The following announcements have crossed the wires this month:
RIO DE JANEIRO (Reuters) – Brazilian and Argentine paleontologists have discovered the largely complete fossil of a new species of giant dinosaur that roamed what is now northern Patagonia about 80 million years ago. The herbivorous Futalognkosaurus dukei measured an estimated 105 feet to 112 feet from head to tail and was as high as a four-story building. It is one of the three biggest dinosaurs yet found in the world. [click for full story]
and
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Scientists have found in southern Utah a nicely preserved skull with jaws containing 800 teeth, scaly skin impressions and other fossil remains of a new species of duck-billed dinosaur from 75 million years ago. The bipedal herbivorous dinosaur, named Gryposaurus monumentensis, was about 30 feet long and pigged out on plenty of plants. [click for full story]
I realize that there are a lot of people out there who believe that dinosaurs either really didn’t exist or that the fossils and bones that are found were planted by God during the flood as some gigantic practical joke for future generations of humans; these “young earth” theologians interpret Genesis 1 very literally, ascribing no more than 24 hours (as we know them) to each of the seven days of Creation.
I am not one of them.
I tend to be more sympathetic to “old earth creationism” or “theistic evolution” and the archaeological and cosmic record that bears the evidence. I do not necessarily believe in Darwin’s theory of macro evolution, but see no reason why Genesis 1 cannot represent millions upon millions of years of guided design work leading up to the introduction of modern humanity.
Genesis says that “God created…”; it does not tell us how He created. The fact that the skeletal structure of pigeons (and other modern birds) is closely related to that of the dinosaurs of old is enough proof to me that there is a depth of creative history in Genesis 1 that isn’t accounted for with only 10,000 years (or less) of history.
I have trouble with a view that says on one hand that our anointed purpose is to bring glory to God, yet on another hand denies the awesome evidence of God’s creativity. Humans are not the focal point of Creation. God is.
19 Comments
I agree with you, but I can’t help thinking that with names like “Futalognkosaurus” (apparently 105 to 112 Futalognk-osaurus) these dinosaurs are scientists’ practical jokes! I wonder if they have April Fools’ Day in October in the southern hemisphere?
Yes, sometimes I long for the days when the now reclassified “Brontosaurus” was the most tongue-tying name there was… :>
“young earth” and atheists alike are getting more rare these days. I think most people and most Christians are somewhere in between “old earth creationism” or “theistic evolution”, even if they are not Christian. But too bad that our public schools don’t allow some form of “creationism” to be taught in the classrooms. That is a tragedy.
I have never understood that there is even an argument about creation versus evolution. Why not both? It’s pretty much vanity that says everything was created as we know it now. And all this was handed down to us from people who knew nothing of evolution.
Thanks, ElShaddai, for this post.
As I see it, there’s lots of evidence for an earth older than 6000 years, and very little evidence that people as we know them today are much older than that. I’m not a scientist, but to me the combination of biblical and scientific evidence points to an old earth and a young creation of people and of the animals that we know today. Even the fossil animals may not be millions of years old; I’ve read that there is some evidence that fossils can be made in scores instead of millions of years, under the right conditions.
In short, I’m an old-earth creationist who does not believe people evolved from the lower animals.
I realize that my ability to interpret both the Bible and science is imperfect. What is non-negotiable, to me, is that Genesis is true in whatever sense the original author(s) intended it.
Now that I’ve made almost everyone on both sides think I’m nuts, I’ll end this post.
As I see it, there’s lots of evidence for an earth older than 6000 years, and very little evidence that people as we know them today are much older than that.
Interesting… I was under the understanding that Homo sapiens had been dated back 150,000-200,000 years with a cultural record of 50,000 years or so. Do fossils made in scores of years bear a carbon imprint of the shorter time frame or is the half-life degradation also accelerated so that it appears to be tens of thousands of years?
Sorry; I’m not enough of a scientist to answer those questions. My understanding is that most dating of fossils and old cultural artifacts is dependent on uniformity of climate: the assumption that the earth’s climate has always been about as it is today. However, if we take the early chapters of Genesis fairly literally, it didn’t rain in the Garden of Eden. Things were watered by a mist. Rain is not mentioned until the time of Noah’s flood. If there truly was a world-wide flood (and I believe there was), then surely the earth’s climate was much different before the flood. Meanwhile, one interesting evidence for the flood is that many different cultures around the world have a tradition of a great flood. I read many years ago that the (traditional, pre-Mao) Chinese pictograph for “flood” is the pictograph for a boat, with 8 people.
Well, I think it is unfair to unilaterally sweep “young-earthers” under the rug by saying that the fossils were put there as a joke during the flood. It sounds like there is some homework to be done on the YEC position. There are very cogent explanations given by us YECs to explain fossils. Explanations that I find to fit the data better than common evolutionary explanations.
There are vast amounts of assumptions that come into play when doing the dating methods, most of which are unprovable. I, for one, do not want to stake my belief on God’s method of creation (and reinterpret the Bible to do so) on the opininons of scientists that are constantly changing.
Besides, saying that God used millions of years of evolution as a vehicle for His creation has problems. The biggest problem being that it puts millions of years of death, disease, and suffering before Adam. If that is the case, how can the creation be very good? More importantly, if death came before Adam and his sin, what is the point of the curse? It becomes nonsense. If that is nonsense, then what is the point of Jesus, the last-Adam?
YECs are often accused of reading Genesis hyper-literally, but I would invite you to point out how and where. How else can you read it but to mean 6 24-hour days? It is the old-earthers who resort to all kinds of contortionism to get their ideas to fit in Genesis.
The weight of the argument is also in favor of the YECs when you look at the NT. Jesus himself quotes from Genesis as if it is literal history as does Paul. The whole weight of the comparision between the first Adam and the last is made into sheer nonsense if Genesis isn’t literal history.
Also, when God uses the creation week as a model for our work week in Exodus, how are we supposed to make sense of that if it was really millions of years and not 6 days.
I find it intering the number of people who have such a problem with Genesis and reinterpret the days to mean other than day, but have no problem with day meaning day anywhere else in the Bible.
Just my $0.02
Dave
You’re right, Dave – there is homework to be done on the YEC position. I’m not above refining my understanding of issues, so please feel free to continue commenting here if you like:
“There are very cogent explanations given by us YECs to explain fossils. Explanations that I find to fit the data better than common evolutionary explanations.”
Let’s start here. Can you point me to a scientific explanation of fossils that fits the YEC position? I’m not being sarcastic, I really would like to read about that explanation.
“I, for one, do not want to stake my belief on God’s method of creation [..] on the opinions of scientists that are constantly changing.”
Nor do I. That’s why I said, “Genesis says that ‘God created…’; it does not tell us how He created.” What in the Bible requires a specific belief in how God created? I would think long and hard about any position that required a specific belief in “how” as a test of orthodoxy.
“More importantly, if death came before Adam and his sin, what is the point of the curse?”
Which curse? In Genesis 3, God explicitly curses the serpent and the land. He introduces pain, labor and relational conflict to mankind and banishes them from Eden, but does not literally curse them. The curse on the land could be read as revoked after the Flood, whereupon God also installs fear of mankind into the animals.
The corruption and decay that Paul writes about in Romans 8 seems then more the product of fear and pain than anything else. The shroud of death has hidden mankind from creation.
“How else can you read [Genesis] but to mean 6 24-hour days?” and “when God uses the creation week as a model for our work week in Exodus, how are we supposed to make sense of that if it was really millions of years and not 6 days?”
I read it as an oral or literary device to describe the indescribable. Genesis was not discovered as a set of preexistant hidden scrolls, but authored. Mankind has always sought to express the inexpressible with the richness of different communication styles. To describe the origins of the world, in terms relevant to the original audience, would require language that was meaningful to that audience. Whether that author was divine or human is another issue, but ultimately not relevant to this point.
“The weight of the argument is also in favor of the YECs when you look at the NT. Jesus himself quotes from Genesis as if it is literal history as does Paul. The whole weight of the comparision between the first Adam and the last is made into sheer nonsense if Genesis isn’t literal history.”
It has been discussed several times on this blog and elsewhere how NT authors, including Jesus, interpreted OT texts in order to present a specific understanding. The whole weight of the comparison between first and last Adams depends on the interpretation of Genesis as literal history. Reread that if you didn’t get the nuance of “the interpretation of Genesis” vs. “Genesis”.
“I find it [interesting] the number of people who have such a problem with Genesis and reinterpret the days to mean other than day, but have no problem with day meaning day anywhere else in the Bible.”
Well, a day is not a day to God, so I think it’s helpful to keep in mind that the “fourth dimension” is ultimately meaningless. As far as God is concerned, we could be having this conversation at the same time that Jesus is being crucified at the same time that he is blessing Noah at the same time that the creative power of his Word is forming the Big Bang.
With the exception of Genesis 1-2 and Revelation 20-22, the majority of the Bible is written in “human time” in order to be understood by human minds. Those marvelous bookends are written in “God time” and require faith in His sovereign will and purposes.
Sorry for rambling and for any mental shortcuts that didn’t get fully expressed. Good stuff and I welcome the opportunity to learn more – keep it coming!
Sorry, I’m not used to posting many blog comments, so I’m not sure how to format comments so that when I quote you it is in italics…
Anyway, here goes.
As far as the fossils are concerned, how much reading do you want to do?
If its alot, try this overview page at CMI (a YEC site with many PhD scientists who work for/write for them): http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3001
Or this article gives a good summary:
http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3864
You said, “Nor do I. That’s why I said, “Genesis says that ‘God created…’; it does not tell us how He created.” What in the Bible requires a specific belief in how God created? I would think long and hard about any position that required a specific belief in “how” as a test of orthodoxy”
To this I would respond that Genesis DOES tell us how God created. It says He Spoke, and it happened. (e.g, God siad let there be light, and there was light). To me, the act of speaking indicates an immediate thing. If it really meant, God spoke and a billion years later the first gas clouds started to collapse to start to form a star that would one day give light, it is just misleading.
As far as a belief in “how” as a test of orthodoxy, I certainly won’t go that far. I could always be wrong (although, i think i’ve done enough research that i doubt i’ll be easily swayed!). As YEC scientist Dr. Jonathan Sarfati says, “Nowhere does the Bible say it is an unforgivable sin to hold two mutually contrary thoughts in the same skull.” I definitely don’t believe you have to believe in a young earth to be saved or anything like that. I do think, however, that a little compromise at the beginning opens the door to a very slippery slope of rejecting more.
You said, “Which curse? In Genesis 3, God explicitly curses the serpent and the land. He introduces pain, labor and relational conflict to mankind and banishes them from Eden, but does not literally curse them. The curse on the land could be read as revoked after the Flood, whereupon God also installs fear of mankind into the animals.”
Take a look at Genesis 2:16-17: 16 And the LORD God commanded the man, “You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will certainly die.”
Also look at Genesis 3:19: 19 By the sweat of your brow
you will eat your food
until you return to the ground,
since from it you were taken;
for dust you are
and to dust you will return.”
Another good verse s Romans 5:12
The only reason Adam will return to dust (i.e die) is because of the curse from the first sin, otherwise he would have (i assume, as is the orthodox viewpoint) lived forever in fellowship with God. Maybe I don’t understand what you’re saying since the whole foundation of any orthodox Christian faith is that Christ came to die for our sins, to die so we can be free of the curse of death and live with God forever. The result of the original sin was our condemnation to death.
I’m not sure where you are going with the Romans 8 quote. Maybe I’m missing your point really badly! sometimes I can be thick!
You then said, “I read it as an oral or literary device to describe the indescribable. Genesis was not discovered as a set of preexistant hidden scrolls, but authored. Mankind has always sought to express the inexpressible with the richness of different communication styles. To describe the origins of the world, in terms relevant to the original audience, would require language that was meaningful to that audience. Whether that author was divine or human is another issue, but ultimately not relevant to this point.”
I have several comments to this. 1st, Why do you read it that way? Based on what reasoning is it valid to read it as a literary device? The author was ultimately God. A lot of Genesis scholars believe the original author of the creation account in Gen 1 was God Himself, either told or transcribed for/to Adam and later compiled into Genesis by Moses (although I gagree with you that it is ultimately irrelevant to our discussion).
I completely disagree with the indescribable aspect. what is so hard to describe about evolution? Even if it isn’t described on a sub-microscopic level, you can give a good general overview that ancient man could understand. Why then the subterfuge by writing Genesis as an allegory in the guise of history (i say history because no serious Hebrew scholar disagrees that the writing style of Genesis is one of a historical narrative, not an allegorical/metaphorical one). The ancient Greeks and romans (and many other pagan cultures) had many myths and stories about the earth always existing and many long-age beliefs. Why couldn’t Genesis relfect that? The text is written as a historical document, by divine inspiration, so as far as i’m concerned, there is no other legitimate way to take it. Unless you bring outside ideas (i.e evolution) into the interpretation.
you said, “It has been discussed several times on this blog and elsewhere how NT authors, including Jesus, interpreted OT texts in order to present a specific understanding. The whole weight of the comparison between first and last Adams depends on the interpretation of Genesis as literal history. Reread that if you didn’t get the nuance of “the interpretation of Genesis” vs. “Genesis”.”
Sorry, I’m new to your blog (and blogs in general!), so I need to do my own homework it seems!
Maybe I’m again missing your point again, but I think i agree. The weight does depend on that interpretation as literal history, and since Paul interpreted it that way, why should we do otherwise?
You said, “Well, a day is not a day to God, so I think it’s helpful to keep in mind that the “fourth dimension” is ultimately meaningless. As far as God is concerned, we could be having this conversation at the same time that Jesus is being crucified at the same time that he is blessing Noah at the same time that the creative power of his Word is forming the Big Bang.”
I agree that a day is not a day to God, and that our concept of time is extremely limited when trying to understand Gods eternal nature, but God wrote the Bible for MAN, not Himself. Therefore, given He could’ve easily described a long-age, evolutionary time scale in an understandable way, but DIDN’T, I think it is important that we take Genesis as its written. A day may not be a day to God, but it is to US, who the Bible was written for (the audience), so why would He confuse us with concepts about time we can’t grasp fronm His level?
As I said before, look at Exodus 20, where it talks about how we are to work for 6 days and rest on the 7th as God did when creating. If it really took billions of years, then this is just a ludicrous command! If God meant billions of years in Genesis, and then expected us to understand the Exodus 20 command based on a literary framework, then that is deceptive of God in the extreme, IMO. And if the bible acts (in the OT and NT) as if Genesis is literal, why differ?
Sorry also for my rambling. I’m typing this one handed while eating dinner, so hopefully i didn’t leave any thoughts unfinished. I also apologize in advance if i sound too forceful, because i certainly don’t mean to be! Looking forward to your response.
Dave
Dave, thanks very much for taking the time to write that reply – I really do appreciate it. There’s a lot of issues there and they really ought to be dealt with separately in order to keep things under control. I’m going to try and break out some separate blog posts, but it might take me a day or two to get things digested since work is getting busy again and I don’t have so much time at home right now.
I think one of the fundamental questions behind the entire discussion is (regardless of who God narrated or revealed Genesis to, whether it was Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses or someone else) did God interpret His acts of creation into oral or written language for his original audience (mankind), or did He literally describe what happened as it happened?
Let’s leave that as the central question for this comment thread – I’ll try to address the remaining issues in separate topics.
My “thesis” is that God said and/or wrote “day” as it was understood by mankind, but that our understanding of a “God day” is incomplete and unknowable. If God chose to take 100 million earth years to accomplish something and call it a “day”, then that is his sovereign prerogative. As such, I’ve been reading “day” as a literary construct that frames each creative step of the written account of Genesis 1 (and I mean “literary” to also apply to oral communication if the divine transmission happened before written language was used).
That sounds like a great idea! This is definitely a new approach for me as far as talking about creation/evolution is concerned. Fun stuff
As far as your thesis for these comments is concerned, I think that you may be trying to draw a line where none needs to be drawn, I’ll try to explain. We will never know 100% for sure if God gave us Genesis as literal history, a narrative framework, an allegory, myth, whatever, because we obviously can’t know the mind of God. However, that being said, we do know that God has been exceedingly kind by giving us His testimony to man via the Bible, which for the most part was written to be understandable and clear to us, the end user (admittedly, some of that clarity is lost on us now that we are 1000s of years removed from the original autographs, and excepting also some of the apocalyptic writings). Given that, certain things are written in certain ways to convey His message in the intended way. Thats why the Bible has historical narratives, chronologies, geneaologies, poetry, allegory, suzerain treaties, parables, apocalyptic writings etc. Based on those styles of writing, we determine the best hermeneutic to interpret the text. Most all Hebrew scholars (jewish, christian, and secular, regardless of their beleifs about the truth or accuracy of the text) regard it as being written as literal history. Based on this, I would say in response to your thesis, that God said and wrote day with the dual intention for us to understand AND to describe a day to God as it applies to creation. The very definition of the word day is from the Genesis account “and there was morning and there was evening, the 1st day.” To say that a day to God is unknowable to us is just semantics. God is outside of time, and has no “day.” He has no need to mrk the passage of time because there is no time for Him. The word day has no other use than for us to know the timing of some event, as used in Genesis. I also still believe, that if God used a vast amount of time, as it applies to us, to create, He would’ve just said so. It is not a hard concept, and the account of Genesis smack of subterfuge and deciept on His part if it is really intended to mean long ages of some kind.
Additionally, I keep coming back to this also: If Genesis, which is written as literal history is such an interpretive problem, why not any other Biblical historical narrative written in the same manner. Take for instance Jericho. It is written in the same style of historical narrative in the Hebrew, but you probably won’t find many who believe that the Israerlites marched around Jericho for 7 billion years or something.
Thats all I’ve got for now. Hopefully I stayed on topic…I really tried!
Looking forward to the upcoming post.
Dave
Most all Hebrew scholars (jewish, christian, and secular, regardless of their beleifs about the truth or accuracy of the text) regard it as being written as literal history.
I would have thought it was the other way… that most scholars would be looking at parallels to the common mythological or allegorical elements in other cultural documents, while most theologians would tend to regard it as literal history.
Based on this, I would say in response to your thesis, that God said and wrote day with the dual intention for us to understand AND to describe a day to God as it applies to creation. The very definition of the word day is from the Genesis account “and there was morning and there was evening, the 1st day.” To say that a day to God is unknowable to us is just semantics. God is outside of time, and has no “day.” He has no need to mrk the passage of time because there is no time for Him. The word day has no other use than for us to know the timing of some event, as used in Genesis.
And yet, the word “day” is used to describe experiences that have no natural or scientific relationship to evening and morning on earth. How can there be a literal day when there is no sun, no separation of waters, no land? For that to make sense, you’d have to start with day 4 (vss. 14-19). That is, unless the mechanics of a literal day (sun/moon) are different from the meaning of a day (light/dark, evening/morning). I’m just saying that to understand the meaning of a creation day, the written structure of Genesis 1 has to be read literarily, not literally.
I also still believe, that if God used a vast amount of time, as it applies to us, to create, He would’ve just said so. It is not a hard concept, and the account of Genesis smack of subterfuge and deciept on His part if it is really intended to mean long ages of some kind.
I’m still having a hard time with this one. I think that the concept of hundreds of millions of years is incredibly difficult for humans to grasp with our limited individual self-awareness of less than 1000 years (in the Biblical extreme, 100ish years for modern mankind). I see the use of “day” as a way for mankind to try and fit what happened during creation using the vocabulary and concepts of what they/we know.
Additionally, I keep coming back to this also: If Genesis, which is written as literal history is such an interpretive problem, why not any other Biblical historical narrative written in the same manner. Take for instance Jericho. It is written in the same style of historical narrative in the Hebrew, but you probably won’t find many who believe that the Israerlites marched around Jericho for 7 billion years or something.
No, I wouldn’t suggest that either because the majority of the Bible was written by humans in “man time”, not “God time”. Jericho was experienced by humans; Creation was experienced by God and interpreted by humans.
It’s all good stuff, Dave. That’s all I have for now… I’ll try to work on some new posts this week.
Hi again! I’ll ahev to be breif tonight, as I’m kind of busy with work stuff…
What I meant referring to Hebrew scholars is that they almost all agre on what the text is trying to say, not whether they believe it to be true.
If I understand you correctly, I agree with the meaning of day, not the mechanics. There have been some studies fo the Hebrew that suggest the very first part of creation was God saying let there be light, so maybe the light (from God as most presume) was even before the earth. Either way, I think the light from God, with a rotating earth (even if it is still void) is all you need for a day.
I’m not sure I understand the distinction you are making between reading it literarily or literaly. If the literary style is one of historical account, then why does it matter that I’m reading it literally? I think thats the normal way to read history. For instance, if you read a book about WW2, its obvious by the way its written that the literary device is historical narrative. Given that, the approach shouldn’t be to find the hidden literary structure or device, you just read what it says. My ultimate point about this, and the deception comments earlier, is that the intended Hebrew auience read it as literal history, and believed it that way. If it isn’t true that it took 6 24-hour days, then I find that deceptive.
Again, I don’t think it is hard to grasp a vast amount of time. Like I said the ancient Greeks and Romans believed that the earth had existed for eternity and went through cyclical changes. I think that ancient man (especially since they were closer to Adam and had many less built up genetic defects) could’ve easily grasped the concept. At least as easily that you and I can.
Have a great night!
You might enjoy reading Ken Miller’s book Finding Darwin’s God. He does a great job of showing what is wrong with the arguments of young-earth creationists not only from a scientific perspective, but a theological one as well. His chapter on young earth creationism is actually called “God the Charlatan”, since in order to accept young earth creationism you have to believe that God intentionally made the evidence point not simply to an older earth, but to an earth of a specific age that it really isn’t.
Here’s a link as well to my class web page on the creation story in Genesis 1.
James,
I own and have read this book (earlier this year in fact). However, may I just point you to a review/refutation of this book instead of trying to point out a lot of the inaccuracies on my own?
http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1826
As with most anti-creationists (which I’m not trying to bash him due to his disbelief in the YEC position), he is guilty of building straw-man arguments and not doing his homework.
I would challenge you to provide evidence (or more reasonably point to some) that the earth is really billions of years old. ALL of the methods that point to the earth’s age as being old, or young (with the possible exception of C-14, if the appropriate corrections for error are used, which usually aren;t because it gives ages much younger than 10kyrs, and C-14’s upper limit is around 50kyrs anyway) have very faulty assumptions which have been shown by some very in-depth research by ICR/CMI/AiG in the RATE project. If you want some additional info, let me know. I’ll even send you copies of the RATE books if you are seriously interested (keep in mind that they are hyper-technical).
In the end, I just want you to know I’m not trying to say that you have to believe the YEC position. I just want people who dismiss it to do their homework and approach it with a certain level of intellectual honesty. To just dismiss it out of hand will only hurt. Even if you vehemently disagree, its always best to read the “enemy’s” work so that you can beter fight them
In Christ,
Dave
James,
I just went to the link, and I should apologize, it does appear that you have done more “homework” than I gave you credit for initially. I still disagree with you, and maybe there can be a dialogue about certain things that you find lacking in the YEC positon, so that maybe I could tgry to better explain.
Either way, I do wnat to thank you for at least (or so it appears from your site) trying to dig in and figure out why each side believes what it believes. Very few people seem to be genuinely interested in learning and much more interested in elephant hurling (on both sides)!
Dave
Hey interesting stuff. I was raised theistic-evolutionist and, like many before me, rejected the Gospel based on the fact I couldn’t equate a loving creator with the violent and death-filled process of evolution. One common question is, ‘how could a loving God create a world full of suffering… especially if that suffering is the very process by which He creates life?”
Nowadays I am saved, and lean towards a straightforward reading of the book of Genesis. After all, God was the eyewitness to Creation – and either He lied to us or He told us the truth when the Bible repeatedly describes all creation arising at the command of His Word.
Admittedly, I don’t think a Christian’s salvation necessarily hinges on their perspective. But a lot of people, I mean, heaps, do reject the Gospel because of these issues.
As for the dinosaurs thing, I’m a big fan of dinosaurs. I think they’re fascinating. So-called “YECs” don’t necessarily teach that dinosaurs are the result of God’s practical joke. If anything, the reptilian orders Saurischia and Ornithischia and the family Herrerasauridae are all land-based creatures, and could be said to have been created on the 6th day – along with the other land animals. The fossil record can be explained as a result of the global flood. It’s probably not a co-incidence that most fossil deposits are described as evidence of (presumably localised) ‘flash flooding.’
Anyway, I just wanted to point that out! The fossils didn’t need to be planted by God in the Flood, because the natural processes of flooding are suitable for the fossilisation process.
Good to see you around here again, fikalo. I think that your statement, “He told us the truth when the Bible repeatedly describes all creation arising at the command of His Word”, carries the potential for many different interpretations, but all unified in “the truth” as you’ve eloquently captured it. Thank you!