SERMON TEXT: GENESIS 1:325
OUTLINE
I. God Forming the Earth
A. Day One Illumination
B. Day Two Habitation Possible
C. Day Three Vegetation
II. God Filling the Earth
A. Day Four He made the heavenly bodies
B. Day Five He made possible multiplication
C. Day Six Domination
SERMON TEXT
I'd like for you to turn in your Bible to Genesis 1:3-25.
Now of course there are several questions that immediately come to our mind when we read these verses that talk about the days of creation.
For instance the first question that comes to our mind is, Are these days literal days,
or are they figurative days?
There are several basic positions
that people have taken about this.
There are those who say
that these days are literal 24hour days.
A day is really not determined by the sun
but rather a day is determined by
the rotation of the earth on its axis one time:
that's a day.
1
So some people believe that these are seven literal days.
The other view is that the word "day" here
is a word that is used to refer to an extended period time.
Sometimes that is the way it's used.
For instance, if you will notice in chapter 2:4 it says,
"These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens."
There you see the word "day"
is used as an extended period of time.
The third view is that the six days here
are really the successive days that God revealed
the Genesis account of creation to Moses.
On each day God revealed something different.
The word that is used here for day is
the Hebrew word "yom",yom.
1
The problem you run into is that this word occurs almost 1500 times in the Old Testament and it's translated with 44different English words. So you're facing a real problem when youtry to decide what it's really all about. I personally have takenthe view that the reference to day here is a reference to aliteral 24hour day. I believe personally that this is what isintended here for several reasons. One of the reasons is because over in Exodus chapter 20, verse 11, where it has talkedabout us working for six days and resting on the seventh day, ituses the creation days as an illustration of that fact and itseems to suggest there that the days were literal 24hour days. Another reason I do is because, as you notice down throughthese verses, for instance in verse 5, it says, "evening andmorning were the first day," and there is a numerical word usedthere: first day. Then later on it talks about second day. Everytime the Hebrew word "yom" is used in the Old Testament with aword for a number like that it is a reference to a 24hour day. Another reason I believe it's 24 literal hours is because ofthe language. The language seems to imply that. For instance inverse 3 God says, "Let there be light," or literally, "Lightexist, and light existed." In other words God gave the command,He spoke, "Light exist," and in obedience to the voice of Godlight existed. Now the question is, How long did it take God tosay that? And the question is, How long did it take for there tobe obedience to the command of God? I heard about a fellow who was a little nervous, he was getting ready to jump out of an airplane with a parachute for thefirst time. And one of the guys said to him, "Oh, don't worry about it, it's a piece of cake." He said, "All you've got to dois just jump out of the plane, count to ten, pull the rip cord,and the parachute opens." So the guy jumped out, and the guybehind him jumped out, and as the guy behind him came down by thefirst guy he heard him saying, "Thththththree." And so, howdid God say that? Well God does not stutter, and so the languageseems to suggest that God spoke and said, "Light exist," and inobedience to the voice of God light came into existence. And then of course the thing that really settles it for me isthis: how big is our God? Is God big enough to do it in sixliteral days? Well of course the answer is obvious isn't it? Godcould create the world in six seconds if He chose to do so. Itwouldn't take God centuries to bring His creation into existence.So I believe what we have here in the creation days are literal 24hour days successive. Now there's a second question that we really come to that's more important in my mind than that question and it's the question, How does this stack up with what we find in science? I mean when you compare what the Bible says here about the matter of creation, how does this stack up with what science has to say about it? From time to time I have heard people say about the Bible the Bible is not a science book. And of course we all agree with that because we all know that the Bible is primarily a book of redemption. The purpose of the Bible is to show us how we can get out of the mess we're in, sin, through the death of Jesus Christ on Calvary's cross, how we can be saved, stay out of Hell and get to Heaven. So the Bible is primarily a book of salvation, a book of redemption. But I have never been comfortable with the statement the Bible is not a science book. Well it is not a science book but we believe that when the Bible speaks on a scientific subject then what it says is true. In other words if the Bible makes a scientific statement we believe that is a true statement. See, if you can't believewhat the Bible says about Genesis 1, creation, how can you believewhat Jesus said in John 3 about salvation, being born again? Ibelieve that true Bible interpretation and true science will nevercontradict one another. You see, God is the author of two greatbooks: there is God's book of nature, and there is also God's bookof scripture. So when you find truth in God's book of nature itwill never contradict truth in God's book of scripture. And so, really, if you find something in the Bible that seems tocontradict science it means either, one, that the science isincorrect, or, number two, it means that your interpretation ofthe scripture is incorrect. I was watching the other night on one of the local accesscable outlets Madelyn Murray O'Hare, the atheist, and she was just having a big time talking about Usher's dates for the creation ofthe world, he dated it at 6,000 years ago, and she was laughing and making fun of that. But I don't know anybody today who really tries to interpret the Bible who would say that the Bible teachesthe earth is only 6,000 years old. The fact of the matter is wedon't know how old the earth is. The Bible does not address that particular subject. The Bible just says, "In the beginning Godcreated the heaven and the earth." So I believe that when you find truth in one area it will not contradict God's truth in theother area. Now the theory, the scientific theory, that has been the mostformidable attack on what the Bible says about creation is of course the theory of evolution. The theory of evolution, as we'll see a little bit later tonight, probably has been around a long,long time. But the theory was really popularized and caused tospread by a man named Charles Darwin. Now here's what Darwin basically said; Darwin basically said that higher forms of life gradually evolved from lower forms of life. That's what the theory of evolution basically says, that all higher forms of life gradually evolved from lower forms of life. I personally reject the theory of evolution and I do so because of two great considerations. Number one, I believe that the theory of evolution is not right scientifically. I believe that modern biology, I believe that modern genetics, I believe all of the evidence is against the theory of evolution. You see, evolution, scientifically, really cannot account for two of the great facts that are stated in the book of Genesis. You see, Genesis gives us a statement of how things began, it tells us the origin of things, and Genesis says,"In the beginning God created." Evolution wants to account for the origin of things in some other way. For instance, some evolutionists believe that the earth just always existed, that there just always was a universe, that it never came into being, that it just always was. There are other evolutionists who believe that life began to exist on the earth because it was brought from some other planet. There are some who believe that a germ was riding on a meteor and it fell off on the earth and that's how life came into existence. One ingenious professor several years ago theorized that what happened was that there was a creature from another planet who visited on the earth and brought a garbage can along and that out of the garbage can a creature crawled out and it became a man. Every time I hear that I think about the two ladies who were talking and one of them said to the other, "What do you do when you're in the dumps?" And the other one said, "I buy a hat." And the other one said, "I wondered where you got them." Well I don't believe that man originated in a garbage dump. And, you see, that really doesn't solve anything because if you think that life came from some other planet, all you do, you've just shifted the question from this planet to that planet. Where did the germ come from on the other planet? And then there are some evolutionists who say that all of it is just a colossal accident, the Big Bang Theory. In other words, once upon a time there was a big bang, a colossal accident, and that everything we see in our universe came into existence. The probabilities of our creation, of our universe, coming into existence by means of a colossal big bang accident are about as probable as a Webster's Unabridged Dictionary resulting from an explosion in a printing factory. And so, you see, evolution really has no explanation for how life came into existence on the earth. Now there is another problem for the evolutionist that is found in the verses we're studying tonight and it's the little phrase which occurs in verse 11. Look down at verse 11 where it says, "and the fruit tree yielding fruit [now look at this] after his kind." Do you see that? After his kind. That little phrase occurs ten times in these verses. Ten times that little phrase,"after his kind," is found. Now the rough equivalent of that would be, "after his phylum," "after his family." It is a statement that everything is according to family, that all life is grouped in phylum or in family. Now what that means is that roses always produce roses. Now there is evidence of mutation, that is, changes within families. For instance roses; there are all kinds of roses: there are red roses, and there are white roses, and there are yellow roses, all kinds of varieties of roses. You will find that mutation changes within a family. But you will never find transmutation, in other words one family becoming another. In other words a rose may become a red rose, a yellow rose, or a white rose, but there is never any evidence that a rose will become an orange. That just simply means that when you plant a pecan tree it produces pecans, it doesn't produce tangerines. After his kind. And what we have learned about genetics has taught us, really, that it's all in the genes; that any time there's a change within a species it's because the chromosomes in those genes already had the ingredients necessary. In other words it's all in the genetic code or a change cannot occur. And so there has never been demonstrated anywhere where one family, or one species, transmutated, or evolved, into another species or family. It's always "after his kind." And so I believe that it is not right scientifically. I was reading what one scientist said about evolution and why scientists continue to believe in evolution, and he says evolution is a fairy tale for grownups. And I think that's true. Well why is it then that people just keep holding on to the theory of evolution? Well, you see, if evolution be true and things evolved over a gradual process that eliminates a belief in a supernatural God. Well then, you see, if there is no God who created you then there is no God to whom you are accountable. In the famous Russian novel "Brothers Karamozov" one of the characters said, "If God does not exist everything is permissible." And that's true. If you don't believe there is a God to whom you are accountable then anything you want to do is all right according to your own interpretation of what is right and wrong. So I reject the theory of evolution because it's not right scientifically. But then secondly I reject the theory of evolution because it is not right spiritually. You see, evolution is an attempt to explain the existence of the world without the existence of God. When Darwin wrote his book on evolution there were two men in history who grabbed that theory immediately. One of them was the German atheist named Nietsche, and Nietsche grabbed hold of the theory of evolution and the result was German militarism and Hitler. The other was a man named Karl Marx; he took the theory of evolution and applied it to social matters and the result was Communism. And so, you see, it is an attempt to get away from God. I believe that one of the real problems and one of the real causes for the moral collapse in America is that we are a society which has been brought up on the theory that man gradually evolved. You see, if you believe that people evolved from animals, if you teach young people long enough that they came from animals, it won't be long until they start behaving like animals. And you look at all of the social theory, you look at all of the things that are being done today, and you will discover that at the root of it all is basically the theory of evolution. For instance, this whole idiotic policy of putting out condoms in our public schools is not a thing in the world but looking on young people like they were animals in heat. But, ladies and gentlemen, young people are made in the image of God and they are accountable and they are responsible to God for their behavior, and they are responsible to obey the commands of God about sex as well as all other matters in the Word of God. And so it is not right spiritually. But I want us to look now at these days of creation, and as you look at these days of creation it has been pointed out that there are thirteen steps of creation here, and in general science is in agreement with what these thirteen steps are and the order in which they appear. In other words the latest science basically agrees that these thirteen steps are the way it all came about and in the correct order. Now the question is, What were the mathematical probabilities of all of these thirteen steps being put in the book of Genesis in the correct order the way Moses has done? Well, some mathematician has said here's what the probabilities are. The probabilities of all of this being put together correctly in the right order, the probabilities of all of that happening are about 1 in 31 sextillion. Now what that is 31 with 21 zeroes after it. Now I don't know if that means anything to you, it doesn't to me, because when I get beyond the toes on my feet and the fingers on my hands that's about all the mathematics I know. So let me give you a little illustration. Here's what 31 sextillion would be. Just imagine that there are 8 million printing presses and these 8 million printing presses are going to print tickets, we're going to have a raffle. So those 8 million printing presses print 2,000 tickets a minute for 5,000 years. When they get through you've got 31 sextillion tickets. Now your chances of picking the winning ticket are 1 in 31 sextillion. That's the probabilities of all this being the way it is and being correct. Now keep in mind this was written by Moses. Moses was the human author that the Holy Spirit used to write these creation days. Now where did Moses get this information? Now, you see, Moses was no ignoramus. The Bible teaches us that Moses had access to one of the finest university educations available on the earth at the time he lived. You remember what happened to Moses? He was brought up in the home of Pharaoh's daughter, and the evidence is, according to Acts 7:22, is that Moses was learned in all the wisdom of Egypt.