All posts by Bill Pratt

Atheism, Philosophy

Who Made God?

19 Comments

Post Author: Bill Pratt 

Nobody.  Christians hold that God has always existed and will always exist and is, therefore, uncaused.  Only things that begin to exist need a cause, and God never began to exist, so God needs no cause.  Nobody and no thing made God.

Something or someone had to have always existed, or else everything that exists now would have ultimately come from nothing.  Nothing causes nothing, so the fact that something exists today means that something or someone must have always existed.  Think about it.

An infinite regress of causes going backward in time not only doesn’t solve the problem, it makes the problem infinitely worse!  You are just adding an infinite number of effects that need a cause.

You have to stop somewhere with causation.  Atheists often claim that the universe needs no cause, but if it began to exist, then it does need a cause.  The atheist may respond that the universe never began to exist, and therefore does not need a cause.  But this is a statement of faith.

Ultimately, you either go with God or matter, personality or impersonality, rationality or non-rationality, intelligence or non-intelligence, as the source of everything.

What you decide says a lot about you.

Creation

What is the Meaning of the Word “Day” in Genesis? Part 3

4 Comments

Post Author: Bill Pratt

Today we continue looking at arguments for a 24-hour view of the “days” in Genesis and arguments for a longer period of time.  Again, we will be using Norm Geisler’s treatment of the issue.

A seemingly persuasive argument for the 24-hour view is the comparison in Exodus 20:11 of the six-day work week to the six “days” of creation.  Here is the argument briefly stated:

According to the law of Moses (Ex. 20:11), the Jewish workweek (Sunday through Friday) was to be followed by a day of rest on Saturday, just as God had done in His “six-day week” of creation.  The Jewish workweek refers to six successive twenty-four-hour-days. This being the case, it seems that the creation week, like the workweek, was only 144 hours long.

Dr. Geisler addresses this argument in the following way:

It is true that the creation week is compared with a workweek (Ex. 20:11); however, it is not uncommon in the Old Testament to make unit-to-unit comparisons rather than minute-for-minute ones. For example, God appointed forty years of wandering for forty days of disobedience (Num. 14:34). And, in Daniel 9, 490 days equals 490 years (cf. 9:24–27). What is more, we know the seventh day is more than twenty-four hours, since according to Hebrews 4 the seventh day is still going on. Genesis says that “on the seventh day [God] rested” (Gen. 2:2), but Hebrews informs us that God is still in that Sabbath rest into which He entered after He created: “There remains, then, a Sabbath-rest for the people of God; for anyone who enters God’s rest also rests from his own work, just as God did from his” (Heb. 4:10).

The next argument for 24-hour “days” in Genesis has to do with the creation of light on the fourth day.

Young-earthers claim that according to Genesis 1, light was not made until the fourth day (v. 14), but there was life on the third day (v. 1:11–13). However, life on earth cannot exist for millions (or even thousands) of years without light; thus, the “days” must not have been long periods of time.

As Dr. Geisler points out, there are several possible responses to this argument:

Light was not created on the fourth day, as defenders of the solar day argue; rather, it was made on the very first day when God said, “Let there be light” (Gen. 1:3). As to why there was light on the first day when the sun did not appear until the fourth day, there are various possibilities. Some scholars have noted a parallelism between the first three days (light, water, and land—all empty) and the second three days (light, water, and land—all filled with bodies). This may indicate a parallelism in which the first and fourth days cover the same period, in which case the sun existed from the beginning.

Others have pointed out that while the sun was created on the first day, it did not appear until the fourth day. Perhaps this was due to a vapor cloud that allowed light through, but not the distinct shape of the heavenly bodies from which the light emanated.

An additional point can be made about the fourth day.  According to young-earth creationists, the sun was not created until the fourth day, but there could be no 24-hour solar days for the first three “days” of Genesis without the sun.  After all, the sun is what gives the earth a 24-hour cycle.  Without the sun, it seems nonsensical to call the first three “days” solar days.

As we look at each of the arguments for 24-hour “days” in Genesis, they may seem convincing at first.  After reading the responses to these arguments, they are not as persuasive.  As I said in an earlier post, interpreting these verses in Genesis is not easy, but we should still keep trying to find the truth, even if it is difficult.  There are still a few more common arguments made by young-earth creationists that we need to review.  We will do that next.

About the blog

What Happened to the Blog Theme?

4 Comments

After being badgered by my wife and some blog readers, I finally decided on a new theme for the blog.  I wanted to stick with a 2-column theme, because I don’t like the look of blogs that are cluttered with a lot of stuff.  Other people like a lot of stuff on their blog site, but I don’t!  🙂

Anyway, I also wanted a theme with a larger font size for our readers who don’t want to squint at the screen (like me).  Let me know what you think of the new theme.  If you hate or like it, I want to know.  I can always change it to something else….I already miss the Christmas theme 🙁

Salvation

Does the Bible Teach That There Are Many Ways to Eternal Life?

2 Comments

I have written on this topic before, but it deserves more ink.  Sometimes another person says something so well, that I just need to get out of the way and direct our readers to them.  Greg Koukl, of Stand to Reason, does a fantastic job addressing several aspects of this question in a recent publication.  It’s a few pages long, but I plead with you to read it, as there is a lot of truth packed into it.

Bottom line:  The New Testament only teaches that Jesus is the path to salvation.  That alone should drive our evangelism.  There may be other ways to heaven, but the Bible doesn’t go there.  Instead of guessing what might be, let’s go with what we know.

If you care to, let me know what you think of what Koukl says.

Creation

What is the Meaning of the Word “Day” in Genesis? Part 2

7 Comments

Post Author: Bill Pratt

In the first post in this series, we introduced the topic of “days” in Genesis, but there are more arguments that need to be fleshed out.  We will continue using Norman Geisler’s treatment of this subject in his second volume of systematic theology.

Young-earth creationists point out that when numbered series are used in the Old Testament in combination with the Hebrew word yom, they are always referring to a 24-hour day.  Here is the argument:

Further, it is noted that when numbers are used in a series (1, 2, 3 … ) in connection with the word day (yom) in the Old Testament, it always refers to twenty-four-hour-days. The absence of any exception to this in the Old Testament is given as evidence of the fact that Genesis 1 is referring to twenty-four-hour-days.

How do opponents of the young-earth view reply?

Critics of the twenty-four-hour-day view point out that there is no rule of the Hebrew language demanding that all numbered days in a series refer to twenty-four-hour-days. Further, even if there were no exceptions in the rest of the Old Testament, it would not mean that “day” in Genesis 1 does not refer to more than a twenty four hour period of time: Genesis 1 may be the exception! Finally, contrary to the solar-day view, there is another example in the Old Testament of a numbered series of days that are not twenty-four-hour-days. Hosea 6:1–2 reads: “Come, let us return to the Lord. He has torn us to pieces but he will heal us; he has injured us but he will bind up our wounds. After two days he will revive us; on the third day he will restore us, that we may live in his presence.” It is clear that the prophet is not speaking of twenty-four-hour “days,” but of longer periods of time in the future. Even so, he uses numbered days in a series.

A further argument of young-earth creationists has to do with the fact that the phrase “evening and morning” is used in conjunction with “days.”

Another line of evidence is the use of the phrase “evening and morning” in connection with each day in Genesis 1.  Since the literal twenty-four-hour-day on the Jewish calendar began in the “evening” (by sunset) and ended in the “morning” (before sunset) the next day, it is concluded that these are literal twenty-four-hour-days.

Here is the reply that is given to that argument:

First, the fact that the phrase “evening and morning” is often used in connection with twenty-four-hour-days does not mean it must always be used in this way.

Second, if one is going to take everything in Genesis 1 in a strictly literal way, then the phrase “evening and morning” does not encompass all of a twenty-four-hour-day, but only the late afternoon of one day and the early morning of another. This is considerably less than twenty four hours.

Third, technically, the text does not say the “day” was composed of “evening and morning” (thus allegedly making a twenty four hour Jewish day); rather, it simply says, “And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day” (Gen. 1:5). Further, the phrase may be a figure of speech indicating a beginning and end to a definite period of time, just as we see in phrases like “the dawn of world history” or the “sunset years of one’s life.”

Fourth, if every day in this series of seven is to be taken as twenty-four hours, why is the phrase “evening and morning” not used with one of the days (the seventh)? In fact, the seventh day is not twenty-four hours, and thus there is no necessity to take the other days as twenty four hours either, since all of them alike use the same word (yom) and have a series of numbers with them.

Fifth, and finally, in Daniel 8:14, “evenings and mornings” (cf. v. 26) refer to a period of 2,300 days. Indeed, often in the Old Testament the phrase is used as a figure of speech meaning “continually” (cf. Ex. 18:13; 27:21; Lev. 24:3; Job 4:20).

There are several more arguments to be reviewed, so stick around.

Creation

What is the Meaning of the Word "Day" in Genesis? Part 1

14 Comments

Post Author: Bill Pratt

The Hebrew word yom is used eleven times in Genesis, chapter 1.  When you read Genesis 1 (and you should before proceeding to read this post), it is clear that the author is describing the creation of the heavens and earth by God.  As the author describes this process, he uses the word yom to denote periods of time that pass between each major creation event.  Here are a few verses (Gen 1:3-8) to show what I mean:

And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day. And God said, “Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water.” So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it.  And it was so. God called the expanse “sky.”  And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.

This pattern continues through the sixth “day” until the initial creation account ends with Gen 2:1-3:
 Thus the heavens and the earth were completed in all their vast array.
 By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested from all his work. And God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it he rested from all the work of creating that he had done.
 The word yom can mean several things in Hebrew.  It can refer to a 24-hour period or it can refer to longer periods of time.  Which is the correct interpretation in Genesis 1?
As Norman Geisler records, those who argue that the “days” are 24-hour periods argue like this:
 It is contended that the usual meaning of the Hebrew word yom (“day”) is twenty-four hours unless the context indicates otherwise. The context does not indicate anything but a twenty-four-hour-day in Genesis 1; hence, the days should be taken as solar days.
 (Norman L. Geisler, Systematic Theology, Volume Two: God, Creation (Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House Publishers, 2003), 637.)
The response to this view is as follows:
 It is true that most often the Hebrew word yom (“day”) means “twenty-four hours.” However, this is not definitive for its meaning in Genesis 1 for several reasons.
First, the meaning of a term is not determined by majority vote, but by the context in which it is used. It is not important how many times it is used elsewhere, but how it is used here.
Second, even in the creation story in Genesis 1–2, “day” (yom) is used of more than a twenty-four-hour period. Speaking of the whole six “days” of creation, Genesis 2:4 refers to it as “the day” (yom) when all things were created.
Third, and finally, yom is elsewhere used of long periods of time, as in Psalm 90:4, which is cited in 2 Peter 3:8: “A day is like a thousand years.”

(Norman L. Geisler, 639)

These are the just the basic introductory arguments for these views, and much more could be said.  But we have to start somewhere and we will continue batting these views back and forth in future posts.

About the blog

Great News for the Tough Questions Answered Blog

Leave a comment

This week, we are able to announce an awesome new partnership with one of the premiere apologetics ministries in the world:  The Ankerberg Theological Research Institute.  John Ankerberg and his staff have been producing television shows, writing books, and speaking around the world for almost 30 years on Christian apologetics.  My wife and I have had the pleasure of knowing the Ankerberg’s and consider it a blessing.

Their website will now feature a link to our blog and will publish our blog posts as articles from time to time.  We are very grateful to ATRI for this opportunity and we want to encourage all of our readers to visit their website, as it is rich in apologetic resources.  I look forward to working with their ministry as we both seek to knock down intellectual barriers to the Christian faith!

Creation

My Views On the Age of the Earth

17 Comments

Over the past several years, I have moved from believing in a young earth (6,000-10,000 years) to an older earth (4.5 billion years).  I wouldn’t say that I’m totally convinced, but I do think that the biblical and scientific evidence is much stronger for an old earth.  This position, unfortunately, alienates me from some of my evangelical brothers and sisters, but I cannot claim to believe something that I don’t believe any more.

For those who wonder about my views on the Bible, I am a strong believer in the infallibility and inerrancy of the Bible.  I am not, however, convinced that every human interpretation of the Bible is infallible.  We make mistakes and sometimes misinterpret.  Some passages in the Bible are more difficult to interpret than others.  I believe that correct interpretation of the first chapter of Genesis is not obvious.  Intelligent and conservative Christians disagree on the meaning of these passages. 

In addition, I affirm the historical-grammatical method of Bible interpretation.  I believe that we should read the Bible as the original author intended it to be understood in the historical context within which he wrote.

The issue of interpreting the “days” of Genesis is a fascinating and important issue, but it is not one of the essentials of the faith.  The age of the the earth is not a test for orthodoxy and there are several literal views  of the “days” in Genesis.

Consider this post to be an introduction to several more posts on the age of the earth.  It is my fervent prayer that we will have fruitful and respectful conversations about these issues.  As always, I will welcome comments from all sides.  I look forward to the discussion and I hope I can learn along with everyone else.

Atheism, Evolution, Philosophy, Religion, Truth

Can Naturalistic Evolution Yield True Beliefs About Reality?

15 Comments

Post Author: Bill Pratt 

Philosopher Ken Samples, in a recent “New Reasons to Believe” (Vol 1 , No 1) publication, argues that naturalistic evolution cannot explain how human beings can have true beliefs about anything.  Naturalistic evolution posits that there only exists the material, natural world around us.

Everything that exists is the result of  random, material processes working over billions of years.  According to naturalists, the ultimate result of those natural processes is the wonder of the human mind.  So why doesn’t this theory make sense?

Samples offers three reasons.  First, “Naturalism postulates a nonrational source for man’s rationality.”  Naturalists believe that nonrational, impersonal, unintelligent, and purposeless processes produced rational, personal, intelligent, and purposeful human minds.

But, as Samples argues, every effect must have a cause greater than itself.  This is exactly the opposite of what the naturalists would have us believe!  The effect of the human mind is orders of magnitude greater than its alleged cause, the matter of which it is composed.  Samples concludes that the naturalist “is assuming a trustworthy reasoning process only to conclude that his reasoning is is ultimately untrustworthy.”

Second, Samples argues that “evolution promotes a species’ survivability, not its true beliefs.”  Natural selection, the primary evolutionary mechanism, only selects for survival.  But having true beliefs about the world is not always required for animal survival.  One can think of examples where an animal’s beliefs about its surrounding environment are irrelevant to its survival.

Human beings survived for thousands of years without knowing about the theory of relativity or quantum mechanics or the DNA double helix.  Are knowledge of the laws of logic and geometric proofs necessary for humans to reproduce?  Our knowledge about the world seems to be complete overkill for evolutionary survival.

Third, Samples reasons that “false beliefs illustrate evolutionary naturalism’s epistemological unreliability.”  Many atheists today argue that mankind’s beliefs about God, morality, and life after death are mere evolutionary vestiges that must have served some survival purpose in the past.

It seems that almost all of humankind, through recorded history, has held that God exists.  Evolutionists admit this, but answer that this belief was necessary in the past, but is no longer necessary.  It is left over from man’s earlier evolutionary stages.

But that means that evolution can produce false beliefs about reality.  Naturalistic evolutionists strongly urge that religious beliefs are false, but they also believe evolution produced these beliefs.  Samples asks:

If evolutionary naturalism can cause a person to believe that which is false (such as religiously oriented beliefs) in order to promote survivability, then what confidence can evolutionists muster that their convictions are reliable, true beliefs?  And if evolution cannot guarantee true beliefs in a person’s mind then how does one know that belief in evolutionary naturalism itself is a true belief about the world?

Maybe naturalism is just evolution’s false belief du jour.  There is no way for evolutionists to know!  Now that is some serious irony.

Christians, on the other hand, are able to easily explain the human mind and its ability to have true beliefs.  A rational, personal, intelligent, and purposeful God is the source of our rational, personal, intelligent, and purposeful human minds.

Samples concludes, “Such conceptual realities as logic, mathematics, knowledge, and truth flow from a supremely intelligent divine mind.”  In this case, the cause more than adequately explains the effect.