| Getting your Trinity Audio player ready... |
In dealing with Bible problems of any kind, whether in factual or in doctrinal matters, it is well to follow appropriate guidelines in determining the solution. This is most easily done by those who have carefully and prayerfully studied the Bible over a number of years and have consistently and faithfully memorized Scripture. Some guidelines are as follows: 1. Be fully persuaded in your own mind that an adequate explanation exists, even though you have not yet found it. The aerodynamic engineer may not understand how a bumble bee can fly; yet he trusts that there must be an adequate explanation for its fine performance since, as a matter of fact, it does fly! Even so we may have complete confidence that the divine Author preserved the human author of each book of the Bible from error or mistake as he wrote down the original manuscript of the sacred text…… Carefully study the context and framework of the verse in which the problem arises until you gain some idea of what the verse is intended to mean within its own setting. It may be necessary to study the entire book in which the verse occurs, carefully noting how each key term is used in other passages. Compare Scripture with Scripture, especially all those passages in other parts of the Bible that deal with the same subject or doctrine.
Many Bible difficulties result from a minor error on the part of a copyist in the transmission of the text. In the Old Testament such transmissional errors may have resulted from a poor reading of the vowels; Hebrew was originally written in consonants only, and the vowel signs were not added until a thousand years after the completion of the Old Testament canon.
Whenever historical accounts of the Bible are called in question on the basis of alleged disagreement with the findings of archaeology or the testimony of ancient non-Hebrew documents, always remember that the Bible is itself an archaeological document of the highest caliber. It is simply crass bias for critics to hold that whenever a pagan record disagrees with the biblical account, it must be the Hebrew author that was in error. Pagan kings practiced self-laudatory propaganda, just as their modern counterparts do; and it is incredibly naive to suppose that simply because a statement was written in Assyrian cuneiform or Egyptian hieroglyphics it was more trustworthy and factual than the Word of God composed in Hebrew. No other ancient document in the B.C. period affords so many clear proofs of accuracy and integrity as does the Old Testament; so it is a violation of the rules of evidence to assume that the Bible statement is wrong every time it disagrees with a secular inscription or manuscript of some sort.
In any court of law, whether in a civil or criminal case, the trustworthiness of a witness on a stand is necessarily an important point at issue if his testimony is to be received. Therefore, the attorney for the opposing side will make every effort in his cross-examination of the witness to demonstrate that he is not a consistently truthful person. If the attorney can trap the opposing witness into statements that contradict what he has said previously or furnish evidence that in his own community the man has a reputation for untruthfulness, then the jury may be led to doubt the accuracy of the witness’s testimony that bears directly on the case itself. This is true even though such untruthfulness relates to other matters having no relationship to the present litigation. While the witness on the stand may indeed be giving a true report on this particular case, the judge and jury have no way of being sure. Therefore, they are logically compelled to discount this man’s testimony. The same is true of Holy Scripture. If the statements it contains concerning matters of history and science can be proven by extrabiblical records, by ancient documents recovered through archaeological digs, or by the established facts of modern science to be contrary to the truth, then there is grave doubt as to its trustworthiness in matters of religion. In other words, if the biblical record can be proved fallible in areas of fact that can be verified, then it is hardly to be trusted in areas where it cannot be tested. As a witness for God, the Bible would be discredited as untrustworthy. What solid truth it may contain would be left as a matter of mere conjecture, subject to the intuition or canons of likelihood of each individual. An attitude of sentimental attachment to traditional religion may incline one person to accept nearly all the substantive teachings of Scripture as probably true. But someone else with equal justification may pick and choose whatever teachings in the Bible happen to appeal to him and lay equal claim to legitimacy. One opinion is as good as another. All things are possible, but nothing is certain if indeed the Bible contains mistakes or errors of any kind.
The integrity of Scripture as the authoritative revelation of God is bound up with the issue of the inerrancy of its original inscripturation. It is impossible for a holy and righteous God to inspire any human author of the books of Scripture to write down that which is at any level misleading or false. He who sits in judgment on all wickedness and deceit will never stoop to the use or toleration of falsehood in the recording of His spoken revelation or of the historic or scientific facts chosen to compose the sixty-six books of His Bible. Nor is it conceivable that God in His perfection would allow any human agent whom He employs for the writing of Scripture to introduce elements of error or mistake simply on the ground of his humanness. The sovereign Lord who could use the wooden staff of Moses to bring down the ten plagues upon Egypt and part the waters of the Red Sea can surely use a fallible human prophet to communicate His will and His truth without blundering or confusion of any kind. The inerrancy of God’s written Word as it was originally inspired is a necessary corollary to the inerrancy of God Himself. We must therefore condemn an attitude of indifference concerning the inerrancy of the original manuscripts of the Bible as a serious theological error.
Deuteronomy 13:2-11 provides the penalty of death by stoning for any idolater or false prophet, even for a brother, wife, or child. Deut. 13:12-17 go on to say that even if it is an entire city that has turned to idolatry, every inhabitant within it is to be put to death, all houses are to be reduced to rubble and ashes, and all property is to be put under the ban. This is no visionary theory but a serious ordinance with inbuilt investigative procedures, reflecting a program that is meant to be carried out within contemporary Israel. But as we examine the account of Judah’s religious situation in the seventh century B.C. (or, indeed, in the eighth century from the time of Ahaz on), we find that idol worship was tolerated and practiced in almost every municipality throughout the kingdom–except during the reforms of Hezekiah and Josiah. This would have meant the destruction of every city and town throughout the realm, even including Jerusalem itself. No one devises laws that are completely impossible to carry out in the light of contemporary conditions. The only period in Israel’s history when such legislation could have been enacted and enforced was back in the days of Moses and Joshua–or possibly in the time of David. (Already by Solomon’s time shrine worship on the “high places” was practiced.)
To be sure, if we were to understand Genesis 1 in a completely literal fashion–which some suppose to be the only proper principle of interpretation if the Bible is truly inerrant and completely trustworthy–then there would be no possibility of reconciliation between modern scientific theory and the Genesis account. But a true and proper belief in the inerrancy of Scripture involves neither a literal nor a figurative rule of interpretation. What it does require is a belief in whatever the biblical author (human and divine) actually meant by the words he used.
Genesis 1 is a sublime manifesto, totally rejecting all the cosmogonies of the pagan cultures of the ancient world as nothing but baseless superstition. The Lord God Almighty existed before all matter, and by His own word of command He brought the entire physical universe into existence, governing all the great forces of wind, rain, sun, and sea according to His sovereign will. This stood in stark contrast to the clashing, quarreling, capricious little deities and godlets spawned by the corrupt imagination of the heathen. The message and purpose of Genesis 1 is the revelation of the one true God who created all things out of nothing and ever keeps the universe under His sovereign control.
From the survey of the first fifteen verses of chapter 2, it becomes quite apparent that this was never intended to be a general creation narrative. Search all the cosmogonies of the ancient civilizations of the Near East, and you will never find among them a single creation account that omits all mention of the formation of sun, moon, and stars or ocean or seas–none of which are referred to in Genesis 2. It is therefore quite obvious that Genesis 1 is the only creation account to be found in the Hebrew Scripture and that it is already presupposed as the background of Genesis 2.
Although some other legal systems (such as the Hittite Code) allowed for the payment of blood-money as an alternative to the death penalty, this was expressly forbidden by the law of God. Numbers 35:31 states: “Moreover, you shall not take ransom for the life of a murderer who is guilty of death, but he shall surely be put to death” (NASB). Verse 33 goes on to say, “So you shall not pollute the land in which you are; for blood pollutes the land and no expiation can be made for the land for the blood that is shed on it, except by the blood of him who shed it” (NASB).
There is a far wider implication that results from this restrictive interpretation: the two witnesses requirement applies not only to homicide cases but to any other crime for which a suspect could be bought to trial. Deuteronomy 19:15 says, “A single witness shall not rise up against a man on account of any iniquity or any sin which he has committed; on the evidence of two or three witnesses a matter shall be confirmed” (NASB). This two-witnesses rule therefore applies to theft, fraud, adultery (which is seldom performed in public view), embezzlement, or any other offense for which a man might be subject to criminal process. Every criminal guilty of any of these offenses would therefore get off scot-free if he had taken the prudent measure of committing his crime where two people did not happen to be watching him. It is safe to say that neither ancient Israel nor any other system of jurisprudence known to man could effectively function under such a restriction as that. How then are we to understand this requirement for two or more witnesses in the prosecution of an accused suspect? The answer is found in a study of the actual usage of the term ‘ed (“witness”) as employed in the Hebrew Scriptures. In Leviticus 5:1 we read, “Now if a person sins, after he hears a public adjuration to testify, when he is a witness, whether he has seen or otherwise known, if he does not tell it, then he will bear his guilt” (NASB). This verse clearly establishes that there are two kinds of witnesses who may offer testimony in a criminal process: those who have seen the crime actually being committed, and those who, though not eyewitnesses, have seen some evidence relative to the identity of the offender. One who has found a written death-threat, for example, or who has heard the accused express a desire or intention to kill, rob, or rape the victim, would be acceptable as a witness within this definition of ‘ed (one who has pertinent knowledge concerning the crime even though he has not actually seen it being committed).
Related Study:
Please note that the studies shared on this website are for informational purposes only. Readers are encouraged to critically evaluate the content and not to accept it as absolute or complete without further verification. The views expressed in the studies do not necessarily reflect the opinions of this website.
Genesis and World Chronology by John C. Walton
Abstract: Distrust of Genesis as history has been fostered by uniformitarian geosciences and Deep Time chronology. The reality or otherwise of a global flood has a crucial bearing on world history and chronology. Evidence of disparate kinds favouring such a flood from Scripture, from geoscience and from anthropology is presented. Radiocarbon dating, suitably calibrated for the flood discontinuity, substantiates a Compact Time chronology of thousands of years for earth history. This is reinforced by comparison of flood model radiocarbon dates for ancient Near Eastern sites with those independently obtained by archaeologists. Further corroboration of the Genesis chronology comes from discoveries of preserved soft tissues, proteins and even DNA in fossil dinosaur bones and in other specimens from throughout the geologic column. Belief in a recent, rapid creation is credibly defensible by science divested of secular naturalist ideological constructs. Compact Time chronology rehabilitates belief in the historical reality of the Genesis accounts of the origin of life and the origin of death.
Keywords: Genesis; Chronology; Global Flood; Radiocarbon; Dinosaur fossils.
Are Genesis narratives historical? Doctrinal implications
Fathoming the past is essential for insight into future prospects. The world’s three major monotheistic religions, Judaism, Christianity and Islam are all deeply rooted in historical events and phenomena. Genuine knowledge of past events is imperative for understanding Christian beliefs and Christian future expectations. For centuries the descriptions of cosmic and human origins chronicled in the book of Genesis were bedrock beliefs but, for many Christian thinkers, this has been eroded by uniformitarian geosciences and evolutionary biology. Scholars, persuaded by these sciences, characterise the first eleven chapters of Genesis as allegory or myth (MORELAND, 2017). The implications of this for Christian doctrines of God, of creation, of sin, and of redemption are very sombre.
That the author of Genesis2 believed he was writing history is known from his literary style which matches that of other historical books of the OT. Furthermore,
Genesis uses Hebrew syntax such as the “waw consecutive” (WALTKE, 1990, p. 543-553; JOÜON, 1993, p. 389-393) and verb tenses (GESENIUS, 1956, p. 132-133; SARFATI, 2015, p. 48) that are typical of sequential historical narratives. Many OT and NT writers refer to events and people in Genesis as real and historical. The creation account is mentioned many times in the wisdom literature and in the major prophets. Other passages express a longing for the paradise of Eden to be restored. The book of Revelation culminates on a note of re-creation featuring elements from Eden. It is taken for granted throughout both Testaments that the OT patriarchs were Israel’s real ancestors. Genesis is foundational to understanding the theology and ethical teachings of the rest of the Bible. Some of the implications if Genesis is understood to be unhistorical allegory or myth are listed below:
The narratives are deceptive and misleading because presented as if historical.
If OT and NT writers all mistook Genesis for history can their “inspiration” be trusted when they report other events and miracles?
Adam and Eve were not the progenitors of all humankind.
There was no real global flood.
Living organisms evolved by a process of death and disease over millions of years that can’t be described as a “good” creation.
Death would not be “the wages of sin”. It would have existed since the first life and be an essential element in the evolutionary method of creation.
If it took millions of years for mankind to evolve, is a supernatural resurrection in an instant believable?
The credibility of the entire corpus of Scripture is damaged.
It is very desirable that these outcomes be avoided. Much evidence has been emerging in the last decades that radically undermines the sciences that have influenced liberal scholars to doubt the historicity of Genesis. Cogent reasons for mistrusting and discarding the major tenets of these sciences are in the public domain (MEYER, 2021; GALLOWAY, 2021; THOMAS, 2021; AXE, 2016; CARTER, 2014; WILLIAMS, 2020).
Deep time or compact time world chronology?
Chronology is the backbone of history, and it lies at the root of the controversy over the historicity of Genesis. Hundreds of millions of years (known as Deep Time) are essential to the uniformitarian geosciences account of the vast sedimentary and seismic features of the geologic column. Furthermore, Deep Time is indispensable for the evolution of the immense range of plant and animal species by the neo-Darwinian mechanism. However, Deep Time is irreconcilable with the only thousands of years of world history (hereinafter referred to as Compact Time) implicit in the rapid creation account and patriarchal genealogies of Genesis.
Did a real global flood take place?
A global flood would be a colossal discontinuity in the backward flow of historical events so it is essential to establish if this giga-catastrophe really occurred. Genesis devotes three chapters to a detailed, rational, and compelling account of the Noachian global flood (Gen 3-8). NT writers believed the flood was a real event. For example, Matthew reported Christ as affirming “For as in the days that were before the flood” (Matt 24:37-39). Other NT writers including Luke (Luke 3:36; 17, 26), Peter (1 Pet 3:19-22; 2 Pet 3:3-8) and the author of Hebrews (Heb 11:7) all mention elements from the Genesis flood account. Belief in a universal deluge was also evidently the norm throughout the Ancient Near East (ANE). Cuneiform tablets unearthed from numerous sites in the ANE are inscribed with resonant flood stories. In the Sumerian account Ziusudra escapes in a boat. Similar narratives are found in the Babylonian Atrahasis and Gilgamesh epics. Here the god Enki advised the hero Atrahasis to escape in a boat with his family and animals. After seven days the flood ended and Atrahasis offered sacrifices to the gods. In the Gilgamesh Epic the hero-king Gilgamesh journeyed to meet flood survivor Utnapishtim who told him a detailed flood story very similar to that of Atrahasis (PRICE, 2017, p. 55- 66; ANDERSON, 2014, p. 2-3; HOLDEN, 2013, p. 206-211).
What is more, it’s highly significant that narratives of a massive global inundation feature prominently in folk history from diverse nations on every inhabited continent. Anthropologists have discovered folklore and traditions from practically every civilization and culture. Hundreds of these tell of a huge, catastrophic flood that destroyed the world and was survived by only a few individuals and animals (REHWINKEL, 1951, PERLOFF, 1999, LIGUORI, 2021). Byron Nelson analysed 200 flood traditions from around the world and found they contained many common elements (NELSON, 1968). In 95 % the flood was global, in 88% a certain family was saved, in 70 % they survived in a boat, in 67 % animals were also saved, in 57 % the boat landed on a mountain, in 35 % bird scouts were employed and in 9% eight people were saved. Most of these accounts derive from different historical epochs and geographically separated civilizations that could not possibly have copied from one another. They stem from written and oral traditions dating from long before any missionaries arrived with the Genesis account of Noah. The soundest way to understand the widespread, similar flood legends is to recognize their kernel of authenticity. All the world’s peoples, though now separated geographically, linguistically, and culturally, have descended from a group of real survivors of a real global flood. They survived on a real boat which eventually landed on a real mountain. The survival drama of this apocalyptic event has never been forgotten.
Geological evidence of a global flood
Evidence pointing to a global flood has been building up within academic geosciences itself. Uniformitarianism has been losing ground to “actualism” amongst earth scientists (SHEA, 1982, p. 701-2; MARVIN, 1990, p. 147-54, PALMER, 1999).
Actualism recognises many rapid catastrophic events to account for geological features. These include: (i) many colossal, rapidly water-deposited sedimentary strata (NISBET, 1998, p. 329-330; ROTHWELL, 2000, p. 75-80); (ii) huge erosional features due to massive floods; (iii) enormous igneous rock formations (RAMPINO, 1998, p. 663-668); (iv) many extensive fossil “graveyards”; and (v) five major mass extinctions and at least twenty minor ones (RAUP, 1982, p. 1501-3; RAUP, 1986; ALLABY, 1983; DONOVAN, 1989;
MCGHEE, 1996, HALLAM, 1997). The influential earth scientist, the late Professor Derek Ager, remained a convinced Deep Timer but wrote several books citing many examples of sudden geological catastrophes. He said that: “It is obvious to me that the whole history of the earth is one of short sudden happenings with nothing much in particular in between” (AGER, 1993, p. 197-8, 14). Removing the empty gaps between these happenings would link together all the individual catastrophes in a short-duration, composite, global giga-catastrophe.
Modern catastrophes, including the Mount St. Helens eruption in May 1980 and the March 2011 earthquake off the Tōhoku peninsula of Japan, have demonstrated how geological features like large canyons and layered strata, once thought to take millions of years to develop, can actually form in days. They showed that an initial high-energy event, frequently an earth movement originating deep in the crust, or from the mantle, could trigger a whole succession of interrelated catastrophic episodes. Such an event on a greatly magnified scale, extending across the entire globe, is entirely conceivable. All the individual catastrophic features that characterise the Earth’s crust, from the Cambrian upwards, could be linked into this one giga-lithic event.
That this is the real explanation of the geologic column is slowly gaining credence, not least because of the discovery that it actually consists of six sedimentary megasequences. These colossal groupings of sedimentary strata named Sauk, Tippercanoe, Kaskaskia, Absaroka, Zuni and Tejas, were first identified by Lawrence Sloss in the 1960s in connection with the interior portion of North America (SLOSS, 1963, p. 93- 114). More recently geoscientist Timothy Clarey and others have demonstrated that these megasequences extend across at least three and probably all the continents (CLAREY, 2020). The upper and base layers and the individual strata of the megasequences are traceable right across the continents and were simultaneously deposited in a colossal- flooding event. Each continent shows the same general pattern. The distributions of marine, land and highland fossil types also match from continent to continent and further validate the flood concept. All the conventional geologic column periods from the Tertiary to the Cambrian are subsumed in these megasequences (see Figure 1).
Dr. Timothy Clarey (2020, p. 396) made the telling statement that “The Geologic Column is global because the flood was global.” The sedimentary data are compelling evidence that a flood of global extent began with, or shortly before, the Sauk megasequence, successively increased through the Tippercanoe, Kaskaskia and Absaroka megasequences, reached its highest point in the Zuni and retreated in the Tejas megasequence (CLAREY, 2020, p. 468). The data match the great flood described in Genesis remarkably well.
Many geological features that are problematic for uniformitarian geology such as overthrusts, the extensive fields of erratic boulders, widespread flat planation surfaces such as plateaus, mesas and buttes, and the Ice Age(s) are easily explained by the global flood (CLAREY, 2020; OARD, 1990). Oil and gas are known to form rapidly under the right conditions of temperature and pressure, as do rocks such as carbonates (limestone), shales and laminated clays which are the most abundant sediments on earth (CLAREY, 2020, p. 39). Sedimentary rocks all over the world display delicate and easily obliterated features including ripple marks, cross-bed sands, raindrop prints, flue and scour marks, graded bedding and “mudcracks”. These features are quickly destroyed by bioturbation and, if exposed, by various types of weathering. Their preservation is clear-cut evidence of a comparatively recent catastrophic flood.
This scenario also harmonises with many characteristics of the fossil record. Evolutionary paleontologists readily admit that in the fossil record most species show abrupt appearance, stasis and sudden disappearance (RAUP, 1979, p. 22-29; ELDREDGE, 1996, p. 95; MAYR, 2001, p. 16). The Cambrian explosion, other abrupt “radiations”, and the “big five” mass extinctions are readily explained as the sudden burials of large ecological units of flora and fauna during the colossal flood. Rightly understood, the geologic column portrays the rapid successive burials of populations of taxa that, before the flood, all existed together, in their appropriate ecological niches. All this matches up with the Genesis account of the sudden destruction and burial of the whole world in a year-long global flood.
The scientific evidence for a recent inundation of global extent is very strong and has been steadily accumulating as research progresses. The aqueous nature, magnitude and destructiveness of the event agree well with the folklore originating from hundreds of people groups living on essentially every continent. The data correlate well with the Genesis account of a world-destroying flood survived by only one family and a representative sample of animals. There are good reasons for moving out of the shadow of uniformitarian geosciences and Deep Time.
A reliable clock for dating past events
The global flood was a huge discontinuity in the pattern of past events and in their rate of passage. This catastrophe invalidates the uniformitarian assumption of past geological processes matching present ones and happening at present rates. Because conventional chronometric methods (clocks), including the radiometric potassium-argon (K-Ar), rubidium-strontium (Rb-Sr), samarium-neodymium (Sm-Nd), uranium-lead (U- Pb) and other methods make no allowance for this giant discontinuity they give highly unreliable results. Numerous critiques of these clocks have highlighted the fallibility of the assumptions on which they are based and the invalid ages they produce (WALTON, 2021, p. 1-32; CUPPS, 2019; MASON, 2014, p. 193-213; SNELLING, 2009, p. 797-855;
COFFIN; BROWN; GIBSON, 2005, p. 325-370).
All human minds are powerfully influenced by various cognitive biases. The human brain uses these preconceptions as mental shortcuts to help make sense of incoming information. “Confirmation bias”, the tendency to interpret and favour information in ways that affirm prior beliefs, is a cognitive tool of great consequence. The seriousness of this bias in misdirecting scientific research has been demonstrated many times (ROSENTHAL, 1966; BROAD; WADE, 1985, p. 107-125). It is the reason “double blind” experiments are so important in clinical trials to avoid defective products being approved. The long ages published by geochronologists are strongly influenced by confirmation bias in several ways. Deep Time preconceptions influence their judgements on which specimens are suitable for study, which dates to select from the spread obtained, and on the role of radioactive element migration into and out of samples. The conventional geologic timescale enjoys huge prestige, plus the backing of the majority of earth scientists. Confirmation bias ensures that ages that disagree with Deep Time are “reinterpreted” in various ways. Only dates that are concordant with the established geologic column are deemed valid and reach publication in mainline periodicals. Those uncommitted to uniformitarianism are fully justified in viewing the Deep Time radiometric methods with a healthy dose of scepticism.
An alternative clock, that makes appropriate allowance for the global flood discontinuity, is highly desirable. Carbon is widely distributed in the natural world in materials such as graphite, coal, oil, wood and bone that are hydrophobic and not so susceptible to gain or loss of content to circulating ground waters. Radiocarbon dating has a different basis from the other radiometric methods in that it depends on an analysis of the amount of carbon-14 (14C) in a specimen compared with the known, roughly constant amount of 14C in the biosphere (TAYLOR; BAR-YOSEF, 2014). The radioactive isotope 14C decays away comparatively rapidly with a half-life of just 5730 years. The miniscule amount of 14C remaining in a specimen after 100,000 years is too small for detection by even the most sensitive modern methods. Fossils, specimens, or artefacts older than this will contain no detectable 14C. It was expected, therefore, by Deep Time earth scientists, that radiocarbon dating would only be applicable to samples of recent to late Stone Age provenance. According to Deep Time chronology, fossils and specimens from the majority of the geologic column should be radiocarbon “dead”, which is devoid of detectable 14C.
A very remarkable discovery is that specimens and fossils from throughout the geologic column actually contain easily measurable amounts of radiocarbon. Many laboratories in different countries have reported finding significant 14C in materials as diverse as wood, coal, anthracite, graphite, bone, marble, calcite and natural gas (WHITELAW, 1970, p. 56-71; SNELLING, 2009, p. 855-864; BAUMGARDNER, 2005, p. 587-630). Paul Giem reviewed about seventy articles from the academic radiocarbon literature reporting 14C in specimens from virtually every level of the geologic column down to and including the Precambrian (GIEM, 2001, p. 6-30). It is noteworthy that sizeable amounts of radiocarbon have been measured in coal from different seams conventionally dated from 34 to 311 million years old (BAUMGARDNER, 2005, p. 587-630; BAUMGARDNER, 2003, p. 127-147).
A further discovery is that fossil dinosaur bones from disparate locations have also been found to contain substantial amounts of radiocarbon (THOMAS; NELSON, 2015, p. 299-311; MILLER, 2012). The conventional radiocarbon method, even uncorrected for the flood, furnishes dates for these specimens vastly younger than the Deep Time usually assigned to them.5
Deep Timers dismiss all this 14C as “contamination”, but extensive tests and investigations have disproved this (SNELLING, 2009, p. 858-861; GIEM, 2001, p. 6-30). Measurable contamination is not introduced when samples are carefully prepared and furthermore, background radiocarbon is negligible for properly serviced instruments. The quantities of 14C detected cannot be attributed to contamination of samples during their time of burial.
The half-life of 14C is only 5730 years so, for samples millions of years old to still contain measurable quantities of contamination, it would have to keep recurring many times: which is unbelievable. Furthermore, it is ironic that when laboratories report similar amounts of radiocarbon in specimens from ancient Stone Age cultures, contamination is not mentioned, and the corresponding dates are accepted as historically sound. The inconsistency in accepting the same result in one context and rejecting it in another is obvious.
Knowledge of the amount of radiocarbon prevailing in the biosphere at the time the specimen was buried (or the organism died) is needed for calculation of radiocarbon dates. Conventional radiocarbon dating assumes that the level in the biosphere has remained fairly constant into the far past. However the flood discontinuity would have drastically altered this. During the flood enormous quantities of carbon-containing materials were buried and now appear as coal, oil, natural gas and carbonate rocks. The world’s biosphere before the flood was much larger and more luxuriant than at present.8 Estimates of this buried carbon suggest the biosphere before the flood contained 300 to 700 times as much carbon as at present (BROWN, 1979, p. 30-44; SCHARPENSEEL; BECKER-HEIDMANN, 1992, p. 541-549, GIEM, 2001, p. 6-30). The 14C in the pre-flood biosphere would consequently have been diluted by a large factor. It is essential this be taken into account in deducing ages from raw measurements of 14C in ancient samples. Several scientists have devised means of calibrating radiocarbon data to factor in the steep increase in the level of 14C in the biosphere after the flood (WHITELAW, 1970, p. 56- 71; HEFFERLIN, 1972, p. 68-71; HANSON, 1976, p. 50-55).
Physicist Robert Brown devised a very applicable method based on an exponential function to model the increase in 14C due to all factors during and after the flood. He derived a mathematical expression to calibrate radiocarbon data allowing for flood effects (BROWN, 1979, p. 30; 1975, p. 6; 1990, p. 56-65; 1992, p. 45-47; 1994, p. 66-79). His flood calibrated dates, hereinafter referred to as ‘Flood Model’ dates, are compared with conventional radiocarbon dates in Figure 2A. The straight dashed line in the Figure shows conventional 14C dates stretching back into the past. The flood model 14C dates (curved line) increase linearly from the present to about 3000 BP (1000 BCE) but then start to level off. They agree well with the conventional 14C ages and also agree with archaeo-historical (A/H) data from the present till about 3000 BP (1000 BCE) exactly as is found in practise.
Further back in time the flood model curves below the conventional 14C line and yields younger dates. The difference gets greater the older the samples are. The flood model predicts that conventional radiocarbon dating will yield dates for Middle, Early Bronze, and for Stone Age and earlier objects that are too old (too high). A date for the flood of about 5350 BP (3350 BCE) is approached roughly asymptotically by Brown’s function.
Tests of flood model radiocarbon dating
An excellent test of the validity of Brown’s flood model is to compare its dates with those of historians and archaeologists who have obtained theirs by methods that are independent of radiometric dating. They have developed chronologies for ANE sites by careful comparisons and extrapolations from pottery styles, inscribed tablets, king lists, monuments, astronomical data and otherwise. These chronologies are by no means infallible but give reasonable estimates of the “true” dates. Recourse to the archaeological literature immediately reveals that conventional radiocarbon dating does indeed produce dates for Bronze Age and Stone Age specimens that are much too high (too old) in comparison with archaeo-historical dates (ROHL, 1995, p. 479-490; WALTON, 2021, p. 78-102). A serious controversy about radiocarbon dating for these periods is ongoing in the literature between two camps. On one hand, radiochronologists want to extend history by many centuries but on the other hand, historians and archaeologists oppose this and express the view that there is “something wrong” with radiocarbon dating for these eras.
Archaeologists James Mellaart (1979, p. 6-22), Eliot Braun (2001, p. 1279-1295) and Arthur Knapp (1992, p. 714-720), Egyptologist Haas (1987, p. 585-606) and radiochronologists Bruins and Van Der Plicht (2001, p. 1321-1332) and others have published articles highlighting that conventional radiocarbon dates are always too old in comparison with archaeo-historical dates. Essentially every specimen, artefact or remnant, dated by different radiocarbon dating laboratories, and from different Near and Middle Eastern Bronze Age sites of these eras, yielded conventional 14C dates that were too old in comparison with archaeo-historical dates. The apparently irreconcilable problems created by radiocarbon dating for ancient Mesopotamian and Egyptian chronologies were comprehensively reviewed by Michael Hasel (HASEL, 2004, p. 6-31) and have been lucidly described by David Rohl (ROHL, 1995 p. 480).10 Conventional radiocarbon creates multiple “empty centuries” where no archaeological remains are to be found and there are no traces of kings or rulers. The “something wrong” with radiocarbon dating is the failure to recognise the effect of the massive global flood discontinuity.
In Figure 2B conventional radiocarbon dates are represented by the straight dashed line of unit slope. The flood model dates are represented by the full curved line. Independent archaeo-historical dates, published by the professional historians and archaeologists mentioned above, for a sizeable set of data from ANE sites, are shown as the individual markers. By about 3500 BP (1500 BCE) the archaeo-historical dates are already perceptibly younger than conventional 14C dates. By about 6000 BP (4000 BCE) the difference is as large as 1000 years. Such huge discrepancies make it easy to understand the empty centuries and the discord prevailing between historians and radiochronologists. The graph also reveals that the archaeo-historical ages are levelling out towards a limit somewhere between 5000 and 5500 BP (3000 and 4500 BCE) on the vertical axis. That limit corresponds to the discontinuity caused by the flood.
The flood model ages (full curve) match the archaeo-historical data remarkably well up to at least 5000 BP on the horizontal axis. For specimens older than this, the A/H dates appear marginally older than the flood model dates. The uncertainties in the historical dates of these older specimens are large and there is a tendency for them to be ‘coloured’ by conventional 14C dating. The flood model line probably does lie within the error limits of these earliest A/H observations. The agreement of the curvature and absolute values of the A/H ages with the flood model is unmistakable. This gives strong support to the Compact Time chronology for Earth history and points to a date for the global flood of not long before 5000 BP. Use of the flood model calibration brings radiocarbon dates into line with archaeo-historical dates and so resolves the long-running inter-disciplinary dispute.
Consequences of flood model chronology
When the flood model calibration is applied to the radiocarbon in coal specimens from Cenozoic, Mesozoic and Paleozoic strata it is found they all date to within a narrow band of 5360-5350 BP (3360-3350 BCE). Within the error limits of the measurements these ages all fall within the time of the global flood. Similarly, fossil bones of Cretaceous and Jurassic dinosaurs, from several different locations, all contained substantial amounts of 14C. Applying the flood model calibration leads to radiocarbon dates for all these fossil dinosaur bones within the narrow range of 5330 to 5360 BP (3330 to 3360 BCE). This again corresponds to burial of all the dinosaurs within the time of the global flood. Specimens from virtually all pre-Pleistocene periods of the geologic column contained significant quantities of radiocarbon (GIEM, 2001, p. 6-30). Flood model calibration affords dates for all these samples in the range 3350100 BCE. Thus, radiocarbon dating, suitably calibrated for the flood discontinuity, reveals that all these strata were laid down at the time of the flood.
Radiocarbon dating, appropriately calibrated for the flood discontinuity, shows that the more than 500 million years of Deep Time is illusory. Of course, hardening and consolidation of the rocks, mountain building, coal and oil formation etc. would have continued long after the one year of the flood. The Ice Age (Pleistocene) sediments (and probably part of the Pliocene) were deposited after the flood. Radiocarbon determinations of samples from these post-flood strata of Stone Age and Chalcolithic Age, when calibrated for the flood, indicate these eras occupied no more than a few hundred years.
The time from creation to the flood roughly corresponds to the Precambrian Era. Only a few radiocarbon measurements are available for samples from this Era. The pre- flood atmospheric level of carbon-14 is not known so that Brown’s flood model calibration does not apply. The fact that undecayed radiocarbon was detected in these sediments is, however, a good indication the period lasted only a thousand or so years. Although a date for the creation event cannot currently be arrived at from radiocarbon measurements, it is evident that the Genesis date of 5000 to 6000 BCE is consistent with the available data.
Remnants of preserved flesh in fossils
Remarkable evidence supporting the validity of the flood model chronology has been emerging in recent years from discoveries of biological remnants in fossils. During fossilisation, rapid degradation of tissues and their biological components sets in immediately on burial. Microorganisms assimilate flesh, tissues decompose by hydrolysis, and oxidation reduces all biological materials to carbon dioxide and other gases. All rocks are porous to some extent allowing air and groundwater to accomplish these processes thereby converting buried organisms to mineralised fossils. Degradation of tissues and biological components is rapid on the geological timescale. It is accelerated by acid and alkaline groundwaters as well as by clay and mineral catalysts. Chemical sceince makes it absolutely clear that neither the biological tissues nor their component proteins, lipids, carbohydrates or nucleic acids, could survive Deep Time in fossils.
Living cells produce antioxidants and have enzyme-based repair systems that counter degradation, but when an organism dies these measures cease. If flesh, meat, tissues or their components are to be preserved they must be stored in freezers, in the dark, protected from oxygen, microorganisms and all other contaminants. In food production, and in laboratories, efficient chemical stabilizers, antioxidants, preservatives and special protective environments are provided to delay degradation. Even with these precautions, all tissue materials have short shelf lives amounting to only a few decades. From a chemical perspective, survival of exposed soft tissues, of proteins, lipids, nucleic acids and biomolecules over millions of years in rocks and fossils is not credible. On the other hand, during the few thousand years of Compact Time since the flood, biological remains would be expected in some well-protected fossils.
Soft tissues in dinosaur fossils
A remarkable phenomenon of recent decades is the stream of papers in the professional science literature reporting the discovery of soft tissues and their component proteins in fossils from many sites. The first of these to attract major attention, plus a great deal of hostile criticism from evolutionists, were Dr Mary Schweitzer’s reports of soft tissues in T-Rex bones (SCHWEITZER et al. 2005, p. 1952-1955; 2007, p. 183-197; 2011, p. 187-216). Schweitzer’s papers contained many colour photos of flexible structures, pigmented tissues and even blood vessels uncovered in dinosaur fossils. Reports from many other research groups of preserved cellular structures and even proteins have now surfaced (PAWLICKI, 1995, p. 183-186; ARMITAGE, 2013, p. 603-609; LINGHAM-SOLIAR, 2008, p. 775-780; BAILEUL et al. 2020, p. 1-8). Denials of the authenticity of these finds by orthodox paleontologists have been thoroughly refuted (SCHWEITZER, 2011, p. 187-216). A review of the scientific literature by Thomas and Taylor found over 85 papers reporting detection of collagen and other proteins in fossils and showed that discoveries have been surging in the last 10 years (THOMAS; TAYLOR, 2019, p. 881-895). They described the detection of original skin, connective tissues, flexible and branching blood vessels, bone cells, and probable blood cells as well as many specific proteins.
The faith expressed by certain paleontologists in especially efficient preservation of tissues in fossils is not remotely credible (CUPPS, 2019, p. 122-124). Schweitzer maintains that the preservation is due to free radicals released by iron particles. Her trials with concentrated hemoglobin under laboratory conditions for only two years bore little relation to the field conditions of the fossils (SCHWEITZER, 2013). Moreover, any such effect would only apply to fossils associated with iron particles, contrary to the finding of soft tissues in many other circumstances. In reality, any free radicals would immediately combine with oxygen or abstract hydrogen atoms from the proteins and/or lipids rather than couple together as Schweitzer suggested. It is well established that the Reactive Oxygen Species (ROS) generated in this very way are responsible for the rancidification and degradation of fats, oils and organic compounds (SIMIC, 1981, p. 125; HOWARD, 1973, p. 4-57; INGOLD, 1961, p. 563-589). Furthermore, any of the longer coupled proteins advocated by Schweitzer would still be just as susceptible to the normal oxidative and hydrolytic degradation processes. ‘Maillard’ products that might form by condensation of proteins with carbohydrates have also been suggested as a route to extended lifetimes of soft tissues. However, exactly the same rapid degradative processes would apply to these condensation polymers.
Preserved DNA in fossils
Not only is it fully established that soft tissues and proteins survive in dinosaur and other fossils, but DNA fragments have also been reported multiple times. Nucleic acids are far more fragile than proteins and degrade much more rapidly: as actual rate measurements of DNA in papyri (MAROTA et al., 2002, p. 310-318) and in fossil bones (ALLENTOFT, 2012, p. 4724-4733) have proved. The DNA in Pharaoh Tutankhamun’s mummy (HAWASS, 2010, p. 638-647), and other Egyptian mummies (KHAIRAT, 2013, p. 309-325) had degraded in under 4000 years to miniscule levels, only detectable on amplification with the super powerful Polymerase Chain Reaction method. This is further evidence of the impossibility of DNA surviving millions of years in fossils. It is especially significant therefore that DNA, or fragments thereof, has been reported in fossil leaf samples, in insects entombed in ancient amber (AUSTIN, 1998, p. 167-176), in dinosaur fossils (BAILLEUL, 2020, p. 1-8) and in other fossils (VREELAND, 2000, p. 897- 900) from much of the geological column. The increasing evidence of DNA from diverse fossils gives credence to the idea that DNA has indeed survived in fossils supposedly buried far back in Deep Time. This is not evidence of some extraordinary science-defying preservation. Instead, it is powerful evidence that the fossils are really very much younger, buried only a few thousand years ago.
Search for preservatives and methods that can extend the shelf lives of foods and medicines is a very active area of science. Such methods for preserving foods, pharmaceuticals and other proteinaceous products for thousands or even hundreds of years do not exist. The best-known preservatives and antioxidants can only extend shelf lives for very limited times. The food and pharmaceuticals industries embrace any genuine advances in this area with delight. These research areas demonstrate the limited protection achievable and the complete impossibility of proteins and soft tissues exposed to oxygen and water, in unprotected environments in fossils, lasting for millions of years! Paleontologist’s claims that proteins and DNA are specially preserved for millions of years are simply wishful thinking inspired by an unshakeable commitment to Deep Time.
The independent evidence supporting the short Genesis chronology
An impressive pattern of extra-biblical data that bears witness to the global flood and the short chronology of Genesis is available for those willing to see. Major features of this pattern include: (i) the six sedimentary megasequences that are global in extent and coordinated in time; (ii) the evidence of catastrophic happenings throughout the geologic column; (iii) the undecayed radiocarbon in samples from virtually all strata of the geologic column; (iv) the agreement of flood model calibrated radiocarbon dates with those from archaeology and history; (v) the preservation of soft tissues and proteins in fossils from throughout the geologic column; (vi) the identification of DNA fragments in numerous fossils; (vii) the more than 250 accounts of a global flood in folklore from throughout the world. These lines of evidence are especially impressive because most have developed independently of one another. They derive from nonaligned and diverse scholarly disciplines as different as geosciences, physics, archaeology and anthropology. That they agree and complement one another reinforces confidence in the Genesis accounts of creation and of a recent global flood. Science, once freed from uniformitarian dogma, and released from naturalist ideology, is seen to be credibly consistent with Genesis understood historically.
Pointers to a rapid creation
An inescapable consequence of the Compact Time chronology and the flood model is that the entire plant and animal kingdoms, with their natural environments, must have originated rapidly and recently.11 The presence of complex cycles of interdependence at macroscopic and microscopic levels in the biological and mineral realms is in full accord with this. Living organisms are composed of cells which contain millions of proteins organized in complex factory-like arrays. The enzymes cooperate in networks and cascades that synchronously bring about oxygen transport, digestion of foodstuffs, growth, repair, DNA transcription, cell division and numerous other processes (GALLOWAY, 2021). This is true of even to the smallest and simplest single cell bacteria. The cycles interlock in space and time delivering needed products, catalysing reuse of substrates and supplying feedback control. These matched metabolic cycles require enzymes and co-factors whose shapes and sizes are intimately compatible and whose actions are closely coordinated in time. To achieve this, the component biomolecules and enzymes had to be supplied all together in one ‘clean’ place and at the same time. The components had to be produced all within a short period and the whole metabolic system had to be intimately coordinated within a safe biological enclosure. No gradualist evolutionary mechanism can engineer multiple complex components to seamlessly integrate so as to achieve these metabolic functions. The inference to a rapid creation is very clear.
The natural environment is itself also characterised by a multitude of beneficial interrelationships operating between it and diverse living organisms. The elements oxygen, nitrogen and carbon move through complex cycles that involve many plant and animal groups and reach into the mineral realm as well as the atmosphere. Human and animal life relies on hundreds of other species such as stomach bacteria, bees to pollinate plants, trees to supply oxygen and soil microorganisms. The origin of these cycles of mutual dependence and of unselfish behaviours, their boundary crossing nature, and their sheer numbers imply an overall design accomplished by a rapid synchronised start- up. The origin of all living things must have been very rapid and coordinated; exactly as described in the first chapters of Genesis.
Theological consequences
Belief in a recent seven-day creation is credibly defensible by science divested of secular naturalist and atheist ideology. This science endorses the historicity and inspiration of the creation account in Genesis. Part of this credible pattern is that human life originated with God’s special creation of Adam and Eve on day six12 and was not the result of a long, violent train of evolutionary development. Death entered the world as a result of rebellion against God. Compact Time chronology rehabilitates belief in the historical reality of the Genesis perspective on the origin of life and on the origin of death. Furthermore, the faith OT and NT writers expressed in the reality of God’s creation and the flood is seen to be backed by coherent science as well as by inspiration. The integrity of the whole corpus of scripture is thereby upheld. Assurance is therefore heightened that death need not be final and that life everlasting is available as God’s free gift.
This work is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International.