Blog

by Steve Risner

[This blog post is part of a series. The previous post is here, and the next post is here.]

Thanks for reading! We are very deep into discussing the theological issues brought up by godofevolution.com blogger Tyler Francke in his blog post “10 theological questions no young-earth creationist can answer.” As of right now, we haven’t gotten to the 10 questions but have been dismantling everything he's stated thus far in his introduction. It may seem a little like overkill to be involved in this for so long and still be in the intro. But Tyler included in his introduction a list of 10 links to various posts he's written that pose “theological” issues for Biblical creation (which in and of itself is strange since Biblical creation is what the Church in general has believed firmly in for 2000 years and the Jews before that). We've hardly touched on anything theological. Most of his issues are because he doesn't understand the Biblical point of view, or he misrepresents the Biblical position altogether. Most of his concerns are not in the category of theology at all. Today, unfortunately, is another blog post by him that mocks the Bible. This, too, is very odd since he claims to respect the Bible and its teachings yet he routinely mocks what the Bible says. He'll likely say he's not mocking the Bible but is mocking those who believe what it says. I fail to see the difference. Let's take a look at his blog post he calls “The absolute craziest thing young-earth creationist groups believe.”

He starts out by listing distorted things that he claims Bible believers teach. That, again, is unfortunate. But he says none of these massive distortions or misrepresentations of what the Bible says equals this one—which he says takes the cake.

Surprise! He's saying to believe what the Bible says is the craziest thing we believe. I have to just begin by apologizing if you've read the blog post I linked to above. It's very juvenile in its demeanor and I can't help but feel sorry for him. His issue here shows something I think shouldn't be overlooked—he can't think outside the box he's built for himself. His culture, society, education, acquaintances, or whatever have created a world he believes is the only way human beings can or should live. So the issue he's come up with as the “craziest” thing the Bible teaches is that the human race expanded, multiplied, and spread across the globe through incest. So what's the deal? Is this true? What's going on here?

Adam and Eve (Eve was made from Adam so I'm already jumping ahead of Tyler in saying that Eve was made out of Adam so, according to him, that's probably a problem for the Bible as well) had a son named Cain. They had other children, as well. The Bible doesn't record the names of all of them. It simply says “...Adam... had other sons and daughters.” Keep in mind here, as the Bible states pretty clearly, that Adam lived a very long time having sons and daughters. How many kids could you have in the time frame of 930 years? He was created to live forever—likely genetically perfect. This goes for Eve as well. How long could they have kids? Well, it says they bore children after Seth for a pretty long time—800 years. Genesis 3:20 tells us that Eve is the mother of all living (not the mother of some, a few, most, or anything like that… ALL). So I believe this means she's the mother of all humans that have ever lived (except Adam, of course). Why? Because the Bible makes it pretty clear that's what it means. This, by necessity, means that Eve is the mother of all the people that were alive at the time, then. A very common question is “Where did Cain get his wife?” Cain's wife, by necessity, was likely a sister or niece. Yes, this is marriage between close relatives. No, there was no other option. Were these unions blessed by God? Some, sure. Others, probably not. It depends on the persons involved. The Biblical position here in question is that Adam and Eve are the parents of all those alive, period. Tyler claims this is a teaching of “young-earth creationist organizations” like Answers in Genesis and the Institute for Creation Research. The truth is, if you Google search “Where did Cain get his wife” you'll find ICR, AiG, Christian Answers, Let us Reason, Life Hope and Truth, Josh McDowell, Christian Apologetics Research Ministry, and so many more that all agree with the Biblical position—Cain's wife was a sister or other close relative. Even Wikipedia makes this fact clear.

But that's not all! What happens when we get to the account of Noah and the Flood? His family is all that's left. His 3 sons and their wives were the only humans to reproduce after the Flood, so the story here is the same. But wait! That's not all. Abraham's family married close relations, including Abraham's brother, Nahor, and Abraham himself. Abraham's wife, Sarah, was his half-sister. Isaac married his cousin, Jacob married 2 of his cousins, Amram married his aunt who birthed Miraim, Aaron, and Moses, and Charles Darwin married his cousin. Didn't see that last one coming, did you? It's true, though.

You see, by isolating this situation to only Cain, Tyler makes it seem like it's some sort of hole in the Biblical position. However, this early in the human race, there were no genetic reasons to forbid such unions. Well, except for in Darwin's day. That's why he had several kids that had serious health issues, from weak immune systems to infertility. But in the early years after creation, genetic defects had not created a situation where close relatives would have problems mating. In our culture and context, yes, this seems wrong. But we need to keep in mind that our culture makes a lot of stuff in the Bible seem odd or even repulsive. How about publicly stripping, beating to a bloody pulp, and nailing to a cross on a hill near a busy road into town a man not guilty of any crime? That seems offensive to me. What about you? The Bible, full of customs of a people far away from long ago is hard to get sometimes. But this doesn't make me think the Bible is incorrect in how it records the events. I am a little relieved this is not practiced in my culture, but it was for centuries elsewhere. Royalty in many nations' histories record close relatives marrying to keep the throne in the family.

Now, to be sure, it is true that the Law given to Moses and passed on to the Hebrews tells us that incest is forbidden. However, all of the examples I gave from the Bible occurred long before this Law was given and long before the reasons for that Law—genetic mutation—had taken root in the human gene pool. At the time of the Patriarchs, we're not just talking about this sort of thing being excused. It was necessary for the survival of the human race in some cases. Tyler here again demonstrates a very weak understanding of the Biblical text. God's plan included this; read it for yourself. Not just Cain, as he wants you to think. Abraham, the father of the faith, was involved in an incestuous relationship and Moses was the result of one. Did God bless these people? You better believe it. In fact, Abraham was blessed in his marriage with a son—Isaac! And Tyler wants this all to be a myth or something like that (I'm not really sure what he thinks because all of this time—in all these blog posts—he's not told us what he believes so much as he's mocked what the Bible says). That's fine, too. Regardless of how the story is read (as a myth, an allegory, or an historical account) it seems to have the moral teaching that incest is okay in these instances. Especially when you read Genesis 17:15-16 where God says He will bless Sarah and give Abraham a son through her, his half-sister.

So is the point here that incest is okay? Of course not. It seems like Tyler wants us to think that's what the Biblical teaching is, but it clearly is not as is indicated by the above Levitical text. But prior to the Law being given, not only was incest excused, it was necessary. Tyler is trying to use this Law and the numerous instances where we find this act in Scripture prior to the delivery of the Law as a means to discredit the Bible. He's also then, towards the end of his blog post, employing the “what if” fallacy to try to poke holes in this clear teaching. In fact, he's trying to make a case for incest being okay. That seems ironic, doesn't it? This almost seems like a familiar phrase we find in Genesis 3:1: “Did God really say…"

Creation Moments has a nice piece on this as well. I encourage you to take a look at it.

I'm sorry we had to do this. Tyler is making an extremely exaggerated argument against something God clearly was behind. He has repeatedly mocked the Word (not just those who stand to uphold the Truth of it). I cannot believe a lover of Jesus Christ would do such things. You can say you have an alternate way to interpret a passage of Scripture and still maintain a respect for it. But if you constantly mock the Bible, I'm not sure how that's treating it with respect. Pray for Tyler. Pray for those that support him. We are nearly finished with the intro to this dreadful blog post!

This forum is meant to foster discussion and allow for differing viewpoints to be explored with equal and respectful consideration.  All comments are moderated and any foul language or threatening/abusive comments will not be approved.  Users who engage in threatening or abusive comments which are physically harmful in nature will be reported to the authorities.