When it comes to the creation of the earth, there is a great majesty, understatement and reasonableness in the first two chapters of Genesis. In order to appreciate this, let’s first see how other ancient peoples viewed the beginning of the world. I chose two examples from the same time period:

Ancient Creation Myths

Civilization

Creation Myth

Chaldean

The “All” consisted of darkness and water, filled with monstrous creatures, and ruled by a woman, Markaya. Bel divided the darkness, and cut the woman into two halves, from which he formed the heaven and the earth. He then cut off his own head, and from the drops of blood men were formed.

Phœnician

The beginning of the All was a movement of dark air, and a dark, turbid chaos. By the union of the spirit with the All, a slime was formed, from which every seed of creation and the universe was developed; and the heavens were made in the form of an egg, from which the sun and moon, the stars and constellations, sprang up. By the heating of the earth and sea there arose winds, clouds and rain, lightning and thunder, the roaring of which wakened up sensitive beings, so that living creatures of both sexes moved in the waters and upon the earth.

These are 2 examples of the dozens which exist. There are, interestingly enough, some creation stories which are very similar to what we find in the Bible.

Taken from Keil and Delitzsch, Commentary on the Old Testament; from e-Sword; Genesis 1 introduction.

There are 4 Hebrew verbs associated with the creation of all things which are found throughout the Genesis account of creation.

The Creation Verbs of Genesis

Hebrew Word

Meaning

Location

bârâʾ (בָּרָא) [pronounced baw-RAW]. Strong’s #1254.

to create (always with God as subject); to shape, to fashion; possibly to create out of nothing

Gen. 1:1 (heavens and earth) 1:21 (sea creatures and animals which fly) 1:27 (man) 2:3-4 (heavens and earth) 5:1-2 (man) 6:7 (man)

ʿâsâh (עָשָׂה) [pronounced ģaw-SAW]. Strong’s #6213.

to make [produce], possibly to make out of existing material; to do, to work; to act, to effect; to prepare; to make (an offering); to attend to, put in order; to observe, celebrate; to acquire (property); to appoint, ordain, institute; to bring about; to use; to spend, pass

Gen. 1:7 (atmosphere) 1:16 (sun and moon) 1:25 (land animals) 1:26 (man) 1:31 (all) 2:2-4 (all, heavens and earth) 2:18 (woman specifically)

bânâh (בָּנָה) [pronounced baw-NAW]. Strong’s #1129.

to build, rebuild; to build a house (i.e., establish a family); to make

Gen. 2:22 (the woman being built, made of Adam’s rib)

yâtsar (יָצַר) [pronounced yaw-TSAHR]. Strong’s #3335.

to form, fashion [by God or man]; to form [by God in creation, in original creation]; of individuals at conception; of Israel as a people; to frame, pre-ordain, plan (figuratively of divine) purpose of a situation)

Gen. 2:7-8 (man being formed of the dust of the ground) Gen. 2:19 (land animals)

You will note that each verb has its own very specific meaning and is carefully applied throughout the first two chapters of Genesis.

Isa. 45:18 has 3 of these verbs in it: For so says Jehovah, Creator [bârâ = to create] of the heavens—He is God, forming [yâtsar = to form, to fashion] the earth and making [ʿâsâh = to make, to produce] it; He establishes it, not creating [bârâ = to create] it empty, but forming [yâtsar = to form, to fashion] it to be lived in— “I am Jehovah, and there is none else.”

The Bible does give us a clear order of creation: God exists eternally, then He created the heavens and earth, then angels, and then man.

The Order of Creation

1.       God exists eternally, outside of time. Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever You had formed the earth and the world, from everlasting to everlasting You are God (Psalm 90:2). In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God (John 1:1–2). The Word, of course, is Jesus Christ (John 1:14).

2.       God created the heavens and the earth. Gen 1:1 In a beginning, God created the [two] heavens and the earth.

3.       God created angelic beings: Praise him, all His angels; praise him, all His armies! Let them praise the name of the LORD!  For He commanded and they were created (Psalm 148:2, 5).

4.       The angels were at hand to observe the restoration of the earth, but man was not. In Job 38:4–11, God is speaking to Job. These questions are not made to Job, per se, but to all mankind. “Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth? Tell me, if you have understanding. Who determined its measurements--surely you know! Or who stretched the line upon it? On what were its bases sunk, or Who laid its cornerstone, when the morning stars [angels] sang together and all the sons of God [angels] shouted for joy? Or who shut in the sea with doors when it burst out from the womb, when I made clouds its garment and thick darkness its swaddling band, and prescribed limits for it and set bars and doors, and said, 'Thus far shall you come, and no farther, and here shall your proud waves be stayed'?” Angels cannot be shouting for joy as they watch God restore the earth unless they already have been created and are able to watch what He does.

5.       The heavens and earth were created first, and all things after that. For by Him [Jesus Christ] all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities--all things were created through Him and for Him (Col. 1:16). In order to create all things in heaven and on earth, there must be a heaven and an earth to begin with.

6.       Then man was created and given dominion over the earth: Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth." (Gen. 1:26). When I look at Your heavens, the work of Your fingers, the moon and the stars, which You have set in place, what is man that You are mindful of him, and the son of man that You care for him? Yet you have made him a little lower than the heavenly beings and crowned him with glory and honor. You have given him dominion over the works of Your hands; You have put all things under his feet (Psalm 8:3–6). Now it was not to angels that God subjected the world to come, of which we are speaking. It has been testified somewhere, "What is man, that You are mindful of him, or the son of man, that You care for him? You made him for a little while lower than the angels; You have crowned him with glory and honor, putting everything in subjection under his feet." Now in putting everything in subjection to him, He left nothing outside his control. At present, we do not yet see everything in subjection to him (Heb. 2:5–8; Psalm 8:4–6). In order for God to make man a little lower than the angels, angels have to first exist.

7.       Because the angels were created sometime between Gen. 1:1 (the creation of the heavens and earth) and Gen. 1:26 (the creation of man), and because angels are not mentioned specifically in Gen. 1, we must reasonably place them between Gen. 1:1 and 1:2.

There is a lot which is explained theologically by the existence of angels. Our very existence and the reason for our being may be predicated upon the existence of angels.

There are two ways to legitimately translate v. 2a:

And the earth was a wasteland and empty...

Or, But the earth became a wasteland and empty...

Why Gen. 1:2a is Translated

But the earth became a wasteland and empty...

•         When God creates or makes something, it is pronounced good throughout this chapter of Genesis (vv. 4, 10, 12, 18).

•         It is not in keeping with the God of the Bible to create something which is imperfect or needs fixing.

•         Of those things which God makes or creates in Gen. 1, nothing is said to need improvement, except for the earth created in this verse. It is illogical to assert that here, at the very beginning, God created something which was so chaotic that He needed to repair it. God is not the Author of confusion (1Cor. 14:33). Throughout the Bible, there are examples of areas becoming desolate and wasted because of the acts of man (Isa. 34:11 Jer. 4:23–26) but there are no instances recorded in the Bible where something which God creates was messed up to begin with.

•         The word darkness comes from a verb which can also mean to confuse.

•         Darkness is often something which God brings upon a person or a nation because of their apostasy or sinfulness (Ex. 10:21–22 1Sam. 2:9).

•         Gen. 1:2 tells us that the earth is a wasteland and empty, but Isa. 45:18 tells us that God did not create the earth to be a wasteland.

•         The Greek Septuagint uses a mild adversative (the adversative δε) to translate this wâw conjunction rather than a simple kai (καί) conjunction (the common translation for a wâw conjunction). This is how we get the translation: But the earth became a wasteland and empty,... But is the common English translation for the mild adversative δε.

•         The common Hebrew order is verb, subject, object (which is what we find in v. 1); v. 2 places the subject first, then the verb followed by the object (actually, the predicate nominative here). This grammatically calls attention to the fact that this is not just a normal series of events or that v. 2 is simply a part of or a continuation of v. 1.

The approach to Gen. 1:1–2 suggests that something occurred between vv. 1 and 2. God created the earth to be inhabited with life (originally, with angelic life). However, after a time, when a third of the angels fell, they made the earth a mess, and God covered the earth in ice, which we know as the Ice Age.

Since we find the earth enshrouded in darkness, and that, in v. 3, God will bring light to the earth, we ought to compare light and darkness as these words are found throughout the Old and New Testaments.

God and Light and Darkness

Point of Doctrine

Scriptural Reference

God is light. The antithesis of God is darkness.

This is the message we have heard from Him [Jesus Christ] and proclaim to you, that God is light, and in Him is no darkness at all (1John 1:5).

From the very beginning, God distinguishes between light and darkness.

And God saw that the light was good. And God separated the light from the darkness (Gen. 1:4).

Darkness and light are metaphors for good and evil; in this illustration, men try to present their evil deeds as good.

Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter! (Isa. 5:20).

God leads His people from darkness into light.

“And I will lead the blind in a way that they do not know, in paths that they have not known I will guide them. I will turn the darkness before them into light, the rough places into level ground. These are the things I do, and I do not forsake them.” (Isa. 42:16). Again Jesus spoke to them, saying, "I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will not walk in darkness, but will have the light of life." (John 8:12).

Jesus Christ is the light which has come into the world. Men have hated Him because what they do is evil, and light exposes what they do.

And this is the judgment: the Light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the Light because their works were evil (John 3:19).

When Jesus first appeared to Paul, He was as a blinding light to Paul.

In going [to persecute Christians], it happened as Paul drew near to Damascus, suddenly a light from the heaven shone around him. And he fell to the earth and heard a voice saying to him, “Saul, Saul, why do you persecute Me? “ And he said, “Who are You, lord?” And the Lord said, “I am Jesus Whom you persecute.” And he was three days not seeing (Acts 9:3–5a, 9a).

Jesus Christ appeared to Paul so that Paul might lead men away from the power of Satan and to the light of God. Therefore, there is a close association between Satan and darkness.

“But rise and stand upon your feet, for I have appeared to you for this purpose, to appoint you as a servant and witness to the things in which you have seen Me and to those in which I will appear to you, delivering you from your people [Jews] and from the Gentiles--to whom I am sending you to open their eyes, so that they may turn from darkness to light and from the power of Satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins and a place among those who are sanctified by faith in Me.” (Acts 26:16–18).

Salvation moves us from darkness to light.

At one time you were darkness, but now you are light in the Lord. Walk as children of light (Eph. 5:8). But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light (1Peter 2:9).

Or, the quick and dirty way to look at this: light is associated with God and truth (John 1:4–5 1John 1:7 James 1:17 Rev. 21:23–24) and dark is associated with Satan, sin and judgment (Eph. 5:11 6:12 Col. 1:13 1John 1:6 2:11). Light and dark are so contrasted throughout the Scriptures (Matt. 6:23 John 3:19 Acts 26:18 Rom. 13:12 Eph. 5:8 2Cor. 6:14 1Peter 2:9 1Thess. 5:4–5)).

That there is no light of God shining upon the earth, that the earth is enshrouded with darkness, suggests that the inhabitants of the earth went from light to darkness.

From time immemorial, man understands that there is some reason for his existence, some purpose for his short life on this earth, and this topic is a theme found in the writings of philosophers, theologians and even playwrights and musicians. One of the most important topics in the Bible is angels and our relationship to them. Angels are not just some peripheral set of created beings; they are the key as to why we were created.

The Angelic Conflict

1.       The Bible teaches us that angels exist. Psalm 8:4,5 148:1–8 Heb. 2:6–7 2Peter 2:11

2.       In lesson #2, we covered the order of creation: the heavens and the earth, angels, the restoration of the earth, followed by the creation of man. The Bible is the source of this order.

3.       Almost every ancient and modern religion teaches something about angels. Like the creation of the earth, some religions teach some really weird things about angels whereas Christianity, if anything, is understated when it comes to angelic creation (not unlike the Biblical approach to the creation and restoration of the earth).

4.       The Bible does not have an off-handed reference to angels here or there; angels are mentioned specifically nearly 300 times in the Old and New Testaments. There are a number of additional passages where angels are spoken of as spirits, lights, cherubs, stars, demons, a cloud of witnesses, etc.

5.       Furthermore, it is made clear, even in the New Testament, that we are involved in an invisible conflict, an unseen war. For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against nations, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places (Eph:6:12).

6.       There are two groups of angels—the elect or holy angels and the fallen angels. Matt. 25:31, 41 Acts 10:22 2Peter 2:4 Rev. 14:10

7.       There are some obvious differences between man and angels: man can procreate, angels cannot (at least amongst themselves). The human race was begun with two people, both created and made directly by God and we have expanded our numbers through procreation; angels were all immediately created by God. They do not procreate; their numbers do not increase or decrease. Ezek. 28:15 Matt. 22:30 Col. 1:16

8.       Whereas, we have corporal bodies and a soul and spirit, resulting in both physical life and a metaphysical life; angels appear to be confined, most of the time, to spirit bodies or bodies of light which we cannot always see. Matt. 28:2–3 Luke 10:18 Acts 12:27 1Cor. 15:40–41 Heb. 1:7, 13–14 Rev. 18:1

9.       There are times when angels enter into human history, and in a variety of ways.

          1)       Satan either takes on the form of a serpent or indwells a serpent in Gen. 3.

          2)       Angels take on human-like bodies and are capable of procreation in conjunction with human wives (there is no opposite arrangement; that is, there are no human males copulating with female angels). Apart from this incident, angels do not marry nor are they given in marriage, which suggests that angels are all of one gender (male). Gen. 6 Matt. 22:30

          3)       Fallen angels (demons) indwelt various people during the time of Christ, having at least partial control of their bodies. Often these were many demons controlling one body. This concentrated activity of demon possession appears to have been most apparent during the incarnation of Jesus Christ (Matt. 4:24 8:16, 28 John 13:27). We do not find demonic possession as a recurrent theme in the book of Acts nor as a topic of extended discussion in any of the epistles). There are individuals whose behavior suggests demon possession—Adolph Hitler or Richard Trenton Chase, for example. However, we are not given the mandate or the mechanics to search out and heal such individuals.

          4)       Angels influence us today with their corrupt thinking, called doctrines (or, teachings) of demons. 1Tim. 4:1

10.     The most beautiful angel to come from the hand of God is Lucifer, son of the morning.

          1)       Although Satan is found first in the Bible in Gen. 3, he obviously had to exist prior to that time. He is spoken of in Isa. 14:12–17: "How you are fallen from heaven, O Day Star, son of Dawn! How you are cut down to the ground, you who laid the nations low! You said in your heart, 'I will ascend to heaven; above the stars of God [angelic creation] I will set my throne on high; I will sit on the mount of assembly in the far reaches of the north; I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will make myself like the Most High.' But you are brought down to Sheol, to the far reaches of the pit. Those who see you will stare at you and ponder over you: 'Is this the man who made the earth tremble, who shook kingdoms, who made the world like a desert and overthrew its cities, who did not let his prisoners go home?' One of the fascinating things about the Old Testament is, a passage will be speaking of one thing (here, one of the kings of Babylon) and then it will morph into speaking about something else, a parallel situation or person (in this case, Satan). What we need from this passage is, Satan’s sin, to think that he could be like the Most High (i.e., equal to God) and that He has been judged and will be brought down to Sheol.

          2)       Quite obviously, the caricature of Satan with horns, a trident, a long forked tail and red epidermis has no basis in fact (like the picture of a gentilic Jesus with the long flowing locks of brown hair). Satan is extremely attractive, charismatic and personable.

          3)       Ezek. 28 is about the King of Tyre, but it also parallels the person of Satan: “You have been in Eden, the garden of God. Every precious stone was your covering; the ruby, the topaz, and the jasper, the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the turquoise, and the carbuncle, and gold; the workmanship of your tambourines and of your flutes in you. In the day you were created, they were prepared. You were the anointed cherub that covers, and I had put you in the holy heights of God, where you were. You walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire. You were perfect in your ways from the day you were created, until iniquity was found in you. By the multitude of your trade, they filled your midst with violence, and you sinned. So I cast you defiled from the height of God, and I destroyed you, O covering cherub, from among the stones of fire. Your heart was lifted up because of your beauty; you corrupted your wisdom because of your splendor. I have cast you to the ground. I will put you before kings, that they may see you. By the host of your iniquities, by the iniquity of your trade, you have defiled your holy places. So I brought a fire from your midst and it shall devour you, and I will give you for ashes on the earth in the sight of all who see you. All who know you among the peoples shall be appalled at you. You shall be terrors, and you will not be forever.” (Ezek. 28:13–19). Here, we are told that Satan was in the garden of God and that he was created perfect until iniquity was found in him.

          4)       Satan is called an angel of light, the god of this world and the ruler of this world. John 14:30 2Cor. 4:4 11:14

          5)       God created the Lake of Fire where Satan and his angels and men who do not believe in Jesus Christ will be cast. Jesus taught: “Then He will also say to those on His left, Go away from Me, cursed ones, into the everlasting fire having been prepared for the Devil and his angels.” (Matt. 25:41).

          6)       Satan will be cast into everlasting fire because he has been judged. “The ruler of this world has been judged.” (John 16:11b).

          7)       His being cast into the Lake of Fire is future: And the Devil leading them astray was thrown into the Lake of Fire and Brimstone (Rev. 20:10a).

11.     Why is Satan out and about now?

          1)       From the judgement of Satan and his fallen angels to this point in time, thousands and possibly millions of years have gone by. Satan sinned, he has been judged, and he will be thrown into the Lake of Fire. Therefore, we ought to ask, why has this not occurred yet? Why has God not carried out this sentence? Why is Satan out there loose in the world?

          2)       R. B. Thieme Jr. has postulated that Satan’s sentence is now under appeal. This is based upon several Scriptures.

                     (1)      In Job 1–2, Satan and the angels are assembled before God and Satan is raising objections to the way things are. He claims that Job is dedicated to God only because of the many blessings which God has given him. Remove these blessings, Satan alleges, and Job will curse God. The book of Job is God showing Satan (and the angels who are observing) that Satan is wrong.

                     (2)      Some associate the name Satan with lawyer, prosecuting attorney, attorney. Although I was unable to find a clear indication of this in the several lexicons which I own, this seems to be a Jewish tradition.

                     (3)      Satan is said to accuse believers before God day and night. Rev. 12:20

                     (4)      The use of the words judgment and punishment in conjunction with Satan suggest a trial.

          3)       Let me suggest the basis of Satan’s appeal (the first of which is postulated by Thieme):

                     (1)      How can a loving God cast any of His creatures into a Lake of Fire?

                     (2)      Satan to God: “God, You made me this way. I am not responsible for Your creation.” God is at fault for not making a perfect creation. If Satan is imperfect, then it must mean that God is imperfect.

                     (3)      Satan’s sin is originally one of pride, was discovered by God—how can a hidden sin like this deserve eternal death? How is this just?

                     (4)      Can’t a God of love forgive His creatures?

                     (5)      Let’s accept the premise that Satan and the fallen angels have sinned. Why not just give Satan some little space in the universe and let him and the other fallen angels hang out there?

                     (6)      Elect angels have chosen this path simply because God rewards them for their choice.

                     (7)      Essentially, Satan’s objections call into question God’s actions in comparison to His character and essence. God has to be consistent, as He is immutable. God is righteous and just, so His judgment has to be righteous and just. God is love, so His actions should reflect His love.

                     (8)      There are inherent contradictions in God’s character (creating beings which will suffer forever in the Lake of Fire does not demonstrate love or righteousness). Therefore, the inherent defects in Satan’s character cannot be judged by Someone with inherent defects. In other words, if Satan is imperfect, then God is imperfect. God is unable to demonstrate perfect character in all respects at all times (that is the argument of Satan).

                     (9)      Right and wrong are relative concepts; there really is no such thing as absolute standards of right and wrong. The acts of Satan and those angels who fell are not inherently wrong, because there is no such thing as inherent wrong.

                     (10)    Right and wrong, good and bad, are simply arbitrary standards, set up by God.

                     (11)    God is incapable of creating creatures with free will who will not, at some point in time, disobey Him.

                     (12)    FInally, Satan, in a sense, alleges, “I could do a better job than God with this earth and with His creatures.” He said, “I will be like the Most High.” (Isa. 14:14b).

          4)       If you know much about the Bible, you know that each of these objections is addressed in the Bible in conjunction with human history being played out.

          5)       Whatever objection you have ever formed in your mind against God, God’s plan or God’s grace, God will deal with that objection in time.

          6)       Whatever objections unbelievers lodge against God will also be dealt with in time. God’s answering all of Satan’s objections will simultaneously answer all of the objections of mankind throughout the ages.

12.     The time frame of all of this is important. This helps us to understand our place in this world:

          1)       God created angels.

          2)       Satan fell and took a third of the angels with him. Rev. 12:4

          3)       There was a trial of some sort.

          4)       Satan and the fallen angels were judged and sentenced. Matt. 25:41

          5)       This sentence is not carried out immediately.

          6)       The implication is, Satan lodged an appeal.

          7)       Temporarily, the habitation of the angels (the earth) is frozen, which possibly restrains the fallen angels.

          8)       The earth is restored, man is created.

          9)       Human history is played out.

          10)     Then Satan and the fallen angels are cast into the Lake of Fire. Rev. 20:10

          11)     This implies that we, lowly human beings, are somehow involved between the fall and sentencing of Satan and the carrying out of the sentence against Satan. In other words, we apparently are involved in the appeal portion of the trial of Satan and the fallen angels.

13.     This explains our place in this world. We were created inferior to angels, but we have an essence similar to angels, inasmuch as we can think, we have self-consciousness, we have a concept of right and wrong, we have a vocabulary, we have emotions, and we have volition. These are things which angels possess, and these things are a reflected image of God. Heb. 2:5–10 12:1

14.     By our creation and our lives on this earth, God reveals the nature of His character—His perfect love, justice and righteousness—in dealing with man. Psalm 145:17 Isa. 5:16 John 3:16

15.     By our creation and our life in this world, God reveals the consistency of His character through His interaction with man—man as created perfect and man as a fallen creature. God will interact with man under a number of varying conditions, including perfect environment and far less than perfect environment. These interactions, observed by angels, will reveal that God is love, righteousness, justice, and that every single thing which God does is consistent with His character. All of the objections which I suggested, will be answered in human history.

16.     By the function of Bible doctrine in our souls, God reveals the importance of truth, which is embodied in the Bible that we have. God reveals the importance of His creatures knowing and adhering to His Word. Prov. 8 1Cor. 2:16 Philip. 2:5 3:15 4:7

17.     God’s judgments are revealed as being holy and righteous; His character is revealed as being perfect in all respects. Our function on this earth glorifies God. John 11:4 1Cor. 10:31

18.     The simplest way for us to understand this is by our relationship to our own children. When they do wrong, we punish them, and sometimes the punishment is difficult for us and them. However, ideally speaking, before, after or during the punishment, we explain to them what they have done wrong and why it is wrong. In this way, a child develops norms and standards; he develops a conscience; and he learns how to function in this world in such a way that is both moral and right and is beneficial to him and to those around him. This allows a child to build up an entire framework of norms and standards which will carry him through his entire life. Parents who do not do this are destroying the little souls of the children God has entrusted to them.

19.     This is how God interacts with us, and helps to explain why, over and over again, believers are called His children. It explains why God disciplines us. Heb. 12:5–11

20.     Men and angels, in this process, develop an understanding and an appreciation for Who and What God is and for the wonder of their own existence.

21.     The Angelic Conflict explains a great many things to us:

          1)       Why we exist. We resolve the Angelic Conflict and both glorify and vindicate God. His love and mercy toward His creatures is revealed in the cross, as is His righteousness and justice. Our daily interaction with God after the cross reaffirms God’s character and essence.

          2)       Why is there sin? Sin is a result of our free will. Satan and a third of the angels chose to sin, and man chose to sin. There is the difference that we are born with a sin nature because Adam sinned; all fallen angels had to go from a sinless state to a fallen state.

          3)       Why God cannot overlook or tolerate sin. There is nothing more vicious than man’s inhumanity to man. Whether this begins as a schoolyard taunt, a mean piece of gossip exchanged, or a radical religious movement which kills people in order to make a political statement; sin causes great pain and suffering. Sin is not something which people are willing to engage in on their own. As an example, people claim that pornography is a victimless crime. However, people are kidnaped and enslaved even today in order to further the pornography (and sex-trade) industry. People are led toward drug-addiction in order to keep them involved in the sex trade. Marriages are destroyed and children’s lives are ruined because of pornography. The results of any sin can be carried out to reveal how damaging that sin can be.

          4)       Why sin must be judged. There are few among us, when we observe man’s cruelty to his fellow man, do not desire to see justice done. Even in a movie, when we are drawn into the evil of some of the characters, it is a great release it is to see these characters receive their comeuppance at the very end of the movie. No one watches a Die Hard movie and is disappointed that Bruce Willis prevails at the end of the movie. That is the satisfying resolution to good versus evil.

          5)       Why is there suffering? Men suffer as a result of sin. This is why God will remove sin completely from our lives in the future. This is also why He will create a new heavens and a new earth, completely separate from the stain of sin.

22.     The Angelic Conflict is not a static event or series of events. Satanic strategy and Satanic attacks change from dispensation to dispensation. Although I will personalize this, and speak of Satan’s attacks, bear in mind, that we are dealing specifically with his strategies, but that much of his strategy is executed by fallen angels, called demons (although, on occasion, Satan will personally attack some believers).

          1)       At the Age of Innocence, Satan observed the man and the woman, and not being content to leave well enough alone, interfered, causing the woman to sin by deceiving her, and the man to sin knowingly, because the woman he loved had sinned.

          2)       Satan’s strategy in the Age of the Gentiles: When God promised a Savior (first to Adam and Eve and later to other believers), Satan’s focus was on this Savior and destroying the line of the Savior. The killing of Abel was probably the first Satanic attack against the line of the Messiah (Satan possibly assumed that Abel was the One promised by God).

          3)       Satan’s Strategy in the Age of Israel, parts I and II: When God called Abraham, and promised to preserve his line and to make a great nation of him, Satan began to attack the line of Abraham as well as the nation Israel.

                     (1)      As an aside, I should point out that, if the Jews are removed from this earth, most of the prophecies found in the Bible become null and void; they cannot be fulfilled. Therefore, from the exodus to this very moment, Satan encourages anti-Semitism and does everything that he can to remove Jews from this earth.

                     (2)      God made a number of promises to Israel—the Abrahamic Covenant and the Davidic Covenant, to name two—and Satan has acted not only to keep this covenants from being fulfilled, but he also acts to cast doubt upon the fulfillment of these covenants. Many Jews today wonder about their relationship to God and the promises which He made to them. In the end times, Jews are going to rediscover books like Esther and passages like Gen. 22, Psalm 89 and Isa. 53, and suddenly their eyes will be opened, and they will understand what those passages are saying to them. I believe that this is where the 144,000 evangelists will spring from during the Tribulation.

                     (3)      Satan also inspires doubt in Gentiles, which respect to God’s fulfillment of His covenants with Israel. One of the results of this is known as Covenant Theology, where all the promises which God made to Israel are reinterpreted and spiritualized, and that the church is seen (falsely) as spiritual Israel and that God’s covenants are transferred over, somehow, to Gentile believers in the Church Age. The idea is, the Jews just sinned too much, God decided that they were not His people, and He started up the church, which has been mostly a gentile organization (although Jews do believe). This is a false system of theology because it calls into questions God’s veracity, His immutability and His omniscience.

                                i          Is God really truthful? He made some very clear promises to Israel, and it is difficult to take God seriously when these promises are spiritualized.

                                ii         We are told that God does not change, but, if He just gave all his promises to Israel over to the church, which requires these promises to be spiritualized in order for them to make sense, then He is not immutable.

                                iii        How can the Jews go so far as to fall outside of God’s plan? Isn’t an omniscient God able to know this is going to happen and to make provision for it?

                                iv        At the very least, Covenant Theology ends up calling into question these 3 attributes of God (these are not tenets of Covenant Theology, but they are logical questions which arise from believing in Covenant Theology (a dispensational interpretation of history is the alternative to Covenant Theology).

                     (4)      Satan did everything that he could to destroy the nation Israel, inspiring countless attacks against them. He had a hand in splitting up Israel into two nations (the northern and southern kingdoms), and a hand in removing Israel’s sovereignty on several occasions.

                     (5)      This should help to explain not only the continual attacks of the surrounding nations against Israel, but it explains the holocaust and it explains the remarkable hatred of Islam for the Jew today.

          4)       Satan’s strategy for the Age of the Hypostatic Union: direct attacks upon Jesus Christ (and, to a lessor extent, His disciples). Here, we have one of the most amazing historical events, simply from the standpoint of strategy. Satan knew Who the Messiah was, and Satan attacked Him in every way possible. Satan did everything he could to move Jesus to the cross, to what he believed would be tremendous humiliation. Satan was able to exercise his considerable hatred toward Jesus throughout this process of Jesus being taken to the cross. However, what Satan did not seem to realize was, God would provide our salvation by means of the cross, and that the cross was His ultimate destination. Blinded by intense hatred, Satan moved Jesus toward the cross, not realizing that the cross would be the turning point in the Angelic Conflict. it is with the cross that Jesus provided all mankind salvation. Had Satan been able to figure this out, he would have done everything possible to keep Jesus from the cross.

          5)       In the Church Age, the Angelic Conflict is intensified for the individual believer. The Messiah promised by God has come, died for our sins, and been resurrected. Therefore, Satan attacks man in general and believers specifically. Satanic strategy moves on two fronts:

                     (1)      Satan tries to blind the unbeliever from the gospel and tries to keep any person from believing in Jesus Christ. Religion plays as great a role in this as does sin. 2Cor. 4:4

                     (2)      Once a person believes in Jesus Christ, Satan does everything that he can to neutralize his spiritual impact. Satan again uses religion to neutralize the spiritual impact of individual believers. This is one reason there are so many Christian cults; this is the reason the Catholic Church has become so corrupt; this is the reason so few Protestant churches concentrate on the teaching of the Bible; this is the reason that so many churches lean toward social action and even toward liberation theology—these attacks keep a believer from growing and having any sort of spiritual impact. Quite obviously, Satan continues to use sin to keep man from growing spiritually. 1Tim. 4:1

          6)       When the church is taken up (the rapture), there will be no one who believes in Jesus Christ left on the earth. There will be 7 more years of the Age of Israel to play out, called the Tribulation in the Bible. Satan will have more power at this time and he will seek to kill every person who believes in Jesus Christ. We know that, for instance, in the history of Communists nations, there will be a strong, charismatic leader who rises up to liberate his people and to offer them hope. Meanwhile, behind the scenes, he is killing every person who is against his revolution for freedom. The Beast will rise up in much the same way, adored by millions, if not billions, of people; who will, at the same time, engage in a vicious holy war against God’s elect. This will be a double-intensification of the Angelic Conflict.

          7)       The Millennium will be marked by perfect environment, the knowledge of God throughout the earth, people being born without sin natures, and Satan being locked up, so to speak. However, Satan will be let out of confinement at the end of the Millennium, and he will again be given limited power, and he will lead some men against God—men who have enjoyed a thousand years of perfect environment. Rev. 20:2–9

          8)       General strategies in all dispensations:

                     (1)      Satan would do anything to make God a liar. So, he will continue to attack and attempt to eradicate the Jews. If there are no Jews in the end times, God cannot fulfill His plan.

                     (2)      In order to make God a liar, Satan will do anything to show even one promise of the Bible to be wrong.

                     (3)      We all associate Satan with sin and evil, but Satan is heavily involved in good as well. Satan attempts to produce human good panaceas—which panaceas often deny the existence or importance of God. Socialism and Communism are clear examples of this, where man has tried to make men equal, which involves the eradication of religion, freedom and, in many cases, life. In this past American presidential campaign (2008), I saw many people paraded in front of us, and their sad and difficult lives revealed, and who or what would solve this? The candidate who parades these people before us. He or she would be the solution to the ills of these people. The idea is, we ought to put our trust and hopes in a particular man or a particular form of government, rather than in God. If our lives are difficult, this has nothing to do with God nor does it have anything to do with us, but it is because the wrong man or the wrong party is in power in government. This is Satanic strategy and it is all about good. Fanatical environmentalism is a Satanic strategy. Clean air and clean water are good things, and that is a part of our taking control of our environment. However, environmentalism has gotten out of control today with such things as global warming mania and the preservation of such animals as the snail darter or the spotted owl. One of the many reasons why US jobs have been shipped overseas is environmentalism, which has shut down industry and building all over the United States (e.g., the lumber industry in the northern United States). These are all strategies where Satan inspires man to try to create a perfect international kingdom here on earth.

                     (4)      Along the same lines of Satan’s involvement with good, many fanatical Islamic groups are also associated with doing good as well, e.g., feeding those who are hungry. Here, Satan is able to combine good works with religion.

                     (5)      Satan would like to establish a perfect environment on this earth, and man is constantly frustrating him. So Satan seeks to establish as much control over man’s free will as possible, to the extent of determining the amount of money man ought to be allowed to make and at what temperature he ought to set his thermostat at home. Satan would like to create a happy balanced world of people, animal life and nature. In this way, he could prove himself to be like the Most High. Satan is behind all international efforts and international control, because it is easier for him to direct and control human behavior if we are all subject to the same government.

                     (6)      Satan would like to establish equality on this earth (not equality of opportunity, which creates inequities, but actual equality).

                     (7)      Satan would like to improve who and what man is, mentally and physically, and eliminate people who are substandard.

23.     Because of Satan’s original sin, because all of his appeals will have been exhausted, God will toss him, the angels which fell and all unsaved men into the Lake of Fire at the end of the Millennium. Rev. 20:10–15

24.     Then God will create a new heavens and a new earth, as the Angelic Conflict will have been resolved. Rev. 21:1

A number of people have covered this particular topic, and their studies are available online:

http://www.gbible.org/_files/pdf/The_Angelic_Conflict_Part1.pdf

http://www.gbible.org/index.php?proc=fea&pid=2

http://www.markkwilliamson.com/angelic_conflict.htm

http://www.eccentrix.com/members/beacon/conflict.htm

http://www.ironrangebible.com/griffith/Angelic_Conflict/angelic_conflict.htm

http://www.cotsk.org/faq/MeaningOfLife.html as well as

http://www.cotsk.org/archives/specialstudies/AppealTrialOfSatan.html

http://www.versebyverse.org/doctrine/angel_con.html

http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/523978 (go down to Moosemose and his answer)

Some of this material came from R. B. Thieme, Jr., Angelic Conflict; ©1971 by R. B. Thieme, Jr. and from Lewis Sperry Chafer, D.D., Litt. D., Th. D.; Systematic Theology; Kregel Publications; ©1976 Dallas Theological Seminary; Vol. 2, pp. 3–38. One or two points came from the links listed above.

There are 4 basic theories when it comes to the creation account of Genesis. The first 3 are the most commonly held to.

Genesis Creation Theories

Theory

Description

Commentary

Literal 6 Day Creation

God created the heavens and the earth and then made the earth habitable by man in 6 literal days.

There are 2 big problems with this theory and they are not what you think: (1) angels are never mentioned in Genesis 1–2 and yet obviously already exist (Gen. 3); when were they created? (2) This theory also suggests that when God created the earth, did He not do a very good job at first, and therefore, had to spend a couple of days fixing what He did. Does that really make sense?

Day Age Theory

Each day of Genesis represents a long period of time—at one time, this was thought to be a 1000 years, but now, people consider each day to represent an age; perhaps millions of years.

This theory surrenders to the evolution theory. It assumes that evolution, to some degree, is true and attempts to reconcile the Bible with evolution. The biggest problem is, it views God as not being quite able to create things correctly from the get-go, but as a God Who must work with His creation and many millions of failures in order to get each stage correct. This approach contradicts the phrase found in this first chapter of Genesis: And God saw that it [whatever He had just formed or created] was good (Gen. 1:10b, 12b, 18b, 21b, 25b).

The idea that God guided evolution so that each mutation was good and worked correctly from the beginning, I have never heard put forth. Perhaps some who believe in this theory, believe that?

We may, of course, leave evolution out of this and believe that God requires a lot of time to create and make everything mentioned on each day.

Another serious problem with the Day Age Theory is, the language used in Genesis 1 seems to emphasize that we are speaking of 24 hour days. And so is evening and so is morning—day one. There are not many ways to express a 24 hour day more clearly than this in the Hebrew.

Gap Theory

The heavens and the earth were all created at some point in time, maybe millions or billions of years ago. This included the creation of the angels who lived on planet earth, which was somewhat different then than it is now. Sometime after a third of the angels sinned, God packed the earth in ice, which is His temporary and partial judgment of Satan’s rebellion. After the Ice Age, God, in 6 literal days, restores the earth to be inhabited by man and then He creates man.

As we have already seen, God did not create this world as vast waste area (Isa. 45:18). Every time He created something, it was good (Gen. 1:4, 10, 12, 18, 21, 25). That means, there were no original design flaws nor did God need to fix or tinker with His creation in order to make it work. The understanding that God creates things perfectly from the beginning is completely consistent with the God of the Bible.

God packs the earth in ice as is related to the angelic rebellion (when a third of the angels fell with Satan—Isa. 14:12–16 Rev. 12:4). From v. 2b on is the restoration of the earth, which takes 4 literal days, after which God populates the earth with animals and man on the 5^th and 6^th days.

This approach is completely consistent with the God of the Bible, with other texts which deal with creation, and with the text of Genesis.

Modified Gap Theory

Although the heavens, the earth and the angels were created at some point in the distant past, God then modified or restored the earth, each day representing some unspecified period of time.

This theory does not necessarily give in to the theory of evolution; it just allows for these things which God does to take longer than a 24 hour day. God is not guiding evolution, but He is simply restoring and creating things over a longer period of time. The biggest problem with this theory (which I have never heard espoused before) is, Genesis 1 appears to be speaking of 24 hour days.

The rationale behind this theory would be, the heating of the waters of the earth would have had to have taken a very long time. the 6^th day has a lot of events occurring in it, which appear to require more than 24 hours.

Modified Gap Theory #2

God creates the heavens and the earth, along with the angels, and provides the light for the earth Himself. The first 3 days of restoration are of an undetermined time period, as there is no sun or stars, so there are no traditional measures of time. At day four, we move into 24-hour creative periods of time.

This unique theory occurred to me and has merit for two reasons: (1) we do not have the sun or the stars or the moon, all of which is used to mark time, until the 4^th day. Therefore, a 24-hour day during restoration days 1–3 makes little sense. Now, I realize that the counter argument here is, an hour is an hour is an hour, whether it is light or dark. However, the language simply speaks of light turning dark and dark turning light. (2) We have language on Day 3 which sounds as if the plants are growing, but, in one 24-hour day, God would have to essentially make them grow as if we are watching time-lapse photography. Now, God is fully capable of this, so it is not God’s capabilities which I am questioning. It is the order of this restoration project, which may imply a time frame different than people have theorized up until this point in time.

The Gap Theory addresses several problems: (1) the idea that God was unable to produce something which worked correctly the first time, and so He needed to spend a few million years getting it to work properly, calls into question God’s power and abilities. (2) Death does not appear to be part of the pristine world into which Adam is introduced; however, a world which came about by means of evolution would have involved a great deal of death. (3) If God created all that there is in these 6 days, why does He not mention angelic creation? Various passages in the Bible indicate that there are angels and that there seems to be a history and an interaction between God and angels which predates man (Job 1–2 Isa. 14:12–16 Rev. 12:4). The Gap theory is consistent with the God of the Bible and it is consistent with the other events of history (angelic creation) presented in the Bible.

The Gap Theory teaches that God created a perfect heavens and earth sometime in prehistoric past (before man). He did not make any mistakes. During this same time period, He created angelic beings who then occupied the earth. There is death during this time period when God packs the earth in ice (after a third of the angels fell, death probably became a part of their world as well—the death of animal and plant life during their time).

We actually have a future precedent which would allow for a restoration of the earth. In the future, God will create a new heavens and a new earth, because they have been corrupted by sin (Rev. 21–22). Therefore, understanding Gen. 1 to be primarily a restoration of the earth is reasonable and completely in line with Scripture.

The idea that the earth is millions of years old is consistent with science insofar as, there are some scientific studies which make the earth out to be very old (these studies do disagree with one another, however). The idea that man is 6000 (or so) years old is consistent with human population growth studies (the idea that man is 1,000,000 years old—as evolutionists believe—is inconsistent with today’s current human population).

Although there are several websites where the Gap Theory is discussed, one very good one is:

http://www.ichthys.com/sr2-copy.htm

He suggests that the first two verses of Genesis be translated: Before all else, God created the heavens and the earth. But the earth came to be ruined and despoiled - darkness lay upon the face of the abyss while God's Spirit brooded over the surface of its waters.

The Bible tells us that God is light and in Him is no darkness at all (1John 1:5b). When restoring the earth, the first thing which God makes apparent is light. Light is something which, to this very day, is not fully understood. Science is able to describe what light does or how it interacts with that which is in its path, but science does not fully understand what light is, even to this day.

I spoke of the Trinity and here, in v. 3, we have light. Light helps to give us an example of something which is a trinity—light is one in essence, unable to be separated, but there are 3 components to it. Light is luminiferous, calorific and actinic.

How Light Illustrates the Trinity

Property

Description

Parallel

Actinism

The actinic property of light produces photochemical effects. Actinism is neither seen nor felt, but it can produce actual chemical reactions when in contact with matter.

This illustrates God the Father, Who, although not seen nor felt, changes that which He comes into contact with.

Luminance

The luminiferous property of light is what allows us to see things. Objects reflect light which is shined upon them, and we see these objects for what they are. The luminiferous property of light is both seen and felt

This illustrates God the Son, Whom is seen and felt, and Who reveals the true nature of man.

Calorescence

The calorific property of light is its energy, which produces heat. When light is shined upon an object, that object is heated. The calorific property of light is felt but not seen.

This illustrates God the Holy Spirit, Who, because He does not glorify Himself, is felt but not seen.

Light is a package deal. You cannot physically separate the calorific property of light from its actinism. The components or properties of light can only be separated academically or theoretically. They all go together. Light is one, yet it has 3 distinguishable yet inseparable properties or components. This is God—God is one in essence, yet 3 in person. Theoretically, we can separate God into God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit.

When it comes to God’s interaction with man and with the universe, we can assign specific actions to specific members of the Trinity; for instance, in relations to creation, God the Father is the Designer; God the Son is the Builder; and God the Holy Spirit provides the energy. However, God’s essence is such that, we cannot completely separate God into 3 Gods no more than we can divide light into 3 separate entities.

Light helps us in other ways to understand God. God has various characteristics which make up His essence. God is love, righteousness, justice, eternal life, truth, omnipotence, etc. However, when God essence shines upon this or that circumstance, we may only see 2 or 3 of the components of this essence, just as, when light is reflected from a surface, we see what that surface reflects and we do not see what that surface absorbs. That is, light contains all of the colors of the rainbow, but when light is shown upon a red surface, we only see the red, as yellow and blue are absorbed by that surface. Now for the analogy: when Jesus healed in the Bible, we see God’s love, compassion and omnipotence revealed. When Jesus spoke, God’s truth and omniscience are revealed. When God flooded the earth, His omnipotence, righteousness and justice are revealed. So, each time that God’s light is shown upon this or that circumstance, what is apparent to us is a subset of His essence.

This is also important when understanding Who Jesus Christ is. When Jesus Christ speaks—since He is man, since He is God, and since He is the Hypostatic Union of man and God—not everything He says reflects the entirety of His being. When Jesus says, “I thirst” or “The Father is greater than Me,” He is speaking from His humanity. When He says, “Before Abraham, I am [i.e., I existed eternally],” He is speaking from His Deity. When He says, “I am the way, the truth and the life; no man comes to the Father but by Me,” He is speaking from His Hypostatic Union.

Understanding that each action of God does not reveal each and every characteristic of Him (at least, not apparently) and that each thing that Jesus says may refer to one of His three natures, keeps us from falling into cults and believing Christian cult doctrines. This also keeps us from saying stupid things like, “The God of the Old Testament is a mean, vengeful God, but the God of the New Testament is compassionate and caring.”

There are actually three theories with respect to the light here on day one and the sun on day four.

Light on Day One/the Sun on Day Four

The first theory is that the sun was a part of God creating the heavens and the earth in the first place (Gen. 1:1), and that it had always been there, and that, when the Holy Spirit warmed the surface of the earth, melting the ice which encased the earth, the light of the sun became visible upon the surface of the earth. Being able to see the sun from the earth as a distinguishable heavenly body does not occur until the 4^th day. We have all been out in foggy weather or on a cloudy day, where it was light, but we could not see the sun itself. That is what this first theory suggests. The language on this day and day four allow for this interpretation, as God says, “Let light be, and light is” and on day four, God says, “Let lights be in the place of the heavens,...and so it was.” (Gen. 1:14a, 15b; more explanation will be required when we come to day four).

A second point of view—and I am admittedly torn between these two—is that the light over the earth is God; and the Holy Spirit provided the heat which melted the ice packed earth. As the ice melted, the light of God became more and more visible from the earth below, piercing further and further into the newly melted waters and humid atmosphere. In other words, the light here is God’s light, and not from a solar body. Rev. 21:23 tells us that the glory of God, and not the sun or moon, will light up the New Jerusalem. This theory would hold that the sun and moon were not created until the 4^th day.

I suppose that we could actually have a third point of view where the sun is, at this time, up in the sky, not visible on the surface of the earth yet, but that God’s light is visible on the earth, and, in a few days, the sun will be visible from the earth, separate from the light of God.

If I was to lean toward any theory, it would be the third theory—that God is Light and in Him is no darkness at all—and it is His Light here which shines upon the earth and melts the frozen encasement. However, given the language of this verse and vv. 14–16, any one of these 3 theories is reasonable (I will wait until we get to Day Four before I explain in detail vv. 14–16).

Light is an extremely important concept in Scripture. Therefore, let me pursue a few places in the Bible where we have references to light.

The Doctrine of Light

1.       When restoring the earth, the first thing which God does is provide light for the earth. This makes the earth visible to anyone on the earth (e.g., angelic life) and possibly is involved in heating the earth as well. Gen. 1:2–3

2.       As we have already seen, light can be broken down into 3 component parts, which can be separated from one another theoretically, but not in actuality: actinic light, luminiferous light and calorific light. This helps to illustrate the Trinity, wherein God is always presented as One God—He is One in essence; but He exists in 3 persons.

3.       The Bible tells us that God is light, and in Him is no darkness at all. 1John 1:5

          1)       This is because light can be used to illustrate God as One and as the Trinity.

          2)       God reveals man exactly for what man is (as light reveals the colors of an object it is shined upon.

          3)       There is no part of God which needs to be hidden; there are no hidden characteristics of God. There is nothing about God which cannot be exposed to us which could indicate that there is anything wrong with his character.

          4)       Light is absolutely necessary for our existence, just as God is.

4.       Jesus proclaims, “I am the light of the world.” John 8:12 9:5

5.       The gospel (the good news as to Who Jesus is and what He has done) is light. 2Cor. 4:4

6.       The gospel brings us out of spiritual darkness into the light. Luke 1:79 1Peter 2:9 cf. Col. 1:12-14

7.       Believers should always be aware that Satan presents himself as an angel of light. This is why all religion is of Satan. 2Cor. 11:14

8.       The glory of God will provide the light for the new Jerusalem. Rev. 21:24

There are at least two places on the internet where you can find a more complete doctrine of Light:

http://www.portlandbiblechurch.com/DoctrineFolder/DOCTRINE%20OF%20LIGHT.pdf

http://www.swordofthespiritbibleministries.com/RJSonnet/RJSonnetNOTES/RJS%20Notes%20DLi%20Doc%20of%20Light.pdf

In the Bible, in both the Greek and the Hebrew, the word day does not always refer to a 24-hour period of time.

How Long is a Day?

Length of Time

Examples

Less than 24 hours

In Gen. 1:16, God made the sun to rule over the day, which would be a 12 hour period of time.

Adam is warned about eating from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, because the day in which he eats from this tree, dying, he would die (Gen. 2:17b). Adam died spiritually the instant that he ate the fruit that Eve offered him. Satan speaks of the day in which the fruit of this tree is eaten, and this would be an instantaneous result.

God walking in the breeze of the day in the Garden of Eden would be during a 12 hour period of time (Gen. 3:8). See also Gen. 8:22. In Gen. 18:1, the heat of the day refers to a particular time of the day, which would refer to a period of several hours. The emphasis is not upon any duration of time, but more to a time-window, during which, God came to Abraham.

More than 24 hours.

Adam died physically about 930 years after eating from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. That means that in one verse (Gen. 2:17), we have day referring to an instant and, at the same time, to 930 years.

A passage often quoted is 2Peter 3:8, which reads: But, beloved, do not forget this one thing, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. The context is patience, waiting on the Lord for His coming. God is waiting for all to come to a change of mind about Him. What this does not mean is, anytime we feel like it, we can say that this or that day in Scripture suddenly represents 1000 years. That is a complete misapplication of 2Peter 3:8.

24-hour day

Gen. 1:5: God calls the darkness night, the light day; there is an evening and there is morning, day one. You will note the first use of this word is actually a 12-hour period of time; the second is a 24-hour period of time.

The Sabbath day is always seen as a 24-hour period of time, beginning at sunset on Friday evening and continuing until sunset of Saturday evening (Gen. 2:3). It is important to recognize that the Sabbath day is first related to the 6 days of creation, which further suggests that these are all 24 hour periods of time.

When a day is numbered, we are either referring to that specific day or to that 24 hour period. Generally speaking, when a day is numbered, the emphasis is not upon the 24 hours, but upon that specific day in time.

Reference to a specific day in time

The exact time that the rain began to fall to begin the great flood of Noah is noted in Gen. 7:11. On that day, Noah and his family entered into the ark (Gen. 7:13). See also Gen. 8:4, 14 21:8 24:42 25:31, 33. The emphasis in these passages is not upon a specific period of time, but upon a particular date in time. Even though that particular date in time might be considered a 24 hour period of time, the emphasis is not upon the duration of that day, but upon its actual date. That seems to be general use when a day is numbered.

An undetermined period of time

Gen. 2:4 reads: These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created in the day that Jehovah God was making earth and heavens. This actually is the beginning of Gen. 2, and some details are given which relate to the creation of the earth, the restoration of the earth, and some things which took place. Given what follows, day here refers to a very long period of time.

If you have looked at any of these references, we find that most of the time that day is used, we are speaking not of a 24 hour duration of time but more often to a marker in time. Using the word day to refer to some lengthy duration of time does occur, but it is the rare exception and not the rule. Furthermore, such a use is often modified in some way (for instance, the Day of the Lord) and not found in conjunction with the words evening and morning, which are used in Gen. 1 to mark specific occurrences within a 24 hour day.

Although we may see ourselves as living during a period of God’s rest, during His Sabbath (see Heb. 4:3–4), that is not enough to require the creative days of Genesis to be longer than 24 hours.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/could-god-have-created-in-six-days is a good resource for further reading on this particular topic.

I do not want to spend a lot of time on this particular topic, even though this is one which I enjoy reading about and discussing (hundreds of books have been written about this topic).

Some of the Arguments Against Evolution

1.       From the standpoint of population growth:

          1)       Scientists can and do make predictions on the growth of various populations.

          2)       All human and animal populations approximately grow according to an exponential equation, called the growth curve. Even though there is war, famine, disease and death, the growth of the world population always will approximate this growth curve, which is found in nearly every Pre-Calculus and Calculus book written (at one time, this used to be found in every Algebra II book as well). There are slightly different forms of this exponential equation, which vary according to the base used (2, e or 10), but these equations produce the exact same results.

          3)       When I was a math teacher, I would teach my students how to deal with population growth equations and how to solve them; then I would take my students to the library and tell them to take the world population figures (or estimates) from any two periods of time, and use this population growth equation to extrapolate backwards in time to when there were 10 people (or 100 people). I reminded my students that they have been taught in their science classes that modern man is 1,000,000 years old. For that reason, we should expect the population growth equation to take us back that far in time. I reminded them that this was all approximate, so that they might come up with 1.3 million years or 800,000 years or something like that. What happened? Every single student, no matter where he got his data from, came up with man’s age to be anywhere from 1000 years to 25,000 years old. According to their calculations, this is the age of man. The largest number still differs from evolutionary theory by a factor of 40. What this means is, the population of the world would have to build up to present-day sizes, and then disappear or be dwindled down to essentially nothing—and that this would have to occur about 40 times in order for evolutionary theory to match mathematical modeling (the mathematical modeling presented in every single Pre-Calculus and Calculus book used in America).

          4)       Although most evolutionary theorists might allow for a handful of such world-wide population decimations, none posit that there have been 40 of them.

          5)       Based upon the data available to us, mathematically speaking, it is logical for man to be 6000–10,000 years old, which completely squares with the Bible. On the other hand, it is mathematically illogical to assert that man is 1 million years old.

2.       Arguing from the standpoint of the location of human and pre-human fossils in time:

          1)       Evolutionary theory teaches that, first there was homo habilis, then there was homo erectus and then there was homo sapiens, each specie of man living for approximately 1 million years each.

          2)       For each change of specie, one would crowd out and replace the other. This is known as survival of the fittest.

          3)       Another teacher (Martin Lubenow) would give his students the names of well-known and lesser-known human fossils and he would ask his students to research their fossils (they drew the names of fossils out of a hat). Once a person found two different scientists who agreed on the age of that fossil, then they would place that fossil in time and classify it as to what kind of a human it was.

          4)       What we would expect is, almost all of the homo habilis fossils would be located in time between 2 and 3 mya (million years ago); almost all of the homo erectus fossils would be found 1 to 2 mya; and all of the homo sapiens fossils would be found to be no more than 1 million years old. That is what evolution would predict, although there may be, of course, some mixing and overlap around the transition points.

          5)       The end result was quite different. These fossils were scattered evenly and randomly throughout time (according to the figures of evolution scientists). Some of the very oldest human fossils in existence are homo sapiens, which is the opposite of what evolution would posit.

          6)       So, even using the data and figures provided by evolutionists (which can be called into question), human fossils are not found in the time period in which they are supposed to be found.

3.       There are two things which we would expect evolutionists, as scientists: we would expect them to have published a book and set up website which list all of the various human and pre-human fossils.

          1)       Such a book or website ought to include: where the fossil was found, who discovered the fossil, who has possession of the fossil, how much of the fossil exists, photographs of the fossil if possible, what kind of research has been done on the fossil, what is the age of the fossil, how was this age determined, and what is the proper classification of the fossil. Furthermore, are there any disputes within these areas, and what is the dispute about? We would also expect there to be charts as to where these fossils are found in the earth and when they are found in a timeline. Given the fact that we can go to the internet and find every television show which has been on tv, a list of the cast and characters, the plots and subplots, and a pile of minutia, why don’t red-blooded, dedicated evolutionists do the same for their cause?

          2)       The problem with such a site or such a book is, it would not reveal a clear-cut evolution of man, as is pounded into the brains of school children everywhere. The unlearned would look at this and recognize that there is a problem with evolution—that their own data does not line up with their theory.

4.       The geological layers:

          1)       Related to evolution are the geological layers, and most of us have seen them: at the very bottom is the Pre-Cambrian era, with the Cambrian era on top of that, with the Devonian layer above that, the Mississippian layer above that, etc.

          2)       There is one place where we can find all of the geological layers where they ought to be in the correct order, and that is in a textbook. Some do allege that there are several places on this earth where these layers exist in the same order. However, in 95% of the earth, these geological layers are scattered randomly. You are led to believe that human fossils come from the higher strata and that dinosaurs and prehistoric plants are found in the lowest strata, but that is simply not true.

          3)       How do evolutionists explain this? They develop more theories to prop up their theory of evolution and geology. So, one of the additional propositions we must buy into is, over the millions of years, there have been huge geological shifts, where one entire layer of earth will somehow slips in between two other layers, or one layer somehow sinks to the very bottom. Now, I might buy into this theory if this were the case here or there; but the location of these various strata is just random. Such theories should explain why maybe 5% of the time, there is deviation from what we would expect. However, such wild theories should not explain why geological layers are randomly scattered 95% of the time.

          4)       Secondly, it is decidedly unscientific to prove a theory with another theory. When a theory does not match the evidence, then addition theories do not logically prop up the original theory. At some point in time, there needs to be some kind of evidence which is fits the theories and supports the theories. One unsubstantiated theory logically cannot be used to prop up another unsubstantiated theory.

          5)       What this means is, the oldest fossils are not found in the bottom layer, and as we go up to the next layer up, we find newer fossils. Not at all. The evolutionist finds the fossil, he determines what the fossil is and where it belongs in time, and then he decides how to classify that strata. So, it is not unusual for a dig to be looking at Cambrian fossils which also turn out to be the top layer or the second layer of dirt.

5.       One of the things taught by evolution is how simple the single cell is, and how that is the beginning of life. To be fair, this is more implied than anything else. We get the impression that the single cell is a very simple and basic thing, and that we should not be surprised if this life just occurred spontaneously. Frank Salisbury, an evolutionary scientist, admits: "Now we know that the cell itself is far more complex than we had imagined. It includes thousands of functioning enzymes, each one of them a complex machine in itself. Furthermore, each enzyme comes into being in response to a gene, a strand of DNA. The information content of the gene (it's complexity) must be as great as that of the enzyme it controls. A medium protein might include about 300 amino acids. The DNA gene controlling this would have about 1,000 nucleotides in its chain, one consisting of a 1,000 links could exist in 4¹⁰⁰⁰ different forms. Using a little algebra (logarithms) we can see that 4¹⁰⁰⁰ = 10⁶⁰⁰. Ten multiplied by itself 600 times gives us the figure '1' followed by 600 zeros! This number is completely beyond our comprehension." The simplest life form that we are aware of is far more complex than we could have ever imagined, and not likely something which would have just spontaneously occurred in some mix of primordial ooze.

6.       There are many other arguments. Just being taken through the various human fossils, finding out how much of that fossil exists, and what is really true about it and what is not, is a fascinating study in itself.

Obviously, I believe strongly in Creationism and Intelligent Design. Does this mean that I want to invade all of our public schools and have these things taught? Not necessarily. I would be happy if evolution was simply presented fairly and honestly, with the scientific arguments for and against the theory presented. High school and college students are never made aware that there are serious problems with the theory of evolution and that even evolutionists disagree about everything except for, the fact of evolution.

A teacher who would allow various students to research and debate this issue would be fantastic, in my opinion. Students would learn research, debate technique and evolution, all within one unit (which would be quite interdisciplinary, which is all the rage in education, last time I looked). This might even cause some students to become quite interested in science. The problem is, most evolutionists want children to believe in evolution, so they never present evidence which is to the contrary; they never reveal long-standing arguments between evolutionary scientists. The present a very orderly, sterile, unquestioning view of evolution, and act as if all science believes in it.

High school and college students need to hear what evolutionists themselves say: Professor Jerome Lejeune, an Internationally recognized geneticist, at a lecture given in Paris "We have no acceptable theory of evolution at the present time. There is none; and I cannot accept the theory that I teach to my students each year. Let me explain: I teach the synthetic theory known as the neo-Darwinian one, for one reason only; not because it's good, we know it is bad, but because there isn't any other. Whilst waiting to find something better you are taught something which is known to be inexact, which is a first approximation."

Here is a statement that many scientists signed onto:

"I am skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."

Henry F.Schaefer: Director, Center for Computational Quantum Chemistry: U. of Georgia • Fred Sigworth: Prof. of Cellular & Molecular Physiology- Grad. School: Yale U. • Philip S. Skell: Emeritus Prof. Of Chemistry: NAS member • Frank Tipler: Prof. of Mathematical Physics: Tulane U. • Robert Kaita: Plasma Physics Lab: Princeton U. • Michael Behe: Prof. of Biological Science: Lehigh U. • Walter Hearn: PhD Biochemistry-U of Illinois • Tony Mega: Assoc. Prof. of Chemistry: Whitworth College • Dean Kenyon: Prof. Emeritus of Biology: San Francisco State U. • Marko Horb: Researcher, Dept. of Biology & Biochemistry: U. of Bath, UK • Daniel Kubler: Asst. Prof. of Biology: Franciscan U. of Steubenville • David Keller: Assoc. Prof. of Chemistry: U. of New Mexico • James Keesling: Prof. of Mathematics: U. of Florida • Roland F. Hirsch: PhD Analytical Chemistry-U. of Michigan • Robert Newman: PhD Astrophysics-Cornell U. • Carl Koval: Prof., Chemistry & Biochemistry: U. of Colorado, Boulder • Tony Jelsma: Prof. of Biology: Dordt College • William A.Dembski: PhD Mathematics-U. of Chicago: • George Lebo: Assoc. Prof. of Astronomy: U. of Florida • Timothy G. Standish: PhD Environmental Biology-George Mason U. • James Keener: Prof. of Mathematics & Adjunct of Bioengineering: U. of Utah • Robert J. Marks: Prof. of Signal & Image Processing: U. of Washington • Carl Poppe: Senior Fellow: Lawrence Livermore Laboratories • Siegfried Scherer: Prof. of Microbial Ecology: Technische Universitaet Muenchen • Gregory Shearer: Internal Medicine, Research: U. of California, Davis • Joseph Atkinson: PhD Organic Chemistry-M.I.T.: American Chemical Society, member • Lawrence H. Johnston: Emeritus Prof. of Physics: U. of Idaho • Scott Minnich: Prof., Dept of Microbiology, Molecular Biology & Biochem: U. of Idaho • David A. DeWitt: PhD Neuroscience-Case Western U. • Theodor Liss: PhD Chemistry-M.I.T. • Braxton Alfred: Emeritus Prof. of Anthropology: U. of British Columbia • Walter Bradley: Prof. Emeritus of Mechanical Engineering: Texas A & M • Paul D. Brown: Asst. Prof. of Environmental Studies: Trinity Western U. (Canada) • Marvin Fritzler: Prof. of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology: U. of Calgary, Medical School • Theodore Saito: Project Manager: Lawrence Livermore Laboratories • Muzaffar Iqbal: PhD Chemistry-U. of Saskatchewan: Center for Theology the Natural Sciences • William S. Pelletier: Emeritus Distinguished Prof. of Chemistry: U. of Georgia, Athens • Keith Delaplane: Prof. of Entomology: U. of Georgia • Ken Smith: Prof. of Mathematics: Central Michigan U. • Clarence Fouche: Prof. of Biology: Virginia Intermont College • Thomas Milner: Asst. Prof. of Biomedical Engineering: U. of Texas, Austin • Brian J.Miller: PhD Physics-Duke U. • Paul Nesselroade: Assoc. Prof. of Psychology: Simpson College • Donald F.Calbreath: Prof. of Chemistry: Whitworth College • William P. Purcell: PhD Physical Chemistry-Princeton U. • Wesley Allen: Prof. of Computational Quantum Chemistry: U. of Georgia • Jeanne Drisko: Asst. Prof., Kansas Medical Center: U. of Kansas, School of Medicine • Chris Grace: Assoc. Prof. of Psychology: Biola U. • Wolfgang Smith: Prof. Emeritus-Mathematics: Oregon State U. • Rosalind Picard: Assoc. Prof. Computer Science: M.I.T. • Garrick Little: Senior Scientist, Li-Cor: Li-Cor • John L. Omdahl: Prof. of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology: U. of New Mexico • Martin Poenie: Assoc. Prof. of Molecular Cell & Developmental Bio: U. of Texas, Austin • Russell W.Carlson: Prof. of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology: U. of Georgia • Hugh Nutley: Prof. Emeritus of Physics & Engineering: Seattle Pacific U. • David Berlinski: PhD Philosophy-Princeton: Mathematician, Author • Neil Broom: Assoc. Prof., Chemical & Materials Engineeering: U. of Auckland • John Bloom: Assoc. Prof., Physics: Biola U. • James Graham: Professional Geologist, Sr. Program Manager: National Environmental Consulting Firm • John Baumgardner: Technical Staff, Theoretical Division: Los Alamos National Laboratory • Fred Skiff: Prof. of Physics: U. of Iowa • Paul Kuld: Assoc. Prof., Biological Science: Biola U. • Yongsoon Park: Senior Research Scientist: St. Luke's Hospital, Kansas City • Moorad Alexanian: Prof. of Physics: U. of North Carolina, Wilmington • Donald Ewert: Director of Research Administration: Wistar Institute • Joseph W. Francis: Assoc. Prof. of Biology: Cedarville U. • Thomas Saleska: Prof. of Biology: Concordia U. • Ralph W. Seelke: Prof. & Chair of Dept. of Biology & Earth Sciences: U. of Wisconsin, Superior • James G. Harman: Assoc. Chair, Dept. of Chemistry & Biochemistry: Texas Tech U. • Lennart Moller: Prof. of Environmental Medicine, Karolinska Institute: U. of Stockholm • Raymond G. Bohlin: PhD Molecular & Cell Biology-U. of Texas: • Fazale R. Rana: PhD Chemistry-Ohio U. • Michael Atchison: Prof. of Biochemistry: U. of Pennsylvania, Vet School • William S. Harris: Prof. of Basic Medical Sciences: U. of Missouri, Kansas City • Rebecca W. Keller: Research Prof., Dept. of Chemistry: U. of New Mexico • Terry Morrison: PhD Chemistry-Syracuse U. • Robert F. DeHaan: PhD Human Development-U. of Chicago • Matti Lesola: Prof., Laboratory of Bioprocess Engineering: Helsinki U. of Technology • Bruce Evans: Assoc. Prof. of Biology: Huntington College • Jim Gibson: PhD Biology-Loma Linda U. • David Ness: PhD Anthropology-Temple U. • Bijan Nemati: Senior Engineer: Jet Propulsion Lab (NASA) • Edward T. Peltzer: Senior Research Specialist: Monterey Bay Research Institute • Stan E. Lennard: Clinical Assoc. Prof. of Surgery: U. of Washington • Rafe Payne: Prof. & Chair, Biola Dept. of Biological Sciences: Biola U. • Phillip Savage: Prof. of Chemical Engineering: U. of Michigan • Pattle Pun: Prof. of Biology: Wheaton College • Jed Macosko: Postdoctoral Researcher-Molecular Biology: U. of California, Berkeley • Daniel Dix: Assoc. Prof. of Mathematics: U. of South Carolina • Ed Karlow: Chair, Dept. of Physics: LaSierra U. • James Harbrecht: Clinical Assoc. Prof.: U. of Kansas Medical Center • Robert W. Smith: Prof. of Chemistry: U. of Nebraska, Omaha • Robert DiSilvestro: PhD Biochemistry-Texas A & M U., Professor, Human Nutrition, Ohio State University • David Prentice: Prof., Dept. of Life Sciences: Indiana State U. • Walt Stangl: Assoc. Prof. of Mathematics: Biola U. • Jonathan Wells: PhD Molecular & Cell Biology-U. of California, Berkeley: • James Tour: Chao Prof. of Chemistry: Rice U. • Todd Watson: Asst. Prof. of Urban & Community Forestry: Texas A & M U. • Robert Waltzer: Assoc. Prof. of Biology: Belhaven College • Vincente Villa: Prof. of Biology: Southwestern U. • Richard Sternberg: Pstdoctoral Fellow, Invertebrate Biology: Smithsonian Institute • James Tumlin: Assoc. Prof. of Medicine: Emory U. Charles Thaxton: PhD Physical Chemistry-Iowa State U.

From: http://www.creationevolution.net/

My point is, if you do not believe in evolution, you are not alone and you are not anti-science.