turn would lead one to "anti-biblical" and "anti-theistic" world. I would love to be able to test a logical syllogism designed to defend this position. I have thought about this and cannot figure out one could construct a logical syllogism which would be valid. If one were to teach this, one would be inadvertently questioning the sovereignty of God.

What about the concept that there wasn't any death of any kind of life before the fall? This demands that we say that both man and animal were vegetarians. I will concede to my friends on the other side that there are plants where one would not need to harvest the entire plant in order to receive nourishment. And yet, didn't the part of the plant which was harvested have to die? Lastly, if the fall meant both spiritual as well as physical death, why doesn't Paul write in Romans 5:12 that Death came upon all creatures rather than "Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, . . ."? Paul is clearly omitting animals from having sinned or even the capacity to sin.

Some Young Earth Creationists try to use the genealogies to calculate a date for the creation of Adam and Eve. But there is an inherit problem with that due to the ambiguity of the Hebrew language. The word "’ab", the Hebrew word for "father" is also used for grandfather, great-grandfather, great-great-grandfather. Likewise "ben", the Hebrew word for "son" is also used for grandson, great-grandson, great-great-grandson. Interesting enough it is not uncommon for genealogies of Jewish people to only list persons of predominance. Luke 1:26-36 recounts Gabriel’s announcement to Mary. In verse 32b and 33 Gabriel says, "’The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David, and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever; his kingdom will never end.’" It is interesting that Gabriel says, "’The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David, . . .‘".

As I said earlier the fact that the professors at Nyack College had drummed into my head that, "All truth is God's truth." I thank God for that. I also thank God for giving me a father who has his bachelors, masters and doctorate from Bob Jones University. My father and I are amazed at how people who mean well will take a part of Scripture and make an application of it which cannot be supported given its historical and theological context. My father has pointed out that since Genesis 1:2 uses the verb, "was" then the earth had to be in existence. My father and I have had numerous discussions about how some Young Earth Creationists use straw man arguments to give the illusion of legitimacy to their misrepresentations of Old Earth teachings. These people say that "we have to be faithful to Scripture", and yet when you try to reason with them they will either accuse you of subscribing to the "Jesus Seminar", being an evolutionist or even question your salvation.

Since the only place in Scripture where the possibility for unmitigated evil to exist is in the Lake Of Fire, I found myself being pushed away from the some Young Earth Creationists' camp due to their theological inconsistencies with Scripture. I will be eternally grateful to God for predestinating  me to come across Dr. Ross. My father counts Dr. Ross to be in the same league as the late Dr. Francis Schaeffer and Dr. Ravi Zacharias one of the finest thinkers in modern Christianity.

When one buys a piece of machinery or an appliance does the manufacturer include a detailed description about how that item was made? Of course not! Then why would God who is infinitely knowledgeable give us scientific detail which most people couldn’t or wouldn’t understand? Doesn’t it make more sense that God would give us a cursory overview that even a child could understand that He created everything, yet without compromising the essential message of creation being His doing alone?

Now, I don’t have any problems with Young Earth Creationists who don’t say that Old Earth Creationists have to "buy" into a "chance" Big Bang cosmology and therefore have to adopt an evolutionary frame of reference. Several years ago I went on a trip to the Grand Canyon. The trip was sponsored by the same organization for which my father used to work. When the male nurse saw that I would be going on the trip, he asked to be my attendant. We spent a week together at the Grand Caynon. This man has studied both sides of this matter and tends to side with the Young Earth Creationists camp. Having said that, I must also tell you that this man is also a student of Scripture as well as theology. Because of that this man has examined some of the positions which Young Earth Creationists hold, only to find them to be utter nonsense in light of Scripture. It was this man’s study of Scripture and his being able to objectively evaluate some of the Young Earth Creationists’ positions that made our week together a delight!