GOD'S THREE-FOLD REVELATION OF HIMSELF
The King
James Version Defended, by Edward F. Hills
Chapter One
How do we know that there is a God? How do we know that the Bible is God's Word,
infallibly inspired and providentially preserved? How do we know that Jesus
Christ is God's eternal Son? We know all this because of God's revelation of
Himself. In nature, in the Scriptures, and in the Gospel of Christ God reveals
Himself, not mere evidences of His existence, not mere doctrines concerning
Himself, not a mere history of His dealings with men, but HIMSELF. In nature God
reveals Himself as the almighty Creator God, in the Scriptures God reveals
Himself as the faithful Covenant God, and in the Gospel of Christ, which is the
saving message of the Scriptures, God reveals Himself as the triune Saviour God.
In this present chapter, therefore, we will discuss God's three-fold revelation
of Himself, the foundation of the Christian view of the world and of the Bible
and its text.
1. In Nature God Reveals Himself As The Almighty Creator God
Modern ethnologists and anthropologists have discovered that belief in God is
general among men. It is found even in savage and uncivilized tribes who have
never read the Bible or heard of Christ. "About the existence of some form of
monotheism," Paul Radin (1954) tells us, "among practically all primitive
peoples there can be little doubt.'' (1) W. Schmidt (1931) also states that even
among the African Pygmies there is "the clear acknowledgement and worship of a
Supreme Being." (2) According to Nieuwenhuis (1920), this idea of God was
produced "by the impression which the universe made as a whole on reflecting
men, as soon as they set about trying to understand the world round about them."
(3)
But these discoveries of modern investigators were anticipated long ago by the
inspired psalmist, who exclaimed, O LORD our Lord, how excellent is Thy NAME in
all the earth! (Psalm 8:1). What is God's Name? As many scholars and theologians
have pointed out, God's name is His revelation of Himself. God's name is
excellent in all the earth. God the Creator is present everywhere in the world
which He has made, actively and objectively revealing Himself in all His divine
excellence. In the regular motions of the stars and planets He reveals His power
and glory (Psalm 19:1; Isa. 40:26). In the immense variety of living things and
their harmonious interaction He reveals His wisdom (Psalm 104:24). In the rain,
sunshine and harvest He reveals His goodness and His tender mercies (Psalm
145:9; Acts 14:17). In the human conscience He reveals His righteousness.
writing on the heart of man His moral law (Rom. 2:15). And in the universal
prevalence of death and its attendant sickness and suffering He reveals His
wrath and coming judgment (Rom. 5:12).
Because God the Creator is present everywhere revealing Himself in the world
which He has made, all men of every tribe and nation may know God if they will
and do know Him at least in part. Because that which may be known of God is
manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them (Rom. 1:19). Atheism and
agnosticism are inexcusable. For the invisible things of him from the creation
of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made,
even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse (Rom. 1:20).
Idolatry and all other false doctrines and observances constitute a departure
from this natural knowledge of God, an apostasy which is motivated by human
pride and vanity. Because that, when they knew God, they glorified Him not as
God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their
foolish heart was darkened (Rom. 1:21).
God reveals Himself in the world which He has created. How can we be sure of
this? We can be sure of this upon the authority of the holy Bible. As John
Calvin observed long ago, (4) the sacred Scriptures are the God-given eyeglasses
or contact lenses (to speak in ultra-modern terms) which correct our spiritual
vision and enable our sin-darkened minds to see aright God's revelation of
Himself in nature (Psalm 119:130). Therefore the guidance of the Bible is
necessary in the study of the natural sciences. In the Bible God has inscribed
the basic principles which give unity to scientific thought and provide the
answers to ultimate scientific questions. In order to prove this let us consider
some of these questions in the light of holy Scripture.
(a) What the Bible Teaches Concerning Astronomy
When we believe in God as the Creator of the universe and receive the revelation
which He has made of Himself in nature and the holy Scriptures, then for the
first time the mysteries of astronomy become comprehensible, at least in
principle. Then for the first time we understand how astronomers with their tiny
human minds can know as much as they do know concerning the vastness of the
heavens. Then we learn once and for all that the universe is finite and that,
however vast it may appear to our human eyes, in the eyes of God it is a very
little thing (Isa. 40:15). As Thiel (1967) has observed whether the universe is
large or small depends on the way you look at it.
According to Thiel, if the
nebulae were the size of pinheads the space between them would be no more than a
hand's breadth. (5) And in God's sight the nebulae are mere pinheads. Indeed,
the Scriptures teach us that compared with God's infinite greatness the whole
universe is less than nothing and vanity (Isa. 40:17,22). God created the whole
universe according to His wisdom (Psalm 104:24). He understands it completely,
and to man He gives the wisdom to understand it partially. And it is from this
wisdom which God gives that all that is true in astronomy and every other
department of science is derived. For with Thee is the fountain of life: in Thy
light shall we see light (Psalm 36:9).
In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth (Gen. 1:1) How long ago
was that beginning? There are many who say that this must have been ten billion
years ago, because light takes this long to reach the earth from the farthest
quasi-stellars. But this argument has no cogency for those who believe in the
omnipotent Creator. If God created the stars and put them in their places in
space, why couldn't He have brought down their light to the earth in an instant
of time? There is no need, therefore, to "re-interpret" the first chapter of
Genesis and thus to obscure its plain meaning with modern glosses and
rationalizations. On the contrary, the more we let this sublime introduction to
the written Word of God tell its own story the more reasonable and up-to-date we
see it to be.
The first two verses of Genesis 1 tell us how the whole universe was brought
into being by the creative act of God, in an unformed state at first, perhaps as
mere energy out of which matter was later constituted. The rest of this first
Bible chapter describes to us how the Spirit of God, who moved upon the face of
the waters, brought the whole creation out of its original formless condition
into an estate of entire perfection. And it was in reference to the earth that
this creative power was first exercised. No mention is made of the sun, moon and
stars until after the earth is freed from its layers of water and carpeted with
grass and herbs. The sun, moon and stars, on the other hand, are younger than
the earth, having been created, or at least brought into their present state, on
the fourth day. Next the seas and the dry land were populated with living
creatures, and then finally man was created in God's image with a mind attuned
to heaven's harmonies and a God-given ability to search out its mysteries.
Although the Bible is entirely true and cannot be in any way affected by the
opinions of men, nevertheless it is of interest to note that some of the latest
developments in the realm of astronomy agree with what the Bible has always
taught concerning the natural world. For example, astronomers for many years
believed that the sun was at the center of the universe and ridiculed the Bible
for speaking of the sun as moving and the earth as standing still. "The
Copernican heliocentric cosmogony," Shapley (1960) observes, "prevailed for more
than three centuries and widened its range in that the sun eventually was
considered to be not only central in its own planetary family, and in full
command through gravitation, but also appeared to be the central object for the
whole stellar world."
But in 1917 this heliocentric cosmogony was found to have
been a mistake. "The sun is no longer thought to be in a central position," Shapley continues, but has now been relegated "to the edge of one ordinary
galaxy in an explorable universe of billions of galaxies." (6) Evidently, then,
the sun is of little significance in itself. Millions and millions of other
stars are larger and more impressive. The sun is important chiefly because its
rays nourish the earth and the lives of men who are created in God's image. And
this is what the Bible has always taught (Gen. 1:14-18). This is what Jesus
teaches (Matt. 5:45).
The earth, then, is more important than the sun because it is the abode of men,
God's image bearers. It was on earth that the Son of God was crucified for
sinners. It is to earth that He shall return to judge the living and the dead.
It is to emphasize this central importance of the earth in the plan of God and
in history that the Bible speaks of the earth as being at rest and the sun as
moving. And even from a strictly scientific point of view this manner of
speaking is not regarded as incorrect. For according to Einstein: (7) and most
modern scientists, (8) all motion is relative, and one may say with equal
justification either that the earth moves and the sun is at rest or that the sun
moves and the earth is at rest. Einstein's relativity theory, however, depends
on his definition of simultaneity as coincidence in time and space relative to
an observer, and this definition is contrary to fact. Observation clearly shows
that simultaneous events always occur at the same time but never in exactly the
same place. Even simultaneous flashes in a mirror occur at different locations
on the mirror.
For this reason and many others scientists will eventually be compelled to lay
Einstein's theory aside, and when they do they will probably find that the true
view of the universe is that which Tycho Brahe (1546-1601) (9) proposed 400
years ago. He maintained that the earth rotated on its axis and that the sun,
moon and planets revolved about the earth. This hypothesis agrees remarkably
with the biblical data and is mathematically sound, according to Christian
mathematicians such as J. N. Hanson (10) and W. van der Kamp. (11)
(b) What the Bible Teaches Concerning the Fossils
We pass now to geology, the science which deals with the earth and its history.
The type of geology which is accepted today by almost everybody is
uniformitarian geology. Its basic principle is that geologic changes in the past
have been effected gradually by the same processes that are at work in the
present. The Scriptures, however, do not support this assumption but tell us of
a great catastrophe, namely, the Genesis flood, which alone is adequate to
account for the observed geologic phenomena. The following therefore is a brief
summary of the principal points at issue:
( 1 ) The warm climates of geologic times. The evidence of the fossils indicates
that warm climates once prevailed in regions which are now covered with arctic
ice and snow. Sub-tropical heat, it is said, was experienced in Greenland. Why
this tremendous difference between ancient and modern climatic conditions?
Uniformitarian geologists are hard put to it to find an answer to this question.
A rather recent (1954) symposium of scientists stressed changes in the sun's
radiation as the cause of changes of climate here on earth, (12) but astronomer
F. Hoyle (1955) says that there is no evidence that any such variation in solar
radiation took place. (13)
The Bible, however, provides the solution of this problem. The uniformly mild
climate which once prevailed everywhere is to be attributed to the invisible
vapor canopy which enveloped the earth in the days before the flood, namely, the
waters above the firmament, which God established in their places on the second
creation day (Gen. 1:7). The effect of this canopy would be to distribute the
sun's warmth in uniform fashion throughout the earth and to prevent the
formation of cold fronts and the occurrence of wind storms. At the onset of the
flood the windows of heaven were opened (Gen. 7:11), that is to say, the vapor
canopy was precipitated on the earth in the form of torrential rains which
completely flooded it. The Bible indicates that this was the first time it had
ever rained. Before the flood mists watered the ground (Gen. 2:6). After the
flood Noah saw a rainbow for the first time (Gen. 9:13).
(2) Volcanoes and lava flows. In past geologic ages, we are told, volcanic lava
flowed much more plentifully than it does today, both spouting from craters and
pushing upward from great cracks in the earth's surface. A stupendous rock
formation more than one thousand miles in length along the Canadian and Alaskan
shore was formed in this way. The great plateaus of northwestern United States,
covering 200,000 square miles, were built by oozing lava, as was also the famous
Deccan Plateau in India. Other plateaus of this kind occur in South America and
South Africa. Most of the oceanic islands also were produced primarily through
volcanic action. (14)
The presence of all this volcanic lava on the earth's surface contradicts the
leading principle of uniformitarian geology, namely, that the geologic work of
the past was accomplished by the same natural forces that can be observed today.
Plainly it was a catastrophe that produced these lava flows, and the Bible
indicates what this catastrophe was, to wit, the Noachian deluge. Not only were
the windows of heaven opened, but the fountains of the great deep were broken up
(Gen. 7:11), and through the resulting fissures both in the sea floor and also
in the land surfaces the vast lava deposits observable today were spewed forth.
(3) How were the fossils buried? Uniforrnitarian geologists have never given a
consistent answer to this all important question. Instead they assert a paradox.
The fossils, they maintain, were buried quickly, but the rocky strata in which
these fossils are buried were laid down very slowly. The reason, Simpson (1960)
tells us, why there are so many missing links in the evolutionary fossil chain
is that these missing animals were not buried quickly enough. "The possession of
readily preservable hard parts is clearly not enough in itself to assure that a
given organism will indeed be preserved as a fossil. The overwhelming majority
of organisms are quickly destroyed or made unrecognizable, hard parts and all,
by predation, by scavenging, by decay, by chemical action, or by attrition in
transport. The few that escape that fate must (with a few exceptions) be buried
quickly (within days or at most a few years) in sediments free of organisms of
decay or chemicals competent to destroy the hard parts.'' (15) Howells (1959)
says the same thing, observing that it is not easy to become a fossil, (16) and
Rhodes (1962) also informs us that the preservation of an organism almost always
involves rapid burial. (17)
If the fossils must have been buried quickly in order to become fossils, doesn't
it follow that the strata in which the fossils are buried must also have been
laid down quickly? Not so, the geologists strangely maintain. In accordance with
their uniformitarian dogma these scientists insist that these strata were laid
down by the same slow processes which are in operation today. Zeuner (1952), for
example, agrees with Bradley's earlier (1929) estimate that during the Eocene
period the mean rate of the deposition of the strata was only one foot in 3,000
years. (18) And according to Dorf (1964), the volcanic sediments in Yellowstone
Park were laid down at the rate of three-quarters of an inch a year, and this
rate is 100 times faster than that estimated for sand or mud sediments of
comparable age in the Gulf Coast region of North America. (19)
The fossils were buried quickly, but the strata in which the fossils are buried
were laid down very slowly! Uniformitarian geologists would rather insist on
this paradox than admit the reality of the Genesis flood. There is abundant
evidence, however, that the strata were laid down and the fossils buried in a
great world-wide flood. How otherwise can the frequent occurrence of "fossil
graveyards" be explained? The Baltic amber deposits, for example, contain flies
from every region of the earth. The Cumberland Bone Cave in Maryland is filled
with fossils of both arctic and tropical regions. The La Brea Pits in Los
Angeles have yielded thousands of specimens of all kinds of animals both living
and extinct. In Sicily hippopotamus beds occur so extensive that they have been
mined as a source of commercial charcoal. Frozen mammoths and an immense number
of tusks have been discovered in Siberia. At Agate Springs, Nebraska, a vast
aggregate of fossil animal bones have been found jumbled together. (20) And
according to Macfarlane (1923), there is evidence of sudden destruction of fish
life over vast areas. (21)
(4) The fossil order out of order. One of the strongest pillars of
uniformitarian geology is the alleged invariability of the order of the
fossil-bearing strata. The ages of the rock strata are determined by the kind of
fossils that are found in them. The strata containing the simpler forms of life
are always older. The strata containing the more complex forms of life are
always younger. The younger strata are always on top.
This theory, however, often contradicts the facts of nature. Often the younger
strata are on the bottom and the older on top. In the Alps such "inverted"
arrangements of the fossil-bearing strata occur "on a grand scale" (Geikie). The
19th century geologists explained them by supposing that the strata had been
folded together and thus turned upside down. They admitted, however, that there
was no physical evidence for this hypothesis. Thus Geikie (4th ed. 1903)
acknowledged that "the strata could scarcely be supposed to have been really
inverted, save for the evidence as to their true order of succession supplied by
their included fossils." (22)
Another hypothesis by which to explain the "inverted" order of fossiliferous
strata was that "thrust-faults" had occurred, that is to say, sections of the
strata had been raised and pushed up on top of adjacent sections. But B. Willis
(1893), U. S. government geologist, had this to say concerning assumed
thrust-faults in the southern Appalachians. "These faults of great length,
dividing the superficial crust into crowded scales, have provoked the wonder of
the most experienced geologists. The mechanical effort is great beyond
comprehension, but the effect upon the rocks is inappreciable." (23) Another
example of a supposed thrust-fault for which no evidence can be found is the
Lewis over-thrust of Montana which measures 135 miles in length and 15 miles in
breadth. Here also, according to a recent government survey (1959), the rubble
which would naturally be produced by the movement of such a vast quantity of
rock is conspicuously absent. (24)
Thus for one hundred years uniformitarian geologists have been putting forth
paradoxes. To explain the "inverted" order of the strata they have been assuming
tremendous folds and thrust-faults which strangely enough have left no evidence
of their occurrence.
But if we acknowledge the reality of the Genesis flood, we no longer need to
"explain" the strata but can take them as they come. As Whitcomb and Morris
(1960) point out, the bottom-most strata would normally contain the trilobites
and brachiopods, because their mobility was least (they would find it hardest to
avoid entombment), their specific gravity was greatest (they would sink most
easily in the flood waters), and their habitat was lowest (living on the sea
bottoms, they would most quickly be affected by the breaking up of the fountains
of the great deep). The fish would naturally be found in the middle strata,
since in these three respects they occupy an intermediate position. And the
reptiles, mammals, and birds would tend to take their places in the higher
strata, since their mobility was greatest (they could most easily escape the
entrapping sediments), their specific gravity was least (their bodies could
float the longest on the surface of the waters), and their habitat was highest
(they would be the last to be reached by the advancing flood ). These factors
would account for the general order to be found in the fossil-bearing strata, an
order due not to an ascending evolutionary scale of life but to the
circumstances under which the fossils were buried in the deluge sediments. And
since these circumstances often varied locally, there were often instances in
which the more usual order was reversed. (25)
(5) Mountains, plateaus, and canyons. According to Leet and Judson (1954), the
formation of every mountain system on the globe has involved the following
two-fold process: first, thousands of feet of sedimentary rocks were accumulated
in great marine basins that slowly sank; second, these sedimentary rocks were
slowly elevated to form mountains. (26) In other words, the bottoms of certain
seas kept sinking down until the streams had washed in a collection of sediment
(dirt, sand, etc.) as deep as the mountains are high. Then the bottoms of these
seas came up again and lifted all this sediment thousands of feet into the air,
and thus the lofty peaks of Tibet were formed, and also the Alps, the Andes, and
the Rockies. But why should the bottoms of these seas (marine basins) move down
and up, first receiving sedimentary deposits and then pushing them up into the
air? Three possible causes have been suggested for this alleged phenomenon,
namely, thermal contraction, convection currents, and continental drift. (27)
Wilson (1963) believes that the Himalayan mountains could have been thrown up by
the collision of India with the Asian land mass. (28) No one of these
explanations, however, seems to be generally satisfactory to scientists.
Not only the mountains but the high plateaus that lie next to them are full of
problems for the uniformitarian geologist. One such plateau region occupies some
250,000 square miles, extending over most of Arizona and Utah and also large
portions of Colorado and New Mexico. It is here that the Grand Canyon is found
as well as its smaller but scarcely less spectacular sister canyons. The walls
of these canyons are composed of thousands of feet of sedimentary rock strata
lying horizontally. According to Leet and Judson, this whole region was pushed
up from the bottom of a sea without any disturbance of the horizontal position
of the strata. In defense of this hypothesis these authors point to the fact
that the rivers which are thought to have hollowed out the canyons flow in
curves called meanders. These curves, it is maintained, were established before
the uplift began, and the uplift was so gentle that it did not disturb them,
(29) But according to Whitcomb and Morris, such notions are vulnerable from the
standpoint of hydromechanics. A river which is downcutting enough to excavate a
canyon will not continue to flow in curves but will straighten itself out due to
gravitational pull. (30)
The mountains and canyons of which we have been speaking and also the submarine
canyons and the rifts which have recently been discovered in the ocean floor can
be satisfactorily explained only in terms of the Genesis flood. These effects
indicate the process by which God removed the swollen flood waters from off the
land after they had accomplished their work of divine justice and purification.
In order to accommodate the water which had fallen from the overhead vapor
canopy and would never be returned thither, the oceans were made larger and
deeper. And as the seas were widened and deepened, the continents were compelled
to rise to make room for the displaced earth crust. As part of this general
elevation of the continents, the mountains were lifted up to their present lofty
heights. Cracks occurred at various angles in the sediments, and along these
cracks torrents of flood water poured down, driven by the force of gravity, to
the ample new storage space created by the sinking ocean floors and the rising
continents. Thus quickly and efficiently the Grand Canyon was formed and also
its sinuous sister canyons. And all this is suggested in Psalm 104:6-9, where
the coming and going of the Genesis flood is vividly described. (31)
(6) The coming of the glaciers. The Genesis flood narrative also provides the
best explanation of the extensive glaciation which took place in past ages, the
causes of which are still a matter of debate among uniformitarian geologists. In
the words of Whitcomb and Morris, "The combined effect of the uplift of the
continents and mountain-chains and the removal of the protective vapor blanket
around the earth could hardly have failed to induce great snow and ice
accumulations in the mountains and on the land areas near the poles. And these
glaciers and ice caps must have continued to accumulate and spread until they
reached latitudes and altitudes at which the marginal temperatures caused
melting rates in the summers adequate to offset accumulation rates in the
winters." (32) Later the earth would be replenished with a new generation of
plants and animals. These would fill the air with carbon dioxide, thus warming
the atmosphere and causing the glacial ice to recede. Also the carbon dioxide
emitted by the volcanoes during the flood would contribute to this warming
effect as soon as the volcanic dust had settled. (33)
(7) Searching for the missing links. For over a century uniformitarian
geologists and paleontologists have been searching for the missing links in the
evolutionary fossil chain, but today these links are still missing. "It is a
feature," Simpson (1960) tells us, "of the known fossil record that most taxa
appear abruptly. They are not, as a rule, led up to by a sequence of almost
imperceptibly changing forerunners such as Darwin believed should be usual in
evolution." (34) And according to Rhodes (1962), the Cambrian fauna appears with
"Melchisedechian" abruptness, (35) without any obvious ancestors, and the same
is true of most of the major groups of organisms.
The most interesting fossil specimens, of course, are those which are said to
bridge the gap between apes and men. Some of these, however, were evidently
merely apes and not men at all. Such were the Australopithecines. whose brains
were only ape-size. At one time it was said that they walked erect like men, but
Zuckerman (1964) denied this, (36) and today R. E. F. Leakey (1971) admits that
the Australopithecines may have progressed on their knuckles like the extant
African apes. (37) Other alleged sub-human specimens were in all probability
simply diseased. For example, Sir Arthur Keith suggested that the Rhodesian man
might have been the victim of a hyper-active pituitary gland, and Hooton (1946)
thought it possible that the Neanderthal men had been suffering from a similar
malady. (38)
(8) Dating the strata and the fossils. Attempts to date the strata and the
fossils by radioactivity methods reveal the unreliability of these procedures.
In 1969 Australopithecus boisei was considered 600,000 years old. (39) In 1961
his date was pushed back to 1,750,000 years ago by use of the potassium-argon
method. (40) Recently (1970) R. E. F. Leakey has pushed this date still farther
back to 2,600,000 years ago. (41) In 1965 Bryan Patterson of Harvard found an
australopithecine arm bone which he dated at 2,500,000 years ago. In 1967 he
found an australopithecine jaw bone. He then dated the jaw bone at 5,500,000
years ago and pushed the date of the arm bone back to 4,000,000 years ago. (42)
GOD'S THREE-FOLD REVELATION OF HIMSELF
Continued
|
