Free old earth creationist books!

Hello, dear readers!  I have a small inventory of books that I’ve purchased at discounted rates which I would like to give away to those who are sincerely interested in old-earth creationism.  Because of the small size of my inventory, I can only give away one copy of each book that is requested.   If you would like, please submit your name to me in a private message, and I will have a drawing on Friday, April 20th at 8:00 PM EST.  If your name is selected, you are eligible to choose which books you would like to have mailed to you.  A photo is shown below of my little inventory of books available in this drawing.  I will also pay for shipping costs.  Thank you so much!




New social media site!

Hey there!

I’m sorry I haven’t blogged in so long–I think it was late February or early March since I produced my last entry.  Part of the reason for that is because I’ve been involved in a free book distribution project (which has had some success to it).

I want to tell you about a new social media network I joined recently.  It’s called MeWe, it has some nice features to it, doesn’t seem too hard to navigate, and—it’s free to join!  I’ve also set up a group on MeWe called Old Earth Creationism.  Our group is small, but it is growing, and we welcome people from all countries who are either old-earth creationists, or who are sincerely interested in learning about/discussing such beliefs, and the scientific facts attendant to OEC.   The website to find us at is: .

Someday, I hope to enter more blog entries, but for now, I’m content with the book project and helping manage a new social media group.

Besides that, I’m out of ideas to write about.


God, Natural-Law & Miracles: guest article by Peter Berean

Hello!  I’ve gotten permission from Peter Berean to repost this article from his Facebook group known as Sanctuary II.  This is the blog in its entirety; I’ve added a couple of my own notes following the end of this piece.  Enjoy!


P1. God uses a combination of Natural-Law and Miracles to accomplish his purposes in the Universe.

P2. God created the universe as a tiny singularity (like a tiny human egg). That was a miracle.

P3. God created and fine-tuned the laws of nature to enable that singularity to then grow to form the physical universe with just those physical laws and properties that would enable life to exist for an extended period of time. That was a miracle (or miracles).

P4. Just like God has instituted natural-law processes that form a human body out of a fertilized human egg…

P5. Similarly, God created natural law processes that expand the universe out of the singularity, have energy (photons) condense to form particles which then coalesce to form hydrogen atoms etc… and then gravity attracts the atoms to form dust and stars and planets through the nebular gas-cloud contraction process.

P6. At times, God then steps in to perform a miracle (to do something that would not happen by God’s ordained natural laws).

P7. The list below provides a compendium of items that are all Miracles (not natural-law processes).

P8. List of Miracles by God.

A) The Big Bang to create the Universe ex-nihilo.

B) The fine-tuned physical parameters of the universe for life to exist.

C) The Miracle-creation of first-life.

D) The miracle-creation of each of the biological phyla, and likely down to the Order-Family taxonomic levels.

E) The miracle-creation of Intelligent and Spiritual Homo sapiens sapiens spiritualis.  [1]

F) And the later human-oriented miracles in the OT and NT.

P9. So, God uses a background of natural law in the physical universe.

P10. BUT, he steps in at times, to perform a miracle that would not have otherwise happened purely by Natural Law.

C1. God uses a background of natural law in the physical universe. BUT, he steps in at times, to perform a miracle that would not have otherwise happened purely by Natural Law.  [2]

C2. P8 provides a list of such miracles.

In Christ’s love.


[1]  I take this to mean that homo sapiens sapiens–that is, us!–were miraculously created, separately from the other hominids that existed at that time.

[2] D.C. noted that God steps in at times without breaking natural laws, i.e., providential timing.  I agree.

Did Adam Arise From Ancient Hominids?


So here is the question: “Did Adam arise from ancient hominids?”


I admit that, after some consideration, that I still believe in the historicity of Adam and Eve, and that these were two literal persons, not mythical or allegorical figures. I also am not convinced that the progenitors of humankind arose from a population of hominids, either, from how certain verses in Genesis 1 and 2 are constructed.

So, where do we start?
Let’s start with Scripture:

Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth living creatures after their kind: cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth after their kind”; and it was so. God made the beasts of the earth after their kind, and the cattle after their kind, and everything that creeps on the ground after its kind; and God saw that it was good.

Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. God blessed them; and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth.” Then God said, “Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the surface of all the earth, and every tree which has fruit yielding seed; it shall be food for you; and to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the sky and to every thing that moves on the earth which has life, I have given every green plant for food”; and it was so. God saw all that He had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day. (Genesis 1:24-31, NASB)

This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made earth and heaven. Now no shrub of the field was yet in the earth, and no plant of the field had yet sprouted, for the Lord God had not sent rain upon the earth, and there was no man to cultivate the ground. But a mist used to rise from the earth and water the whole surface of the ground. Then the Lord God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being. (Genesis 2: 4-7, NASB)

Before we discuss the historicity of Adam in the Scriptures, let’s examine the creation account of Genesis 1 and 2. So what we have are not two separate creation stories, as some scholars would advocate, but rather: A) a general account of creation on the sixth day (yôm) [1] in Genesis 1, and, B) a recapitulation of the story of the sixth day of creation in Genesis 2, filling in details that were left out in the Genesis 1 account about the creation of man. Genesis 2 also refocuses the story from the whole earth to the land in the vicinity of Eden, and we can know this because the account in Genesis 2 begins to narrow in on the land of Eden and the river which flowed out of it, which subsequently divided and become four rivers. The word ‘erets, which is used in this section of Genesis 2, can mean ‘earth’ or ‘land’, but in this context, it would be better translated as ‘land’. The English Standard Version renders Genesis 2:5 this way: “When no bush of the field was yet in the land and no small plant of the field had yet sprung up—for the LORD God had not caused it to rain on the land, and there was no man to work the ground…”

I recently bought a Kindle version of C. John Collins’s excellent work, titled _Genesis 1-4: A Linguistic, Literary, and Theological Commentary (P & R Publishing, 2005), and, at the top of this page of chapter 5 is where Collins elaborates on the term ‘land’ being used:

C. John Collins 'eretz land

With that excursus aside, here is Genesis 2:7, 15 (NASB): “Then the Lord God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being….Then the Lord God took the man and put him into the garden of Eden to cultivate it and keep it.” The NASB, along with the KJV and several other Bible versions, render the wording in Genesis 2:7 as “the Lord God formed man”, but other Bibles, such as the English Standard Version, translate it as “the man” instead of just “man”, and I believe that they are more correct on this. Young’s Literal Translation reads: “And Jehovah God formeth the man — dust from the ground, and breatheth into his nostrils breath of life, and the man becometh a living creature.” Also, from Dr. Hugh Ross: “Genesis 2:7 (man became a living being) has the waw-consecutive [2] with haya in a manner that would mean ‘became.'” [3]

It should be obvious, in Genesis 2:7, that the man is singular, by the phrase “man became a living being” (emphasis mine, NASB) and “man became a living soul” (emphasis mine, KJV). However, there are some people in the theistic evolution/evolutionary creationist community who believe that Adam and Eve arose from the hominids; specifically, that they were endowed with souls and cognitive capacities which would have made them far different than the hominid populations that existed at that time in history. Dr. Loren Haarsma of BioLogos would label this perspective of Adam and Eve “as a transformed pair of ancient representative-ancestors of all humanity.” [4] Viewed from that angle, it would be possible I think, from a theistic evolutionary vantage point, to read Genesis 2:7 this way: “Then the Lord God formed man [the hominids] of dust from the ground, and breathed into his [Adam’s] nostrils the breath of life; and man [Adam] became a living being.” But the fact that the correct translation would be “the Lord God formed the man of dust from the ground…” seems, in my opinion, to eliminate the possibility of Adam and Eve having roots from ancient hominids.

The Scriptures tell us that Adam was created from the “dust of the ground”, which, in Hebrew, would be translated as “aphar min ha’adamah”, with a meaning of “dirt from the ground”. The name ‘Adam’ implies a meaning of ‘red clay’ or ‘red earth’. Professor David Snoke of the University of Pittsburgh wrote: “The word “Adam” in Hebrew actually comes the same root as the Hebrew word for “muddy” or “earthy”; it carries a connotation of “ruddy” or “dark red.” [5] So, it’s extremely probable that our forefather Adam was molded and shaped from clay. The argument that man was fashioned from clay is ameliorated by a passage from Job, where Elihu (not one of Job’s three friends) said to Job, “Behold, I belong to God like you; I too have been formed out of the clay” (Job 33:6).  However, what about the beasts of the field and birds of the sky, who were formed “out of the ground” (NASB)?  It would appear that Adam would have been created through the same process as the other ‘beasts’.  It’s here that I will insert something from page 70 of Dr. Hugh Ross’s book, Navigating Genesis, pertaining to Adam as a reflection of God’s image:

page 70 Navigating Genesis

Oh, and then there is Genesis 1:27. In that passage, we read: “God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them” (NASB) Almost all Bible translations render the verse as “God created man”, but Young’s Literal Translation reads differently: “And God prepareth the man in His image; in the image of God He prepared him, a male and a female He prepared them.” This translation would be in accordance with what has been discussed earlier with Genesis 2:7 and “the man”, not “man”, contained therein.  [6]

In the words of Kenneth Samples, of Reasons to Believe: “God supernaturally created Adam directly, immediately, and in a fully functional form from the dust of the ground (Gen.2:7), and Eve was created later from the body of Adam (Gen.2:21-23) [7]

I realize that not everyone will agree with the contents of what I’ve written.  There is much more to be said—particularly from the New Testament–about Adam, and Christ, but that will have to wait until Part Two.  Lord willing, I should have that blog up in a few days.  See you then!

1) Dr. Hugh Ross writes: ““The Hebrew word yôm, translated “day,” is used in biblical Hebrew (as in modern English) to indicate any of four time periods: (a) some portion of the daylight (hours); (b) sunrise to sunset; (c) sunset to sunset; or (d) a segment of time without any reference to solar days (from weeks to a year to several years to an age or epoch). Yôm cannot, however, be interpreted as indefinite (such as anytime or someday) or as infinite time. William Wilson, in his Old Testament Word Studies, explains that yôm is ‘frequently put for time in general, or for a long time; a whole period under consideration…Day [yôm] is also put for a particular season or time when any extraordinary event happens.’” (from Chapter 7 of A Matter of Days by Hugh Ross)
2) An explanation of ‘waw consecutive’, an element of Hebrew grammar, from Bill Mounce: Perfect and Imperfect verbal forms prefixed with the conjunction Waw are used primarily in narrative sequences to denote consecutive actions, that is, actions occurring in sequence. For example, “I sat down, and then I opened my book, and then I studied Hebrew” describes a sequence of consecutive actions occurring in the past. Similarly, “I will sit down, and I will open my book, and I will study Hebrew” describes consecutive or sequentially related actions occurring in the future. Because these verbal forms are used primarily to describe a sequence of consecutive actions, the terminology “Waw Consecutive” is descriptive of the function that this conjunction has in Hebrew narrative.” Source:
3) from A Matter of Days by Hugh Ross, Second Expanded Edition, RTB Press, 2015, chapter 3, Kindle version
4) from Old Earth or Evolutionary Creation? Discussing Origins With Reasons to Believe and BioLogos, edited by Kenneth Keathley, J.B. Stump and Joe Aguirre, Intervarsity Press, 2017, p. 53. Haarsma lists this position as one of four possible scenarios for Adam and Eve that evolutionary creationists hold to.

6) I also encourage the reader to look at C. John Collins’s 2011 article titled Adam and Eve in the Old Testament:
7) Old Earth or Evolutionary Creation? Discussing Origins With Reasons to Believe and BioLogos, edited by Kenneth Keathley, J.B. Stump and Joe Aguirre, Intervarsity Press, 2017, p. 63

More notes:
A) For those who are interested in the scientific aspects of population genetics, population bottlenecks, etc. of early humanity, check out the ongoing debates between Dr. Dennis Venema (theistic evolutionist) and Dr. Richard Buggs. Here are two links, one from BioLogos: and one from the Intelligent Design community: .

B) I still believe, as I argued in my very first blog, Noah’s Flood: When Did It Occur?, that the origins of homo sapiens sapiens–us!–started sometime between 40,000 and 50,000 years ago. Here is that essay: . One reason that I believe this, among others, is that I find myself in basic agreement with Professor David Snoke when he implies that dating modern humanity much further back than 40,000 years ago stretches the Biblical genealogies too much (

ANE/Functional Creationism and Partial Preterism: What Do They Have In Common?


During discussions with those who are ANE-onlyists (also known as functional creationists, as opposed to young-earth and old-earth creationists), something occurred to me.

The functional creationists–those like John H. Walton, and many leading theistic evolutionists–desire to remove the events of Genesis 1 and 2 from modern scientific investigation and relegate the events entirely to the ancient Hebrew world and their understanding.

Partial preterists (as opposed to full preterists) believe that the events of the book of Revelation pertain almost exclusively to the era between Christ’s First Coming and the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70 (or to the fall of the Roman Empire in 476 AD, if any preterists like that are left).

Both systems–functional creation and partial preterism–seek to relegate these portions of Scripture almost entirely to events in the past.

There are some interesting points about partial preterism, but as a system of prophetic interpretation, I do not think it is wise to wholly adhere to it. It has almost nothing to offer Christians in the age we live in, because the prophetic events are supposed to have already occurred. (I consider my beliefs as a blend of certain prophetic schools of thought, but I’ll get into that later)

As for ANE/functional creationism, I’ll repeat my thoughts from one of my recent blogs:

“I think there is a certain amount of validity to what Walton calls the “cosmic temple inauguration” [functional creationist] perspective of Genesis 1, and that Genesis 1 and 2 were also meant as the Biblical alternatives to pagan cosmologies from the nations surrounding Israel in that era. However, as a general rule, I still find myself following the concordist/day-age interpretation.”

This is why I think some sense of unity is needed between both schools of cosmological thought on Genesis 1 and 2, although mostly without compromise (hopefully!) to the concordist position.

Will there be some sort of unity someday?


Maybe.  As the ancient axiom goes:  time will tell.


Three questions for old-earth creationists and theistic evolutionists, 2/24/2018


This blog will be short, and it’s more about asking questions than giving answers.


I was listening again to a radio debate from December 2, 2017 between Dr. Stephen C. Meyer of the Discovery Institute and Dr. Deborah Haarsma, President of BioLogos.

At around 15 minutes or so, we hear this exchange between the host, Julie Roys, and Deborah Haarsma:

Roys: “But doesn’t evolution say it all happened by an random process, an undirected
process…at least that’s what I’m trying to get to. How do we get design from an undirected random process?”

Haarsma: “So I don’t think that random means an absence of God…humans use random processes with intention all the time, like a coin flip before a game, you actually want it to be an undetermined outcome for fairness, or in a video game, the designer will put in random elements in order to make the game more interesting. So I think God has chosen to use random elements in creation in order to bring about the variety that He intended.”

There are more excerpts that I could repost here, and maybe I will sometime, but for now, I will post these questions:

1) What do old earth creationists and theistic evolutionists make of this Bible verse in respect to their scientific beliefs: “The lot is cast into the lap, But its every decision is from the Lord” (Proverbs 16:33, NASB)
2) Can a truly random process ever produce a desired result?
3) How would God be sovereign over the creation process by working through random, evolutionary processes?


Personally, I’m not convinced that one can derive real design from a random process. I found myself agreeing with the radio host that theistic evolution kinda sounds like deistic evolution instead. You might have different opinions, though. What do you think? Questions, criticisms, etc., just throw it at me. Thanks for reading! 🙂

Do Reformed Christians Need to Embrace Six-Day Creation?


forest path


As someone who adheres to the Reformed version of Christianity, one of the bloggers that I enjoy following on social media is a man from Canada named Tim Challies.  I respect him and would recommend him to anyone of the Reformed persuasion.  However, I noticed recently that he had a guest article posted from another Reformed Christian named Thomas Purifoy, Jr., director of a movie aimed at Christian audiences titled, Is Genesis History?  Purifoy is very solidly in the YEC (young-earth creationist) camp, and he wishes to convey the message of YEC to Christians everywhere.  I do not personally know him.  As an old-earth creationist, a Christian, and someone who truly believes in a historical Adam and Eve, I wish to write a kind and (hopefully) non-offensive rebuttal to some of the statements Purifoy recently made in the article he wrote (which was posted by Tim Challies) titled Six Reasons Reformed Christians Should Embrace Six-Day Creation.  I will post excerpts from Purifoy’s entry in italics, and my responses will be in regular font.


Purifoy writes:


By ‘6-day creation,’ I’m referring not just to one’s view of Genesis 1, but to an entire chronology of historical events.  These include the immediate creation of everything in six normal days, a Fall that brought corruption and death into the universe, and a global Flood that destroyed the world.  I recognize that among some Reformed Christians this is not a popular view of history.  Instead, some have adopted the framework hypothesis, analogical days, or the cosmic-temple model to interpret Genesis 1.”


Curiously, Purifoy leaves out what I consider to be one of the most, if not the most, popular old-earth creationist interpretations of Genesis, which is the concordist (or day-age) interpretation, which also happens to be what I follow.  The most well-known organization to uphold the banner of concordism is Reasons To Believe, headed by Dr. Hugh Ross (who is someone that Purifoy had a radio debate with a few months ago).


I suppose that the first item we need to look at together is, how does one define the word ‘day’ in Genesis 1?  Young-earth creationist Christians, as well as certain Christians of the Reformed camp, interpret them as literal, 24-hour days. Sometimes, in Scripture, the term ‘day’ really is applicable as a 24-hour period.


But not always.


Dr. Hugh Ross writes: “The Hebrew word yôm, translated “day,” is used in biblical Hebrew (as in modern English) to indicate any of four time periods: (a) some portion of the daylight (hours); (b) sunrise to sunset; (c) sunset to sunset; or (d) a segment of time without any reference to solar days (from weeks to a year to several years to an age or epoch). Yôm cannot, however, be interpreted as indefinite (such as anytime or someday) or as infinite time. William Wilson, in his Old Testament Word Studies, explains that yôm is ‘frequently put for time in general, or for a long time; a whole period under consideration…Day [yôm] is also put for a particular season or time when any extraordinary event happens.’” (from Chapter 7 of A Matter of Days by Hugh Ross, NavPress Publishing Group, 2004)


Davis Young and Ralph Stearley write:  “…with regard to the first feature of the convention, the first day in Genesis 1 is ‘day one’ or ‘one day’, not the ‘first day’, and the definite article is lacking. Regarding the second feature, the definite article is also not used for days two through five. Thus, the New American Standard Bible correctly translated as ‘a second day’ or ‘a fifth day’ rather than ‘the second day’ or ‘the fifth day’ as the New International Version did. As to the third feature, the definite article is used for day seven in Genesis 2:1-3 and probably also for the sixth day.” (from The Bible, Rocks and Time by Davis A. Young and Ralph F. Stearley, InterVarsity Press, 2008, p.200)


I would also like to invite the reader to spend $5.00—just $5.00—on a short booklet by Dr. Rodney Whitefield titled Genesis One and the Age of the Earth, available from .  I have this booklet; it is described as “a brief explanation of the Hebrew text of the first chapter of Genesis as it relates to the age of the Earth question.”  Here is a photo of its table of contents, just so you know:


Rodney Whitefield table of contents


Purifoy continues:

Then they [the old-earth creationists] accept the conventional chronology of universal history.  This includes the slow formation of everything over billions of years starting with a Big Bang, the corruption, and death of trillions of creatures before the arrival of Adam and Eve, a Fall that introduced death only to mankind, and a local flood during the days of Noah.”


All of these issues and conditions will be dealt with over the course of this essay.   However, there is one thing he says here that need to be addressed right away.  One might notice a subtle antipathy by Purifoy to the ‘Big Bang’ theory in what he has written (well, maybe not so subtle).  It seems that many young-earth creationists possess a great disdain toward anything that smacks of the Big Bang.  Yet, between young-earth and old-earth creationists, both camps agree that the universe had a beginning.  So what is the issue here?  “It pains me,” writes Professor David Snoke, “that numerous Christian science textbooks mock the Big Bang as an atheist conspiracy.  As Hugh Ross has emphasized in The Fingerprint of God, the Big Bang theory was not a product of atheist propaganda.  It was, in fact, rejected by nearly all atheists, accepted only when the burden of evidence in favor of it became overwhelming…Modern atheistic cosmology has attempted numerous theories to explain away this beginning, using adaptations of quantum theory or inflation theory to argue that ours could be one of many universes to pop into existence, but these theories of multiple universes, unlike the Big Bang theory, have no observational support and are merely wishful thinking.”  (A Biblical Case For An Old Earth, by David Snoke, Baker Books, 2006, p. 128)


Anyway, let us move on….


Purifoy: “Ligon Duncan observed in an interview for ‘The Gospel Coalition’ that affirming the goodness of the original creation is non-negotiable.  As the Westminister Confession [of 1646] states, the goodness of the original creation is the manifestation of the glory of God’s own goodness.  (WCF 4.1)”

OK, so that segment of the Westminster Confession of Faith also states that “It pleased God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, for the manifestation of the glory of His eternal power, wisdom, and goodness, in the beginning, to create, or make of nothing, the world, and all things therein, whether visible or invisible, in the space of six days, and all very good.”  Ergo, the Confession’s framers were six-day creationists.  One will also find an affirmation of six-day creationism in the London Baptist Confession of 1689, Chapter 4, with the very same verbiage.  However, not all Christian creeds of that time were specifically six-day creationist in regards to their beliefs on creation.  For example, from the Belgic Confession of 1566, Article 12: “We believe that the Father, by the Word, that is, by his Son, hath created of nothing, the heaven, the earth, and all creatures, as it seemed good unto him, giving unto every creature its being, shape, form, and several offices to serve its Creator.”  Not a word is spoken about six literal 24-hour days.  Also, it may be of interest that there is an old commentary, dated 1692, from a minister to King William III named Thomas Burnet titled Archaeologie Philosophicae, or The Ancient Doctrine Concerning the Originals of Things, wherein Burnet writes entries like these:  “…let us now therefore return to the Nature of Things, and to the visible World; for in the Corporeal [the body] we have as many Arguments to confirm the same Antiquity of Matter; and sufficiently to demonstrate that the Mosaical Epocha of about six thousand years, does not comprehend the Original of the whole Universe, but the Age of our Earth, and the Time since it was formed out of its Chaos.  If we again consider the Phenomena of the Heavens, and the Companies of both wandering and fixed Stars, we shall easily believe that so numerous a Progeny…could not be the Off-Spring of one earthly Chaos; nor admit of their Ages and Histories being included within the Limits of so small a time [six thousand years]…”  (Archaeologie Philosophicae, p. 35)


But back to Purifoy: “What does that goodness [of original creation] look like?  It is full of life-giving power and bounty.  This is what we see in Genesis 1.  God pronounces His original creation ‘good’ and ‘very good.’  It was a world of plenty and beauty without animal carnivory (Genesis 1:30) and without corruption and death (Romans 8:21).”


Let us examine Genesis 1: 29-30 [NASB]:  “Then God said, ‘Behold, I have given you [speaking of Adam and Eve] every plant yielding seed that is on the surface of all the earth, and every tree which has fruit yielding seed; it shall be food for you; and to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the sky and to every thing that moves on the earth which has life, I have given every green plant for food’; and it was so.”  “Every green plant” was given to the animals and birds and other creatures for consumption; however, there is no explicit prohibition of carnivory by animals, or carnivory between animals in this passage of Scripture.  One plausible view, according to David Snoke, is that “these verses refer specially to life in the Garden, which I have argued was a special place separate from the rest of creation.” Snoke also writes: “Genesis 1:26-31 is, of course, parallel to Genesis 2:4-25.  The latter story puts emphasis on the fruit trees in the Garden.  Human beings, and the animals in the Garden with them, may have been specially commanded to eat only from the green plants and trees, while animals in the outer regions lived a different life.”  (A Biblical Case For An Old Earth by David Snoke, p. 67)

Let’s look at Romans 8:21 in context with the surrounding verses: “For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us. For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God.  For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope, because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.  For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now” (Romans 8:18-22, KJV).  It is here that the KJV, along with a few other translations, such as Webster’s Bible Translation, has a superior translation of Romans 8:20 and 21.  They render the word as “creature” instead of “creation”.  There is a big difference here.  Rocks, trees and animals were not made in the image of God like humans were; such things are not consciously wishing for renewal.  In fact, the present heavens and earth will be destroyed (2 Peter 3:10) and will be replaced by “new heavens and a new earth, in which righteousness dwells” (2 Peter 3:13, NASB).  “The question we are examining,” wrote Rich Deem, “is the proper translation of the Greek word ktisis, which occurs 20 times in the New Testament and can be translated as either ‘creation’ or ‘creature’, depending upon the context.  In Romans 1:20, ktisis obviously refers to the creation, since the verse describes the ‘world’ (kosmos). In other verses, such as Mark 16:15, ktisis obviously refers to unredeemed creatures (humans), since Jesus would not have commanded us to proclaim the gospel to the rocks and trees.  Ktisis, in other verses often refers to the Gentile or non-believing world” (  Deem, in the same article, later writes, referencing Romans 8:19-23: “Ultimately, one must decide if Paul is anthropomorphizing the creation (i.e., the passage is figurative) or if he is really referring to creatures – the unredeemed Gentiles. The literal translation would be rendered ‘creature,’ since it fits the entire context of the words used to describe it. In order to claim that the passage refers to the creation, one must assume a figurative interpretation. It is ironic that young earth proponents opt for a figurative interpretation, whereas day-age proponents follow the literal interpretation.”

What about creation itself, though?  It was subject to futility from the very beginning, through the laws of thermodynamics, entropy, and decay, among other things.  David Snoke writes: “…the exact language of Romans 8:22 favors the view that it [creation] has been subjected to futility since the beginning.  This verse says: ‘We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time.’ The phrase ‘right up to the present time’ is best translated as ‘all the way up to the present time’; in other words, ‘from the beginning up to now,’ not ‘from some intermediate time up till now.’”  (Why Were Dangerous Animals Created? by David Snoke, )



Purifoy: “If one adopts the conventional chronology, one must accept that the Earth was absent from the universe for its first 9 billion years.  After a galactic cooling event, the Earth slowly formed through billions of years of uninhabitable environments.  God eventually created the first complex marine life, then progressively created or evolved different types of organisms.  These experienced death and massive extinction events that led to the destruction of trillions of living creatures.  All this happened long before the appearance of Adam and Eve.”

It is here that I would like to kindly invite the reader—whether young-earth creationist or old-earth creationist—to look at Dr. Hugh Ross’s excellent book, Improbable Planet, and a new website by Dr. David Bossard titled The Creation Narrative of Science and the Bible (  Both of these provide great scientific insights into how galactic events, and early Earth creation cycles, carefully paved the way for modern humanity to exist and thrive.  One will learn about how supernova eruptions near our early solar system during its formation helped provide a large quantity of heavy elements (and light elements) for Earth; one can discover how events during the Cambrian period prepared enormous deposits of oil, coal and ores which would eventually become necessary to sustain an advanced, global civilization, and many other things.  (I also need to say that I am an old-earth creationist, not a theistic evolutionist, as Purifoy made a passing reference to when he wrote the words ‘progressively created or evolved’.  However, I will not get into theistic evolution in this essay. To those who are interested, I would like to suggest searching Stand To Reason at for articles about theistic evolution)


Purifoy: “According to the conventional chronology, corruption has always been a part of the universe…In this view, Adam’s sin could not have been the ultimate cause of universal corruption. As a historical event, his disobedience occurred long -after- corruption was present.  But according to 6-day creation, Adam’s sin -precedes- God’s curse on the creation.  The suffering and death of animals came as a result of Adam’s disobedience, not prior to it.  Thorns and thistles were a part of the curse, not before it.”


The first thing I would like to point out is that thorns and thistles would not have just appeared in creation subsequent to Adam’s sin, and here is why:  during the six ‘days’ of Genesis 1, God was always busy, creating and molding creation.  But on the seventh day, God rested from his creative works.  Thorns and thistles would have to have been created prior to the creation of Adam and Eve.  They would not have existed within the confines of the Garden of Eden, but they would have already been around in the surrounding world, although probably in lesser quantities.  Here is what God says in Genesis 3:17-18: “…Cursed is the ground because of you; in toil you will eat of it all the days of your life.  Both thorns and thistles it shall grow for you; and you will eat the plants of the field.”  My belief is that God increased the number of thorns and thistles that existed outside the Garden as part of the curse on the ground.

Kevin Nelstead, a Natural Resources Specialist who operates the GeoChristian website, has this to say about the topic of animal death before the Fall: “The Bible is silent on the topic of animal death before the fall, and does not even say that animals were created to be immortal. Instead we see in the Scriptures that carnivorous activity is a normal part of God’s good creation. In Job 38:39-41 and Psalm 104:21-22 (which is a re-telling of Genesis 1 in poetic form), God is the one who provides food for the predators, with no hint that this is evil or something less than good. We may cringe a bit when we see a cheetah take down a gazelle in a documentary, but there is no sign in the Bible that either God or the ancient Hebrews viewed predator-prey relationships as evil or as the consequence of Adam’s sin.”  ( )   All of God’s creatures—whether they are bouncy chinchillas and popcorning guinea pigs, or fierce tigers and deadly grizzly bears—glorify God in some way.  1 Timothy 4:4 says that “everything created by God is good” (NASB) Creatures like lions, tigers and polar bears did not just transmogrify into fierce beasts in a few moments after the Fall like characters in a certain popular children’s anime, where the creatures would evolve into higher forms within instants in the heat of a battle.  No, it doesn’t work that way.  Fossil records of the distant past confirm that there have always been, since the Cambrian Explosion several hundred million years ago, dangerous animals on the face of the Earth.


All of creation—star formation, supernovae, our Sun, surrounding planets, the geological and hydrological cycles of the Earth, animal life, animal death, volcanoes, etc.—all of those things serve, in God’s plan, as a backdrop for the drama of human redemption. Mark Whorton and Hill Roberts write: “This world was not intended to be an eternal state of bliss in which Eden was the sum total of God’s plan, but rather it was designed with built-in obsolescence and a plan to reach perfect fulfillment in the future through Christ.  This creation is the stage on which the drama of creation, fall, redemption, and consummation is unfolding.”  (Holman QuickSource Guide to Understanding Creation, Holman Reference, 2008, p. 60)  For more on what might have occurred, had Adam and Eve not sinned, visit one of my blogs:


Purifoy: “If the universe contained death and corruption that wasn’t the result of Adam’s sin, what does that mean for Jesus’s redemption of both man and creation?”  Where does the Bible say that Jesus died for creation?  (hint: it doesn’t) Our Lord Jesus did not take on the substance of rocks and trees, neither did He take on the substance of angels, but he took on the seed of Abraham when he came to Earth (Hebrews 2:16, KJV)


Purifoy, again: “Consider His miracles:  He was re-forming the world according to the goodness of the original creation.  Whether Jesus was healing the sick, raising the dead, or feeding the hungry, He was showing that redemption results in tangible bounty to actual people.”   Jesus did come to feed the hungry, raise the dead, and heal the sick.  He also quotes Isaiah 61 in Luke 4:17-19 about Himself: “And the book of the prophet Isaiah was handed to Him.  And He opened the book and found the place where it was written, ‘The Spirit of the Lord is upon Me, because He anointed Me to preach the gospel to the poor.  He has sent Me to proclaim release to the captives, and recovery of sight to the blind, to set free those who are oppressed, to proclaim the favorable year of the Lord.’”  Yes, Jesus did so many of those things.  But was he ‘re-forming the world according to the goodness of the original creation’?  I would say no to that question.  His primary purpose for being here was to die for sinners, be resurrected for the justification of believers (Romans 4:25), and to be a high priest in Heaven for believers in His name (Hebrews 9).  Those were His main purposes when He walked the Earth. Colossians 1: 20 does say that Jesus was reconciling “all things to Himself, having made peace through the blood of His cross, through Him…whether things on earth or things in heaven”, but that does not mean that He provided redemption for creation.  All things, including creation, will be destroyed and made new one day (2 Peter 3:13, Revelation 21:5)


Now that does not absolve us from caring for God’s creation in this age, for that was one of the instructions given to Adam (Genesis 1:28). Dr. Hugh Ross says: “God assigned them [Adam and Eve] as caretakers of all Earth’s resources.” [the same would also apply to all of us] Ross continues: “To carry out their responsibilities, they would need helpers, and they would need to spread out.  They and their progeny would need to search out the geographic distribution of the various kinds of life; determine the size, habitat, characteristics, and needs of these species; and learn the ways each species enhances the well-being of others, including humans.  They also would need to ascertain the kinds and quantities of physical resources required for life and discern how these resources could best be managed for the benefit of all life.”  (Navigating Genesis, by Hugh Ross, RTB Press, 2014, p. 101).  This is how things should have been.  But, as we know all too well, it does not always work out this way in a fallen world.


Purifoy:  “Whether it is Moses connection creation week with a normal week in the fourth commandment; or Isaiah affirming God created man at the same time He created the heavens and the earth; or Jesus explaining the global destruction of the Flood in light of His second coming; or Luke tracing the history of the world through a single genealogy; or Paul relating the work of Adam to the work of Christ; or Peter showing the relationship between the creation, global flood, and judgment to come, there is only one historical sequence that consistently fits:  6-day creation.”


Let’s start with Moses and the fourth commandment.  The Scripture that Purifoy is referencing is from Exodus 20:8-11, particularly verse 11: “For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day and made it holy.”  However, we must remember that the word ‘day’ in Scripture, as we looked at earlier, can mean different things.  For the Israelites of Moses’s time, those days would be literal 24-hour days.  But for God, time is different.  The simile used in Scripture is that a day is like a thousand years to God, and a thousand years like one day (Psalm 90:4, 2 Peter 3:8).  God, in this instruction to Moses, was setting a pattern for the Israelites, not specifying that the creation days were literal 24-hour periods.  Hugh Ross, from chapter eight of his book A Matter of Days, quotes the late Hebrew scholar Gleason Archer: “By no means does this [Exodus 20:9-11] demonstrate that 24-hour intervals were involved in the first six ‘days’, any more than the eight-day celebration of the Feast of Tabernacles proves that the wilderness wanderings under Moses occupied only eight days.”  As for Isaiah, since Purifoy did not reference a specific verse from that book, I cannot comment.


What about the extent of the Flood?  Was it entirely global?  More localized to the Mesopotamian/Arabian regions?  Maybe partially global?  It’s a good question. Remember that Peter wrote that God “brought a flood upon the world of the ungodly” (2 Peter 2:5) and that the Deluge was unleashed upon “the world at that time” (2 Peter 3:6).  Those verses do not definitively say that the Flood was entirely global in extent.  Hugh Ross, in his book Navigating Genesis, David Snoke, in his work A Biblical Case For An Old Earth and other old-earth creationist writers have written much about the extent of the Flood.   I have also written a three-part series about the geographical extent of the Deluge on my website, that I would encourage the reader to examine if they want.


As far as genealogies, it has been proven that there are, sometimes, significant gaps in the Old Testament genealogies. They are in chronological order, of course, it’s just that the writers of these genealogies only included certain people.  Also, the Hebrew word for father in certain verses in the Old Testament can also mean ‘ancestor.’  For more information, I will provide links to these sites, which thoroughly explain gaps in Scriptural genealogies: , , and this 5-part series about genealogies from Reasons to Believe at:



Purifoy: “…if the thick fossil-bearing rock layers are the result of a global flood, they are a physical reminder of God’s global judgment on the earth in the past—as well as in the future.  If, however, one adopts the conventional chronology, those huge layers are merely a testimony to millions of years.  God’s judgment is erased from the earth—and perhaps overlooked in the future.”


At this point, I’m going to defer to the writings of old-earth Christian geologists in an amazing book that I highly recommend titled The Grand Canyon: Monument to an Ancient Earth. (The Grand Canyon is a focal point for both young-earth and old-earth creationists)  In Chapter 7 of this beautifully illustrated book, Stephen Moshier and Gregg Davidson write about something called uniformitarian geology:  “Today, uniformitarian geology recognizes that there are many places and times where catastrophic events have contributed to shaping the Earth’s varied layers, and that the physical conditions on Earth, such as the chemical makeup of the atmosphere and oceans, have not always been the same as they are today.”

These two go on to say: “Flood geologists [young-earth creationists] commonly demonize uniformitarianism by misrepresenting it as being synonymous with materialism or evolutionism.  Yet when they seek to find scientific evidence in support of a young Earth, they actually apply uniformitarian principles!”  Later, Moshier and Davidson write: “Flood geologists further depart from uniformitarian principles (and from Christian doctrines of God’s consistency and providence) when they assume that natural laws describing physical and chemical processes must have been different during the creation week, before the fall in the Garden of Eden, or at various points during Noah’s flood.  Some Young Earth advocates write that the natural laws in the whole universe are a consequence of God’s ‘curse’ or punishment for the fall.  These arguments fail to be supported by either science of Scripture.  In science, all observations point to a consistency in the laws of nature, back to the first microseconds of the universe.  The Bible likewise says nothing about the fundamental laws of nature being altered after man’s sin.”  (The Grand Canyon: Monument to an Ancient Earth, Kregel Publications, 2016, p. 74)


Young-earth creationists are fond of criticizing and demeaning modern forms of scientific dating, whether with geology, the universe, or other facets of creation.  However, the General Theory of Relativity, the laws of physics, gravity, entropy, radiometric dating, and a host of other scientific theories and principles have been proven over and over again.  Yes, certain theories and trends in sciences will change or pass.  Others, not so much.  Here is a small chart from page 91 of The Grand Canyon: Monument to an Ancient Earth that details dating techniques and the age ranges for said techniques:


Dating techniques chart



Science is not our enemy, and later in Purifoy’s article, he attempts to sow the seeds of doubt of the veracity of modern scientific methods in the minds of his readers.  He talks about a book by Thomas Kuhn called The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, in which Kuhn, according to Purifoy, “explores the history of science in light of [presuppositional] thinking”, and, eventually, Kuhn “effectively questions the absolute epistemological authority of modern science”.  Kuhn concludes section 6 of his essay by quoting Isaiah 2:22 (ESV), which says, “Stop regarding man in whose nostrils is breath, for of what account is he?”  Purifoy seems to be attempting to strike the fear of God in the hearts of his Reformed readers and listeners by appealing to Scripture in efforts to discourage and dissuade them from modern science.  It almost seems—almost—like he is trying to bully his audience away from any old-earth creationist inclinations that they might have or believe in.  (I’m not saying for sure that he is bullying his audience; I just say that as a possibility)


Purifoy ends his message with a quote by a great writer and preacher named Dr. Martin Lloyd-Jones, who said, “I have no gospel unless Genesis is history.”  Many old-earth creationists like myself will agree with him….its just that we think God took a little longer than six calendar days to create this vast universe and an Earth capable of sustaining complex life.


Thank you so much for reading this, if you’ve made it this far.

John H. Walton said what about concordism?


Recently, more than one person has suggested John H. Walton’s book, The Lost World of Genesis One, to me as a method of properly understanding the context of Genesis 1 and 2. So I bought and downloaded it to my Kindle. There are good things about Walton’s book; other things, not so much, particularly his attacks on concordism (day-age old-earth creationism) in the very first chapter.

I’m going to start this blog with a summary of the book by a research and conservation biologist named Rick Gerhardt: “…John Walton offers what he calls the “cosmic temple inauguration” interpretation of Genesis 1. As Walton sees it, the original readers of Genesis, like the people of other ancient Near Eastern (ANE) civilizations, saw the world in functional–and not in material–terms. Therefore, when reading the first chapter of Genesis, we ought to understand it not as describing the material origin of the universe and earth (as has always been done), but rather as God’s giving function to an already-existent matter during a concrete (solar or human) 7-day week.” (1)

In Proposition 17 of Walton’s book, he summarizes the themes of The Lost World of Genesis One: 1) The world operates by Yahweh’s design and under His supervision to accomplish his purposes. 2) The cosmos is His temple. 3) Everything in the cosmos was given its role and function by God. 4) Everything in the cosmos functions on behalf of people who are in His image. For the most part, I do not disagree with Walton’s conclusions, although I am reminded of King Solomon’s statement in 2 Chronicles 2:6 (“But who is able to build a house [temple] for Him, for the heavens and the highest heavens cannot contain Him?”), but that will be addressed another time.

Now let’s look at the first issue Walton has with concordism:

“Some Christians approach the text of Genesis as if it has modern science embedded in it or it dictates what modern science should look like. This approach to the text of Genesis 1 is called ‘concordism,’ as it seeks to give a modern scientific explanation for the details in the text. This represents one attempt to ‘translate’ the culture and text for the modern reader. The problem is, we cannot translate their cosmology to our cosmology, nor should we…If we try to turn [ancient cosmology] into modern cosmology, we are making the text say something that it never said. It is not just a case of adding meaning (as more information has become available) it is a case of changing meaning. Since we view the text as authoritative, it is a dangerous thing to change the meaning of the text into something it never intended to say.” (2)

Wow, this is a serious charge leveled at old-earth, day-age creationists–that we are supposedly trying to change the meaning of the text! But that statement is very far from the truth. We, as a body of old-earth believers, desire to use scientific findings, whether ancient or modern, to verify the truths of the Genesis 1 and 2 accounts, for not only our own spiritual and intellectual benefit, but also to be able to share these truths with others, some of whom may be non-Christians. How is Walton so certain that Genesis 1 and 2 has nothing to offer for modern cosmology, and vice versa? The Bible does not compartmentalize science away from faith; Job 38-41, Psalm 19: 1-6 and Psalm 104 are Scriptural examples of interfaces of science and faith. “[I]nnumerable things in the Bible,” writes Professor David Snoke, “are open to scientific investigation. We are all familiar with archaeological digs that seek to confirm facts recorded in the Bible; biologists have also looked into the flora and fauna described in the Bible. Looking to line up geology and cosmology with the Bible is no different.” (3)

Walton, again: “Another problem with concordism is that is assumes that the text should be understood in reference to current scientific consensus, which would mean that it would neither correspond to last century’s scientific consensus nor to that which may develop in the next century. If God were intent on making His revelation correspond to science, we have to ask which science. We are well aware that science is dynamic rather than static. By its very nature science is in a constant state of flux…So if God aligned revelation with one particular science, it would have been unintelligible to people who lived prior to the time of that science, and it would be obsolete to those who live after that time. We gain nothing by bringing God’s revelation into accordance with today’s science. In contrast, it makes perfect sense that God communicated His revelation to His immediate audience in terms they understood.” (4)

There is nothing wrong with that last sentence. But the charges that God would had to have addressed a certain branch of science in order for concordism to be true, and that God would have to “align revelation with one particular science,” are nonsense. Yes, some trends, certain scientific theorems, certain astrophysical concepts, some biological notions have been utterly disproven. However, a myriad of theories and principles in all branches of science continue to be scientifically proven time after time.

Walton goes on to write: “Through the entire Bible, there is not a single instance in which God revealed to Israel a science beyond their own culture. No passage offers a scientific perspective that was not common to the Old World science of antiquity.” (5) I’m concerned about that statement ‘there is not a single instance in which God revealed to Israel a science beyond their own culture.’ Is that really true? When King Solomon prayed to God for wisdom and knowledge in 2 Chronicles 1:10, God not only bestowed these favors to Solomon, but also gave the king wisdom in botany and biology, as recorded in 1 Kings 4:33-34: “[Solomon] spoke of trees, from the cedar that is in Lebanon even to the hyssop that grows on the wall; he spoke also of animals and birds and creeping things and fish. Men came from all peoples to hear the wisdom of Solomon, from all the kings of the earth who had heard of his wisdom.” While Daniel and his friends were held captive in Babylon (as part of the Babylonian captivity of Israel), it is recorded that “God gave them knowledge and intelligence in every branch of literature and wisdom” (Daniel 1:17) Why wouldn’t the understanding of natural sciences of that time have been part of their newfound knowledge? And how can we presuppose that some of that scientific knowledge wasn’t brought back to the land of Israel after the Israelites were returned to their land by Cyrus?

One serious problem with discarding concordism/day-age interpretation of Genesis 1 is that we lose a tool to help evangelize those who do not believe in Christ. “A good deal of effective apologetic material,” writes Rick Gerhardt, “is lost if one denies that Genesis 1 claims a material beginning to the universe. With the discovery of evidence for that beginning (the empirical validation of Einstein’s theories of relativity and of a big bang model for the origin of the universe), many astronomers, physicists, and others have turned to Christ, recognizing in the conclusions of their science support for the opening claim (understood in a material sense) of the Judeo-Christian Scriptures.” (6)


So here is my conclusion: I think there is a certain amount of validity to what Walton calls the “cosmic temple inauguration” perspective of Genesis 1, and that Genesis 1 and 2 were also meant as the Biblical alternatives to pagan cosmologies from the nations surrounding Israel in that era. However, as a general rule, I still find myself following the concordist/day-age interpretation. While it is true that the original Hebrew audience might not have been too concerned about the chemical composition of the thick cloud layers which surrounded the Earth in its early history, it should not negate trying to scientifically prove the veracity of the Genesis 1 and 2 accounts in this present time.



(2) Walton, John H. The Lost World of Genesis One, Intervarsity Press, 2010, p. 16-17
(3) Snoke, David. A Biblical Case For An Old Earth, Baker Books, 2006, p. 116
(4) Walton, p. 17
(5) Walton, p. 19


The Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event


I’ve been sifting the internet and asking others about how the Cretaceous-Paleogene extinction event–which occurred roughly 65.5 million years ago and wiped out at least 75 percent of all of Earth’s species–would have indirectly affected the arrival of humanity, if it did at all.  I started thinking about this after watching a NOVA program that was aired recently, titled The Day The Dinosaurs Died (which was a fascinating show to watch, btw).  This was also a chance to reeducate myself upon certain events of distant epochs past that I had mostly forgotten over the years.

At one time, I thought that perhaps the extinct dinosaurs, like decaying plant matter and marine organisms from millions of years ago, would’ve provided an additional source of coal and fuel for humans to use in building a more advanced civilization. How naive I was! After doing some research, I learned that 95% of oil deposits came from the remains of tiny marine organisms. (1) Very little oil would have originated from the remains of dinosaurs (2). William Thomas, a geologist at the University of Kentucky, said that the dinosaur contribution to petroleum would have been “quite rare” and “a very small and insignificant contribution.” (3)

The extinction event at the close of the Cretaceous period killed all of the dinosaurs, although some birds and mammals survived the catastrophe.  The reason for mammalian survival appears to have been (other than divine intervention) their massive diversification.  From

“It’s a familiar story—the mighty dinosaurs dominated their prehistoric environment, while tiny mammals took a backseat, until the dinosaurs (besides birds) went extinct 66 million years ago, allowing mammals to shine. Just one problem—it’s not true. A new article in the Proceedings of the Royal Society B reports that mammals actually began their massive diversification ten to twenty million years before the extinction that ended the age of the dinosaurs.

‘The traditional view is that mammals were suppressed by the dinosaurs’ success, and that they didn’t really take off until after the dinosaurs went extinct. This study shows that therian mammals, the ancestors of most modern mammals, were already diversifying before the dinosaurs died out,’ says lead author David Grossnickle, a Field Museum Fellow and PhD candidate at the University of Chicago.”  (4)

Dr. Hugh Ross wrote this about the dinosaurs and the epochs they lived through:  “Only during the Jurassic and Cretaceous periods did environmental conditions–vast shallow seas, swamps, jungles, plains, and forests with little or no surface relief–permit gigantic dinosaurs to thrive.  The shallow seas and swamps provided buoyancy to support the huge body masses of the largest species.  The flatness of the land and of the shallow seabeds and swamps minimized these creatures’ energy expenditure.”  (5)
Near the close of the PBS program I referenced earlier, one of the marine biologists said this:  “Where it [the asteroid] hit [near Chicxulub, Mexico] was particularly disastrous for life. Lots of this volatile material got kicked up into the atmosphere. And if it had just been a slightly different timing relative to the rotation of the earth, it could have hit the Atlantic Ocean, or the Pacific Ocean.  And if it had hit one of those, instead of Mexico in between, that event might not have been significant enough to actually have ended the Age of the Dinosaurs. And, in fact, possibly, we might not have grown to take over the planet.”


(1) Tracing Oil Reserves to Their Tiny Origins, by William J. Broad, New York Times, August 2, 2010


(5) Improbable Planet by Hugh Ross, Baker Books, 2016, p. 191

What if Adam and Eve had not sinned?


When the fullness of time had come, when the Sun’s luminosity had become exceptionally stable at around 50,000 years ago, (1), when the environmental conditions were just right in the Southern Levant, is when (in my opinion) that Adam and Eve were created. Adam was assigned to tend to the plants and trees of the Garden of Eden, “to cultivate it and keep it” (Genesis 2:15). Life was extremely good for Adam and Eve–until they disobeyed God and were ejected from the Garden. You know the rest of the story. But…

…what if Adam and Eve had not sinned? What might have occurred?

Looking at Scripture, we might be able to ascertain a few answers to that question. Humankind would have continued to work and be productive, they would “be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth” (Genesis 1:28), and they would have been able to work without the attendant difficulties of working life that now exist. They would’ve had continual access to the Garden and of the Tree of Life. Humans would have spread out over the entire earth voluntarily. Women would have borne children with some pain, but not the extreme difficulty and, sometimes, sorrow that comes with it now (Genesis 3:16). Adam and Eve descendants would have properly taken care of Eden, and of earth’s environment.

Professor David Snoke surmised that Adam and Eve were in a probational state in the Garden of Eden: “Humankind did not lose heaven at the fall–they were never in it. Instead, humankind was in a probational place of testing, a special garden of God’s blessing surrounded by the forces of judgment, consistent with the probational state, or covenant of law, dictated to them by God.” (2) He continues by saying, “Had humans not sinned, they would have passed through this probational state into glory at some point” (3) G.K. Beale writes: “They [humanity] were to reflect God’s kingship by being his vice-regents on earth. Because Adam and Eve were to subdue and rule ‘over all the earth,’ it is plausible to suggest that they were to extend the geographical boundaries of the garden until Eden covered the whole earth.” (4)

But the entire process would have continued only for a limited time. How do we know that? First, the Bible tells us that all of creation–the heavens and the earth–were subjected to futility–the laws of thermodynamics, entropy, decay, etc.–from the very beginning (Romans 8:19-22). One certainty is that, approximately 50,000 years from now, the Sun’s solar flare cycle will increase as it continues to age, making global civilization very difficult, then progressively impossible to live on planet Earth. (5) For more about what would naturally happen to the Earth and the universe, check out Dr. Ross’s post at

Another point: it’s extremely probable that humankind, in a sinless world, would have fully populated the earth in a short span of time. This chart is from Dr. Hugh Ross’s book, Navigating Genesis, p. 121:

population chart Adam


If this chart would have been correct, then humans would have nearly overpopulated the earth far short of the 1000-year mark! The probational state that Snoke postulated would have ended, and sinless humans would have passed into the new heavens and new earth.

This world was never meant to be our permanent home.


But now let us consider what Jesus Christ has done: He became the second Adam for us (1 Corinthians 15:45). He lived an absolutely sinless life, died on the cross for sinners, and was raised from the dead and ascended to heaven to be a High Priest for His people, the Church (read the book of Hebrews). At the resurrection of humankind, God’s people will gain more than they would’ve had, had Adam not sinned! We will be partakers of the seven promises made to the seven churches in Asia Minor in the book of Revelation. We will judge angels and rule over them (1 Corinthians 6:3) We will live in a new world where there is no pain and no tears (Revelation 21:4).


Do you know Jesus? You desperately need to.



(1) Dr. Hugh Ross, Improbable Planet, Baker Books, 2016, p. 215
(2) David Snoke, A Biblical Case For an Old Earth, Baker Books, 2006, p. 59
(3) ibid, p. 70
(4) G.K. Beale, The Temple and the Church’s Mission,
IVP Academic, 2004, p.81-82

(5) Middle Age Is Good, Especially For Our Sun, Dr. Hugh Ross, October 24, 2016,