This is another test for Facebook
Geoff Barnard has been corresponding with Gorman. He has done many talks – some very technical – on the whole issue of creation and evolution. Here is one entitled “The Mystery of Sex” that he gave at a big conference in Poland in 2013. Reproductive Endocrinology is his background.
Darwinism has no explanation for the advent of sexual reproduction. This lecture is in two parts. Part 1 is an overview of reproductive strategies in Nature and considers some of the theories that have been suggested to answer the question “Why Sex?” The second part considers the question “How Sex?” and discusses the necessary requirement for fully functional male and female counterparts. It is not “The Survival of the Fittest” but “The Survival of the Fertile”.
Gorman Gray’s book, Genesis One: Scientifically Accurate and Surprisingly Simple, is now available as an ebook. You can order a digital copy, or give one to a friend, at Amazon.com.
Grace, peace and love to you Israeli brothers and sisters in the name
of Yeshua Ha Meshiah, Jesus the Messiah.
Please give this email to someone in your organization who is
interested in discovering perfect harmony of demonstrable science with
the book of Genesis, literally, clearly, and simply understood.
Evolution theory does not represent demonstrable science and millions
of years for the fossil record cannot be demonstrated either. But a
recent, global flood can be demonstrated easily and profusely.
However, light from distant galaxies and the dimensions of the
universe are measurable and must be answered within a clear biblical
and scientific interpretation. Likewise, radioisotope dating of
magmatic intrusions in dikes and sills within recently deposited
strata from the global flood of Noah must be explained with no
apologies for a single fact of science nor for even one letter or
inflection mark of Holy Scripture.
This paper will show that what God did during the six literal days of
Genesis one was to create the biosphere — living things and a home
for living things. He did that six day work less than 8000 years ago.
But He had already created the galaxies before, and probably long
before, a “first day” was even possible. That was in the undefined
“beginning.” A “cloud of thick darkness” surrounded an ancient planet
earth for megayears before God cleared it to translucence before the
first day (Job 38:1-9) and to transparency on day four. Theistic
evolutionists, progressive creationists and young earth creationists
are all welcome to critique this writing but they must hold their
views in abeyance while giving attention to the young biosphere
creationist view herein. We claim it is the ONLY satisfactory
interpretation of Genesis.
Every expositor knows that context is critical for Bible
interpretation and translation. I have expanded that truth into a tool
by including multiple contextual constraints, sometimes involving
additional analysis of the structure of an entire thought division
before determining translation choices. “L-O-V-E” is an acronym for
“Literal Overview Vetoes Errors.” It is an interpretive tool which
limits the options and mandates the proper renditions, particularly
applicable to Genesis chapter one. So when I refer to the LOVE
procedure you will know what I mean. It is a literal overview coupled
with multiple contextual limiters. L-O-V-E is particularly appropriate
for issues which involve keenly held differences of opinion, because
surely we need love in all our disagreements.
The “big four” of critical creation scriptures are: Genesis 1:2,
Exodus 20:11, Genesis 1:16 and Mark 10:6. The “LOVE” procedure clearly
determines translation options in a positive way. It is simple, not
requiring extensive expertise in Hebrew, valuable as that might be,
and makes the text plainly understandable even to children.
Tohu Wabohu, WAS THE EARTH WITHOUT FORM AND VOID?
The King James 1611 version described the earth as “without form and
void.” Wycliffe and Tyndale, one and two centuries earlier, chose
“idel and voide” or “voyde and emptie” (which in pre-Elizabethan days,
and still today, means “unoccupied and empty”). But the KJV and its
many derivatives are widespread and influential, dominating the
following English translations and, to some degree, extending its
influence to other than English as well. Dr. Henry Morris, considered
the father of modern creationism, predicated much of his concepts on
the assumption of an earth “without form” and stars “made” on day four
(which the Young Biosphere Model contests).
The “LOVE” procedure forces and proves that Wycliffe and Tyndale had
it right, whereas the King James translators were in error. I know
those words, “forces and proves,” are strong words but I will expand
it even beyond that by saying that the translation choices for the
“big four” critical scriptures can all be determined by using this
powerful tool. The result makes Genesis chapter one into a beautiful,
supernatural wonder-chapter, even superior to the breathtaking wonder
and beauty of microbiology and astronomy. Genesis one is the opening
of a beautiful symphony and Revelation 22 is the breathtaking,
triumphant closure. Between those glorious chapters is the awful
history of rebellion with its tragedies, atrocities and pain.
I did not even realize until last August (2014) that I was pursuing
any particular “methodology” until I accidentally read reviews on
Amazon.com of my earlier 1996 book, The Age of the Universe: What Are
the Biblical Limits? Regarding the young biosphere creation concept
readers had this to say:
“Well reasoned, well authenticated”, “finally resolved my many years of
conflict”, “far and away the best explanation”, “revolutionized my
reading of Genesis”, “fantastic book, best commentary I have ever read.”
One reviewer, Ronald Smith, commented, “This book is THE explanation
for the creation without twisting Scripture and as has been said, –
fits in with good science. I heartily recommend it.” And then, this
observation: “There is also the bonus of learning from Gorman’s
methodology for studying Scripture.” (Those are his words, not mine.)
Well, that was sweet to read but it got me thinking. What “methods”
did I use common to all the big four critical creation texts? Can the
procedure be called a “methodology?” I had assumed I was simply
reading the text carefully, questioning unsupported assumptions,
trying to get to the bottom of things – – – careful not to jump to
conclusions, delving into the Hebrew original at critical junctures,
and considering the entire thought section as a whole. Also I duly
considered the claims of science, although not accepting all “science”
obsequiously, yet giving careful attention to it. In other words, like
any old bloke could do, I was making a thorough Bible study of the
critical creation Bible texts.
Well, “Gorman Gray’s methodology” is not complex or pedantic or
particularly intellectual. In fact, in my new book Genesis Chapter One
– Scientifically Accurate and Surprisingly Simple I insist that Genesis, if
translated properly, is understandable to children, which is an
important feature of any valid interpretation. So how does it work?
No matter how brilliant the “method” may be, it is bound for failure
without direction from God. So the first rule is to ask God daily in
Yeshua’s name in prayer to preserve from error and guide into the
truth for His glory. That has to be a daily prayer. To pray in Jesus’
name is not tagging the phrase at the end of a begging session. One’s
spirit must genuinely crave the glory of God and the glory of Yeshua,
giving that motive to God for His action. Jesus taught us, “Father,
hallowed be Your Name, your kingdom come. Your will be done.” That is
prayer for God’s glory. Without this genuine, compelling motive, error
is inevitable. I could spend an hour here.
Then after prayer for God’s glory, don’t jump to conclusions.
Question all the various interpretations and translations including
mine today. Don’t be afraid to think “out of the box” if reason and
Scripture require it. With these foundations, a “diligent searcher”
will begin to see the beauty, symmetry and eloquence of this critical
chapter of the word of God. I assume your group is familiar with the
text in Hebrew or as translated into various languages.
Okay, so let’s investigate the methodology used to interpret Genesis
which I promised, with focus on the big four great origins statements.
The young biosphere creation interpretation of Genesis which I am
promoting may be new to some readers. Also new will be the L-O-V-E
interpretive procedure referenced above which is articulated and
To discern the contextual restraints which the LOVE procedure
discovers, one must first grasp the literal overview of the entire
thought division or in this case chapter one. The King James Version
rendered verse two as, “The earth was without form and void (tohu
wabohu) and darkness was on the face of the deep.” What can we learn
from a literal overview of this chapter? Here I have chosen the
subtraction method because we all agree that the earth was complete
and perfect after day six so we just reverse the process day by day to
see how things were at verse two, just before day one. It is
illuminating, and this overview in reverse forbids certain popular
translations from consideration.
Subtracting the work of day six we lose Adam and the land animals, but
the planet earth is still fully formed and perfect. Day five subtracts
the birds and fish but the planet is unchanged. Subtract day four and
we only lose visibility of the celestial bodies “in the expanse of
air.” But again the planet earth remains fully formed. Subtract day
three and the vegetation is gone and the land sinks below the ocean
surface. But again, the planet itself remains fully formed. Subtract
day two and the air is lost with its oxygen and nitrogen, so the
atmosphere returns to a watery, translucent mist. The hydrologic water
cycle no longer waters the earth but light is allowed to penetrate “on
the surface of the ocean” but the planet itself is unchanged. Now
subtract the work of day one and we will be at the condition depicted
as tohu wabohu. Earth’s atmosphere becomes totally opaque and we
arrive at the condition just before day one. Notice that the planet
is still very much complete and fully formed before the first day
This proves that tohu wabohu should NOT be translated “without form”
in Genesis 1:2. That option, that error has been vetoed by the literal
overview using the subtraction method. The planet earth is fully
formed and covered by an ocean and in total darkness from a “cloud of
thick darkness” as Job 38:9 stipulates. Genesis 1:2 agrees, “darkness
was on the surface of the ocean.” The “LOVE” treatment has vetoed
“formless, unformed and without form” unequivocally. Please evict
those translations forever. If you are reading directly from the
Hebrew, let the subtraction method color your understanding. By
grasping the big picture, rather than the myopic focus on the narrow
area of v.2 only, (isolated from the entire chapter context) the
meaning becomes clear. We are compelled to abandon those misleading
But consider, if this error has prevailed for hundreds of years
through the minds of many astute and learned experts, how many other
errors are promoted by well meaning but mistaken expositors and
translators? It’s a fair question and there are several.
Does it take a PhD. in Hebrew to determine this? Not at all. A child
reading Genesis one in Swahili or Chinese or Egyptian hierglyphics or
the original Hebrew can determine this simple conclusion. Yes, a child
could do that!
WHAT ABOUT DAY FOUR – – – GENESIS 1:16?
Okay, so what about v 16, a “proof text”
along with Exodus 20:11 for Young Earth Creationists? Again, we must use the LOVE
procedure. We must get the “literal overview” of this thought division
or chapter combined with multiple contextual limiters derived from
If we do that carefully, using the complete context for limits,
what we learn is that, on each and every day of the six day work,
without exception, the procedure always follows this sequence: First,
God decides to do something, “Let there be”, or “Let us make.”
Second, He does what He decided to do, “It was so,” or He describes
the doing of it and thirdly, He delights in what He has done, “It was
good.” Each and every one of the creation days follows this pattern.
Please check that pattern out for each day. “God said, Let there be
light and there was light and God saw that it was good” (day one).
“Let there be an expanse, God created the expanse and called it ‘Air’”
on day two. So it continues through all the days of creation. But
because the air was not completed after day two, He did not pronounce
“it was good” (on that day only) until it was completed at day four.
That has to be significant.
So in order to interpret critical vv16 to 19, we must first be
careful to note precisely what God decided to do in v14 because what
He decided to do is what He actually did, no more and no less. That’s
what a careful overview discovers.
So as to day four, here is the record of what God decided to do: v14
“Let there be lights in the expanse of air (the raquia shamayim) to
divide the day from the night and let them be for signs and for
seasons and for days and for years. And let them be for lights in the
raquia shamayim, the expanse of air, to give light upon the earth. And
it was so.” The raquia shamayim is specified in verse 20 as the place
where birds fly which can only be air. The expression, raquia
shamayim, always, without exception, means the “expanse of air.” Also
verse 8 the hydrologic water cycle is created and suspended by the
air, and it remains so today. This should be unequivocal also.
Each of the six day’s activities confirms the universal, daily
sequence of Decide, Do and Delight. The literal overview discovers
this unmistakable pattern on each and every day. Please confirm this
daily sequence in your own mind for each of the six days.
So is it clear to everyone what God decided to do on the fourth day?
Now we can examine verses 16 to 19 for an account of what He actually
“did.” The lights were “displayed” nathan in the “expanse of air.”
Joel chapter 2 verse 30 in the NASB reads, “I will display (same word
nathan) wonders in sky and on the earth, blood, fire and columns of
smoke. The sun shall be turned into darkness and the moon into blood,
before the great and awesome Day of the LORD comes.”
. The preferred translation is, “Thus God produced (accomplished,
brought forth, arranged, prepared, worked, did) two great luminaries,
the greater luminary to dominate the day and the lesser luminary and
the stars to dominate the night. And God displayed them in the expanse
of air to give light on the earth…”
ANOTHER MISLEADING ENGLISH TRANSLATION
The Hebrew verb which most translators render as “made” is
asah which is the “do” word of Hebrew. To translate it “made” here is
a misleading translation because many readers think of “made: as
“create” and that is simply not so here. To think of v 16 as creation
of the galaxies is to accuse God – – – of choosing the weakest
possible verb in Hebrew and a very general type word to express
“create.” In verse one, bara “create” is NOT interchangeable with
asah, not at all interchangeable as some try to imagine. Asah almost
always means do, did, or done. We call those “helper verbs” in English
classes for their plethora of uses. If I should say to an employee, “I
gave you a list of seventeen things to do. Did you do them?” He
answers, “Yes, I did.” Those two and three letter helper verbs, cover
seventeen activities four times over in two sentences. Asah is the
Hebrew equivalent of English “do.”
GOD DID NOT MAKE THE SUN, MOON AND STARS ON DAY FOUR. But He
displayed them, He showed them, He gave them (nathan) in the expanse
of air, for signs, seasons, days and years and to give light on the
earth, exactly according to the terms of the DECIDE announcement of
verse 14. Because the literal overview gives a pattern for each days
activity and day four fits that pattern comfortably, it forcibly
removes the translation of asah as “made” but allows “accomplished” or
“brought forth” or “arranged” or “prepared” or “produced” or “did” two
great lights and the stars in the expanse of air. On day four, God
displayed (nathan) the sun, moon and stars in the air, for signs,
seasons days and years. I repeat for emphasis, Joel 2:30 in the NASB
reads, “I will display (same word nathan) wonders in sky and on the
earth, blood, fire and columns of smoke. The sun shall be turned into
darkness and the moon into blood, before the great and awesome Day of
the LORD comes.” God did NOT make the sun, moon and stars on day four.
He did that probably long before the first day, but He displayed them
in the expanse of air on day four. In Joel 2:30, he is talking about
the same things as the work of day four, namely displaying signs in
the expanse of air. There is much more to consider here, please get
One well meaning friend said to me in strong language, “My Bible says
that God made the sun, moon and stars on day four” with the idea of
God said it. I believe it and that settles it. Well, no. God did NOT
say it that way at all.
DID GOD MAKE THE STARS AND PLANET EARTH IN SIX DAYS? Now
for Exodus 20:11 and 31:17. NASB renders it, “For in six days, the
LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them,
and rested on the seventh day.” I say that is another misleading
translation. Can I prove it?
In only one area in the entire Bible did the Holy Spirit ever define
the meaning of His chosen words. That is here in Genesis one where he
defines five items: day, night, air, earth, and sea, all essential
elements of the biosphere. Verse 8 reads, “God called the expanse
‘air’.” To render it “heaven” once again is terribly misleading in
Genesis 1:8, 1:14, 1:20 and also Exodus 20:11. NIV renders it “sky” in
Genesis which is a little bit closer (although not much). “Sky” is
still not clear enough. If birds fly in it, then it is “air,” not
heaven or sky.
There was no creation of heavens during the six day work – – – none
whatever, it is all biosphere work. He created the stellar heavens and
planet earth in verse one, as plainly as words can be spoken, before a
first day, was even possible. The six days, every one of them, without
exception, record work on the air, or the land, or on the sea, or on
all that is in the air, the land or the sea, that is, biological life
and the home for biological life. The stellar heavens were created
before the first day was even possible because a cloud of thick
darkness surrounded an ocean covered earth like a blanket and
swaddling clothes surround a newborn (Job 38:1-10). On day one, God
thinned the atmosphere to translucence and on day four God cleared the
translucent “air” to transparency, a simple, logical necessity.
The context for Exodus 20:11 is unmistakably the six days of
Genesis which God specifically references. Therefore it is imperative
that we use the definition of shamayim that God clearly supplied for
us in Genesis 1:8, 14 and 20. The only place in the Bible where God
defines ANY word meanings, he defines shamayim as “air” where birds
fly. Yes, it is unfortunate that translators seem to be afraid to use
“air” but that is irrational, in my opinion, although the New Century
Version, to its credit, does use “air” as an option for shamayim in
this chapter. Unless God is referring specifically to the hosts of
heaven or the stars, it fits best to render shamayim as “air.’ I do
not have time to defend it further right now, but get the book,
The preposition “in” simply does not belong there. “For in six days …”
Please throw that translation away as far as you can throw it. It just
adds further confusion. The context is unmistakably “work” and “labor”
in Exodus 20:11 “Six days shall you labor and do all your work…then
rest on the Sabbath day because for six days Yahweh worked on the air,
the land and the sea (and all that is in the air, land and sea) then
God rested on the seventh day.” – – – He is talking about the
biosphere of living things which God worked on for six days and then
rested on the seventh day.” Go through Genesis chapter one again, day
by day, in a literal overview and you will agree that every day’s
activity had to do with, air, land or sea, or all that is in the air,
the land and the sea, that is, the biological world, the biosphere.
Nowhere, in the six day work, does God work on the heaven of stars.
“God created the heavens and planet earth” before, and perhaps
thousands or millions or billions of years before a “first day” was
even possible. The time is undefined. On day four He worked on the
expanse of air which was already translucent to allow the first day,
then, necessarily, He had to make the air transparent so the stars
could function for signs, seasons, days and years on the fourth day.
God did not make the sun and stars on day four. He cleared the expanse
of air to allow visible display of signs, seasons, days and years on
If we take all three of these expositions together, that is, the
subtraction method for determining tohu wabohu of v 2, which is an
overview in reverse, then if we take the “DECIDE, DO and DELIGHT”
method for determining the work of day four which, again, comes from
examining that thought division in an overview, and finally, the
determination of the meaning of Exodus 20:11, all using the literal
overview principle, coupled with contextual restraints, one concludes
that the LOVE treatment is, indeed, a methodology worthy of
application to this basic chapter of the Bible.
Does one need a PhD. in Hebrew grammar to conclude these things? No,
certainly not. This method works in any language translation. A
technical knowledge of Hebrew grammar is always welcome, but any child
can use the logic and power of the L-O-V-E method to determine these
conclusions and, by the way, Hebrew experts would do well to add this
methodology to their studies of grammar and syntax in this chapter.
This interpretation solves all of creationist’s problems. Light from
distant galaxies is no problem. God made the galaxies in the
beginning, undefined in time. Isotope dating of magmatic intrusions in
geologic dikes and sills is no problem although admittedly
radioisotope dating is riddled with other problems by itself. Some
radioactive crystals within magmatic intrusions survive the magma
phase intact so they partly measure the age of the earth, not the age
of the intruded strata.
Young Earth Creationism is right on, when referring to flood geology,
and a recent, literal, six-day creation in Genesis. But we have very
big problems when we limit the age of the universe and planet earth to
only thousands of years and we destroy God’s way of helping us to
glimpse the eternal nature of Himself. The timeless immensity of the
universe helps us understand the attributes of God. Rather choose the
Young Biosphere Creation view (YBC) because everything fits
comfortably with no problems remaining and no detraction from God’s
It is hoped that many readers and including Hebrew experts will
request the 188 page book entitled, Genesis Chapter One:
Scientifically Accurate and Surprisingly Simple which fully exposes
the “Young Biosphere View.” The is available as an
e-book for $10. I am pleased to offer this to Messianic Jewish
congregations in Israel as my first published announcement of the new
book (by email only because I have no funding for formal standard
publication platforms). Price of the paperback book is $15 plus $4.00 domestic
or $8 international postage. If there is a financial
hardship, indicate that to me and I will try to send the
book free. I do not want anyone who will give the book close attention
to be without it because of lack of money.
Now I hope many of you will communicate with me by email or other
media. Learn more on the website below. Reader’s reactions, whether
positive or negative, are welcome for friendly exchanges. Critiques
are welcome but I respond only to clear Bible exposition. Especially
welcome would be critiques from Hebrew experts familiar with the
vernacular of biblical Hebrew.
The respected evangelical apologetics ministry, Probe, gives this answer as to why they are not dogmatic about interpreting Scripture to require a young universe:
I just read over your article on the Age of the Earth to get Probe’s stand on the issue. Apparently, the official stand is officially no stand.
I was wondering after I read this statement of yours: “Biblically, we find the young earth approach of six consecutive 24-hour days and a catastrophic universal flood to make the most sense. However, we find the evidence from science for a great age for the universe and the earth to be nearly overwhelming. We just do not know how to resolve the conflict yet.”
How do you (we) know for sure that the earth is millions if not billions of years old? I have been looking into this issue for a while, and I have found that ALL dating methods suffer from one major problem. They are ALL based on Fallible (un-testable) Assumptions. Now that is a major problem to probe into because it seems that the main reason why Probe is not willing to hold to and defend the clear written revelation in Genesis is because you believe those dating methods are more trustworthy than Genesis 1.
I believe Rich Milne and I qualified our statement sufficiently. To say that we think the young earth position makes the most sense Biblically does not intend to suggest we believe it is the “clear” written revelation of Genesis 1. There are many conservative evangelical Old Testament scholars who do not hold to it. Men who certainly understand the OT and Hebrew much more than this molecular biologist. If I believed it was the clear revelation of Genesis, I would accept it regardless of the scientific evidence.
What you refer to in the assumptions of dating methods is true especially of the radioactive dating methods. But we explain one of our hesitations in the problem of starlight in the body of the paper. I also find it significant that most young earth geologists and physicists (Russ Humphreys is my source from personal conversations during our ICR Grand Canyon trips together) recognize that radioactive dating methods consistently portray an older-to-younger sequence when going from the bottom to the top. So much so that they are searching for a way incorporate this into their flood model. They don’t accept the actual dates but the sequence seems real. Therefore the dating methods are not totally without merit. This is more than just suggestive.
I do understand that an international group, meeting through ICR, is working on a paper concerning dating methods which I anticipate with eagerness.
Ray Bohlin, Ph.D.