Atheist Universe: Chapter 6
Initially Posted: January 29, 2007
Contents:
2. Origin of the Universe: Natural or Supernatural?
3. God of the Gaps: Does the Universe Show Evidence of Design?
4. The “Miracle” of Planetary Clockwork
5. The “Miracle” of Life on Earth
6. Can Genesis Be Reconciled with Modern Science?
7. “Miracles” of Christian Perception
9. Christian Fundamentalists and the “Danger” of Internet Porn
10. Was America Really Founded upon Christian Principles?
11. “Intelligent Design”: Christianity’s Newest Cult
6. Can Genesis Be Reconciled with Modern Science?:
Towards the beginning of this chapter, Mills attacks the Genesis account of the Flood. However, he does not consider the fact that many of the world’s cultures have similar flood stories. This may indicate that these myths are based on an actual historical flood.
Mills claims that “non-literalists,” referring to creationists who do not believe the earth is only 6,000 years old, “claim that the Genesis genealogies contain ‘errors of omission.’” 1 However, Mills does not indicate which “non-literalists” claim that there are errors of omission. On a side note, it is misleading for Mills to imply that all non-literalists believe in macro-evolution. Dr. Hugh Ross, for example, is an old-earth creationist who DOES NOT, believe in macro-evolution. Further, “a long, but definite period of time” is a literal meaning of the Hebrew word for “day,” so it is inaccurate to call old-earth creationists “non-literalists” for not believing the earth is 6,000 years old.
Now, back to the biblical genealogies issue: Mills writes that it is “mind-boggling” 2 to think the genealogies are only partial lists, overlooking many intermediate generations between Adam and Jesus.” Mills also asserts that these omissions are errors. However, the ancient Hebrew language and the contents of different genealogies in the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament oppose this assertion. For example, the Hebrew word for “father,” ’ab can also mean “grandfather, great-grandfather, great-great-grandfather, or ancestor. 3 Also, the Hebrew word for “son,” ben, can also be translated as “grandson, great-grandson, great-great-grandson, and so on.” 4 For example, Jesus was the “son of David,” according to Matthew 1:1. Ergo, “begat” could mean “was the ancestor of…”
Mills mentions the creationist response proposing that other genealogy lists contain known omissions. However, he does not elaborate in great detail. I will provide some examples of known biblical genealogical gaps. Although Matthew 1 states that Jehoram was the father of Uzziah (verse 8), 1 Chronicles 3 indicates that three missing generations separate Joram and Uzziah. 5 Also, if one compares 1 Chronicles 6:3-14 with Ezra 7:2, one discovers Ezra omits six generations between Seraiah and Ezra. 6
Mills asserts the creationist who offered the above response was referring to the genealogical records in Matthew 1 and Luke 3. 7 However, Mills posits that these records contain contradictory ancestral data. Christian scholars respond to this charge by pointing out that Matthew probably traces Jesus’ paternal lineage and Luke, Jesus’ maternal lineage. Mills acknowledges this as well, but he claims this response is not sufficient, because “both Gospel authors specifically declared their genealogies to represent Joseph’s lineage.” 8 However, there is strong contextual evidence to the contrary.
Dr. Norman Geisler and Thomas Howe write:
“That Matthew gives Jesus’ paternal genealogy and Luke his maternal genealogy is further supported by several facts. First of all, while both lines trace Christ to David, each is through a different son of David. Matthew traces Jesus through Joseph (his legal father) to David’s son, Solomon the king, by whom Christ rightfully inherited the throne of David (cf. 2 Sam. 7:12ff). Luke’s purpose, on the other hand, is to show Christ as an actual human. So he traces Christ to David’s son, Nathan, through his actual mother, Mary, through whom He can rightfully claim to be fully human, the redeemer of humanity.
Further, Luke does not say that he is giving Jesus’ genealogy through Joseph. Rather, he notes that Jesus was “as was supposed” (Luke 3:23) the son of Joseph, while He was actually the son of Mary.” 9
Mills thinks that people “must believe that the ‘errors of omission’ number in the tens of millions” 10 to reconcile the Genesis genealogies with the earth’s old age. However, old-earth-creations, such as Dr. Ross, only associate the gaps in the biblical genealogies with the date of humanity’s origin—not the age of the earth.
Mills also claims that “a young Earth was always posited by religious leaders throughout the entire history of Christianity.” 11 This is false. Origen, Justin Martyr, and Augustine, for example, believed Genesis chapter one was not referring to a literal week.12 However, why does it really matter how earlier Christians interpreted the various biblical creation accounts? Are their words Scripture? No, their words are the results of their interpretations—similar to modern Bible commentaries. The issue is what the primary sources, the creation accounts throughout the Bible, mean. For example, how is the Hebrew word for “day,” “yom,” best interpreted? As with all ancient literature, the historian must strive to understand what the original authors of the texts had in mind when they were writing. The Hebrew word “yom” has multiple literal meanings including: a twenty-four-hour period, the daylight hours, or any long (but definite) period of time. 13
Mills also discusses “many other biblical absurdities, such as:” 14 impossibly old men, the existence of unicorns, the existence of witches, and the existence of dragons. 15
First, I will address the “impossibly old men” objection. Other cultures passed on accounts of humans who lived to be extremely old. The ancient Akkadian and Sumerian cultures, for example, contain stories about extraordinarily long life spans. 16 Dr. Ross writes, “Fourth-century Babylonian historian Berosus drew from archives in Marduk’s temple to name ten kings who lived before a great deluge, ten kings who reigned thousands of years each. The Weld-Blundell prism, which dates back to the third millennium B.C., and the Nippur tablets also list ten pre-Flood kings who lived thousands of years.” 17 Go here for a primary source example. Dr. Ross and biochemist Dr. Rana also present biochemical and scientific evidence that illustrates how long life spans may have been biologically possible. 18
Mills also claims that the Bible teaches unicorns existed. He cites Job 39:9-10; Psalm 22:21; Numbers 23:22; Numbers 24:8; Psalm 29:6; Psalm 92:10; Deuteronomy 33:17 and Isaiah 34:7. He also insinuates that he thinks the translators of modern Bible translations were dishonest and that they rewrote or edited the “original translation in the King James” in order to alter these “ridiculous passages of Scripture.” 19 First, the King James translation is just that—a translation. It is a translation based on early Hebrew texts. Therefore, the key is to inquire what the Hebrew word that the King James translation associates with “unicorn.”
According to the Jewish Encyclopedia:
“Rendering in the Authorized Version of the Hebrew or , following the Septuagint and the Vulgate. Aquila and Saadia, on Job xxxix. 9, read "rhinoceros"; Bochart ("Hierozoicon") and others, "oryx," or "white antelope"; Revised Version, "wild ox" (margin, "ox-antelope"). The allusions to the "re'em" as a wild, untamable animal of great strength and agility, with mighty horns (Job xxxix. 9-12; Ps. xxii. 21, xxix. 6; Num. xxiii. 22, xxiv. 8; Deut. xxxiii. 17; comp. Ps. xcii. 11), best fit the aurochs (Bos primigenius). This view is supported by the Assyrian "rimu," which is often used as a metaphor of strength, and is depicted as a powerful, fierce, wild, or mountain bull with large horns. The term evidently denotes from its connection some animal of the bovine or antelope class, perhaps the oryx (so LXX.). The oryx, as well as the wild bull and ox, is common in Palestine and Syria; and aurochs' teeth were found by Tristram on the flooring of an ancient cave in the Lebanon.
The Talmud has for "re'em" or , which etymologically recalls the Arabic "ghazal" (= "gazel"), but is said to be the name of an animal of such size that it could not enter the ark of Noah, but had to be fastened thereto by its horn (Zeb. 113b; comp. B. B. 74b; Shab. 107b; Yalḳuṭ Shim'oni, ii. 97d, where it is said that the re'em touches the clouds). If the Talmud intended the urzila for the unicorn, it can not be identical with the one-horned ox which Adam is said to have offered as sacrifice (Ḥul. 60a and parallels), because the urzila is classed among the animals of the field that may not be offered for that purpose. The Tosefta on the passage in Zebaḥim explains the urzila as the buffalo.
Again, in Ḥul. 59b is mentioned an animal called (perhaps shortened from "monoceros" or "rhinoceros"), which, "though it has only one horn, is allowed as food," and is then explained as the "hart of the forest 'Ilai" (; comp. B. B. 16b). The Talmud apparently thinks here of the antelope oryx, the mode of depicting which on Persian monuments gave rise to the belief by the ancients (comp. Pliny, "Historia Naturalis," viii. 21, 30) in the existence of the unicorn (comp. "S. B. O. T.," Psalms [Eng. transl.], p. 173). In Arabic likewise "re'em" is applied to the leucoryx. The aurochs is mentioned in the Talmud under the name (= "ox of the plain"), in explanation of , the rendering of (Deut. xiv. 5) by the Targum, which Rashi (Ḥul. 80a) explains as the "ox of the Lebanon." It is classed among cattle (Kil. viii. 6), and is caught with slings (B. Ḳ. 117a; comp. Isa. li. 20).”
Thus, in its Jewish cultural and linguistic context, the Hebrew word “re’em” does not refer to a unicorn.
I am not sure why Mills thinks all witches are mythological. Witchcraft and sorcery are both very old practices that are found in numerous cultures. There are even practicing witches in modern times.
Regarding dragons, the word “dragon” is used metaphorically multiple times throughout the Bible. Mills provides no contextual reasons for why one should conclude the authors believed dragons really existed.
Finally, Mills attacks the Day-Age interpretation of Genesis 1 20, which is Dr. Hugh Ross’s view. Mills claims that all proponents of the Day-Age theory reject Divine inspiration of Scripture. 21 However, this is false. Dr. Ross, for example, believes Scripture is divinely inspired.
Mills only provides one argument against the Day-Age interpretation. Mills claims Genesis 1:5 is translated: “the evening and the morning were the first day.” 22 However, he offers no evidence for why his translation is best. The RSV translation of the Bible states, “And there was evening and there was morning, one day.” This version typically follows the Hebrew and Greek manuscripts more faithfully than other translations.
Mills argues that the phrase “the evening and the morning” demonstrate the word “day” does not refer to a long time period. 23 However, “The Hebrew word ‘ereb, translated evening, also means ‘sunset,’ ‘night,’ or ‘ending of the day.’ And the word boqer, translated morning, also means ‘sunrise,’ ‘coming of light,’ ‘beginning of day,’ ‘break of day,’ or ‘dawning,’ with possible metaphoric usage.’ In other words, evening and morning refer to the beginning and ending components of ‘day,’ however it is used.” 23 It is also worth noting that the phrase “evening and morning” is not used of the seventh day. Dr. Ross suggests that the seventh day is continuing even to the present time. He writes, “Given the parallel structure marking the creation days, this distinct change in form for the seventh day strongly suggests that this day has (or had) not yet ended. Further information about the seventh day is given in Psalm 95 and Hebrews 4.” 24
Consult Dr. Ross’s book A Matter of Days to learn more about Dr. Ross’s biblical and scientific basis for his perspective.
Endnotes:
1. David Mills, Atheist Universe: The Thinking Person’s Answer to Christian Fundamentalism (Berkeley, CA: Ulysses Press, 2006), 144.
2. David Mills, Atheist Universe: The Thinking Person’s Answer to Christian Fundamentalism (Berkeley, CA: Ulysses Press, 2006), 145.
3. Hugh Ross, The Genesis Question: Scientific Advances and the Accuracy of Genesis. Second Expanded Edition (Colorado Springs, Colorado: NAVPRESS, 1998, 2001), 55.
4. Hugh Ross, The Genesis Question: Scientific Advances and the Accuracy of Genesis. Second Expanded Edition (Colorado Springs, Colorado: NAVPRESS, 1998, 2001), 55.
5. Norman L. Geisler, Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1999), 268.
6. Norman L. Geisler, Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1999), 268.
7. David Mills, Atheist Universe: The Thinking Person’s Answer to Christian Fundamentalism (Berkeley, CA: Ulysses Press, 2006), 145.
8. David Mills, Atheist Universe: The Thinking Person’s Answer to Christian Fundamentalism (Berkeley, CA: Ulysses Press, 2006), 145.
9. Norman Geisler and Thomas Howe, When Critics Ask: A Popular Handbook on Bible Difficulties (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1992), 385-386.
10. David Mills, Atheist Universe: The Thinking Person’s Answer to Christian Fundamentalism (Berkeley, CA: Ulysses Press, 2006), 147.
11. David Mills, Atheist Universe: The Thinking Person’s Answer to Christian Fundamentalism (Berkeley, CA: Ulysses Press, 2006), 148.
12. See pages 16-24 of Creation and Time (NAVPRESS, 1994), by Dr. Hugh Ross for further details.
13. R. Laird Harris, Gleason L. Archer, and Bruce K. Waltke, Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, vol. 1 (Chicago: Moody, 1980), pages 370-371.
14. David Mills, Atheist Universe: The Thinking Person’s Answer to Christian Fundamentalism (Berkeley, CA: Ulysses Press, 2006), 148.
15. David Mills, Atheist Universe: The Thinking Person’s Answer to Christian Fundamentalism (Berkeley, CA: Ulysses Press, 2006), 149.
16. Hugh Ross, The Genesis Question: Scientific Advances and the Accuracy of Genesis. Second Expanded Edition (Colorado Springs, Colorado: NAVPRESS, 1998, 2001), 117.
17. Hugh Ross, The Genesis Question: Scientific Advances and the Accuracy of Genesis. Second Expanded Edition (Colorado Springs, Colorado: NAVPRESS, 1998, 2001), 117.
18. Fazale Rana and Hugh Ross, Who Was Adam?: A Creation Model Approach to the Origin of Man (Colorado Springs, CO: NavPress, 2005), 112-121.
19. David Mills, Atheist Universe: The Thinking Person’s Answer to Christian Fundamentalism (Berkeley, CA: Ulysses Press, 2006), 150.
20. David Mills, Atheist Universe: The Thinking Person’s Answer to Christian Fundamentalism (Berkeley, CA: Ulysses Press, 2006), 150-151.
21. David Mills, Atheist Universe: The Thinking Person’s Answer to Christian Fundamentalism (Berkeley, CA: Ulysses Press, 2006), 151.
22. David Mills, Atheist Universe: The Thinking Person’s Answer to Christian Fundamentalism (Berkeley, CA: Ulysses Press, 2006), 151.
23. Hugh Ross, The Genesis Question: Scientific Advances and the Accuracy of Genesis. Second Expanded Edition (Colorado Springs, Colorado: NAVPRESS, 1998, 2001), 46.
24. Hugh Ross, Creation and Time: A Biblical and Scientific Perspective on the Creation-Date Controversy (Colorado Springs, CO: NavPress, 1994), 48-49.