Hebrews 11 and Creation

Investigator using a Microscope

¹ Some view believing in creation as a matter of “faith” while belief in the theory of evolution is “accepting scientific fact.”² The origin of the universe, by definition, cannot be verified scientifically in spite of the fact that no human being was there to observe or record what happened, nor can the beginning of the universe be repeated. Any theory of origins, therefore, must be based on faith.

Last time we recognized some have faith the universe is made of materials which have always existed by the random interaction of the forces that still operate today. Interestingly, evolutionary scientists seem to be willing to accept almost any theory of origins except one – that which would have the world as we know it come into existence by the power of God, as described by the Bible. Even though no theory of origins can be subjected to scientific investigation, this theory must be rejected since it implies the Bible is historically and scientifically accurate. If so, that would also mean accepting the reality of the God of the Bible.

A complicating factor in this debate is that the language of the Bible is that of the ordinary person. This should not be a barrier to the scientist, however, since they also speak of the sunrise and sunset though we know better. We know the sun does not move and what we call sunrise is caused by the rotation of the earth. That means the earliest chapters of Genesis may portray reality to us even though we may need to interpret carefully what it means if we are to be precise enough to work out its implications.

When the Bible speaks of animals and plants reproducing “after their kind,” for example, it should be apparent that we are talking of those which may interbreed, to produce a viable offspring. That the category is broader than a particular breed should be apparent. The various breeds of dog would all be classed as the same kind in spite of the fact that this may include a number of pairings which would not necessarily occur in the wild. Nevertheless the language of the Bible is clear, even though there may be times when we are left with questions about what, exactly, is meant by the words used. What is interesting is that the Bible presents some concepts which our present level of knowledge finally allows us to understand even though previously denied scientists.

A further complicating factor is that the Bible claims the process of creation ceased which would mean the creative process cannot be investigated and the world which we live in is not the same as the one originally created. The Bible declares a world-wide flood in the past completely changed the world we live in. So great was the change that it can be described as “destroying” at least the whole ecosystem of the past. Accepting this as true means we cannot investigate the system which was in operation prior to the flood since it no longer exists – a totally unacceptable stance to an evolutionary scientist.

Not all the blame for the confused state of affairs in this area is to be laid at the door of the scientists. Because of the use often made of, for example, fossil evidence the Church has too often been quick to claim that such evidence was false. It was common to find past Church leaders arguing that there were no such creatures as dinosaurs, As investigations have been carried out in numerous fields, however, it becomes clearer that where the Bible speaks about a subject it can be trusted. Today one of the best evidences of the world-wide flood comes from the extent and many types of fossil left in the rocks in the past.

In fact it is becoming obvious to those doing the investigations that we do not know as much about past events as we believed (even as little as 50 years ago). Since the Bible has been shown to be accurate with respect to verifiable matters we may presume, without evidence to the contrary, that it is equally accurate about those things we cannot test as yet. Where there appears to be new evidence to the contrary, it should be noted and further investigation undertaken to decide on its implications. Such an approach has led to some valuable insights into Bible teaching and incidental support to the veracity of the Bible record. This stance, it seems, ought to have been the response to the evidence from the beginning.

Faith in the Bible is not, therefore, legitimately characterized as a “blind” faith since it rests upon the proven character of the one speaking. And one who knows precisely what he is talking about, even if the language he uses is that of the common man and not that of the scientist. Unlike the theories of those who claim their “scientific” investigations provide them with assured facts about our origins in spite of ignoring the evidence of the great flood, the Bible presents the record of the one person who was there and who has revealed how he brought the former world into being.

Believing the Bible content was written down by men chosen by God who were moved to record their message by the Holy Spirit is a vital element of faith in its veracity. We trust that, since it is from God, he has ensured its interpretation of history provides us with insight into the way he sees things. This becomes evidence to us of things we have not seen, providing a basis for hope in its promises. It also means a clear, but unusual, turn of phrase in one part of the book may shed unexpected light on another which is more obscure or ambiguous.

Where errors commonly occur is noting only some of the data when describing the Bible’s teaching about any particular subject. According to Hebrews 11, then, there are two factors which have a direct bearing on the creation record of Genesis 1 and 2. First, that all that has come into being did so by the word of God. The original language puts the focus on the means used rather than the content. It would be fair to translate as “by God’s speaking.” The second factor is that the basic materials of our present universe have not always been there. Things that are were made of things which do not appear. This is the reason the Church has always believed, though not usually expressed in this manner, God even created the basic building blocks of the universe.

Recent studies into the evidence for Intelligent Design, in uncovering the way each particle in a substance contains the information necessary for its interaction with other particles, tend to emphasize this same point. The way complex systems are related to one another and have to work together in order to work properly makes the idea of randomly generated changes bringing our universe into existence increasingly unlikely to be true.

Peter reminded us the evolutionist says “all things continue as they have from the beginning.” It is possible to read the opening verse of the Bible as implying God created everything that we see from stuff that was already in existence. This was certainly the view of the ancient Greeks. They called this stuff “chaos” and it was the Olympian gods, they said who brought the present order to the universe. And modern scientists also accept that there was some matter which was in existence long before this universe because the most popular theory (the Big Bang) rests on that fact in order be logically possible. Hebrews reminds us, however, that God created all that is from that which does not appear and he did it by speaking. Genesis 1 seems to make what that means clear.

Conclusion:

Faith is an essential element for any discussion about how everything began. It does not matter whether you are a believer in evolution or of creation. Taken at face value the record of Genesis chapter 1 indicates that God spoke and what came into being was the result he intended. Hebrew 11 indicates that by faith we understand that God made everything. Recognizing the flaw in the argument what says we can scientifically verify something that cannot (by definition) be repeated allows us to accept the fact that we trust the record of the one person who was there – since there is no other way to know what happened for certain.

1  Wikimedia Commons copyright information: “This image is in the public domain because it contains materials that originally came from the Agricultural Research Service, the research agency of the United States Department of Agriculture.”

2  According to dictionary.net, Princeton’s Wordnet defines a scientific fact, is “an observation that has been confirmed repeatedly and is accepted as true (although its truth is never final).”