The creation scientists at Answers in Genesis (AIG) are tackling one of the greatest problems in the world — one which has stumped everyone. Their discussion is at the AIG website — the creationist ministry of Ken Ham (ol’ Hambo) — the ayatollah of Appalachia, the world’s holiest man who knows more about religion and science than everyone else.
It’s titled Feedback: Why Wasn’t Day Two Declared “Good”?, and it has two authors. The first is Avery Foley. AIG says she has a masters of arts in theological studies from Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary. Her co-author is Her co-author is Troy Lacey, AIG’s correspondence representative — whatever that is. The two of them have teamed up before — see Answers in Genesis — The Waters of the Flood.
We know you’re interested, so we’ll give you some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis. They begin with a question ol’ Hambo received on Facebook:
On Day 2 of Creation why did God not say that it was “good” like He did for each of the other days?
We’ve always wondered about that! No doubt, you have too, dear reader. The creation scientists inform us what the bible says about Day 2:
And God said, “Let there be an expanse in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters.” And God made the expanse and separated the waters that were under the expanse from the waters that were above the expanse. And it was so. And God called the expanse Heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, the second day. (Genesis 1:6–8)
Ah yes. God stuck Heaven in the middle of the waters, which explains why we have waters below Heaven and also waters above Heaven. After that the Dynamic duo tell us:
Unlike the other five days of creation week, God does not look over what he has made and see that it was “good.” Some people have wondered why God doesn’t specifically say that this day was good. While day two was not specifically called “good,” we know the day, and what God did on that day, was good. Genesis 1:31 tells us that everything God made at the end of the creative process was “very good.” This, of course, would include day two and everything formed on that day.
That makes sense. They continue:
God calling everything he had made “very good” means there could not have been any death or suffering before sin. Death and the curse are the consequences of sin (Genesis 2:17), so they could not have existed before sin. Neither is God going to call a broken creation full of death, suffering, disease, and bloodshed “very good.” That goes against God’s character and puts the blame for death and suffering on God, instead of on human beings who rebelled against him.
If the days were long periods of time, as some Christians try to argue, then there were millions of years of death and suffering before sin. … The days in Genesis were not millions of years each. They were literal, 24-hour days.
Only a hell-bound fool would deny it! Let’s read on:
Although Scripture doesn’t explicitly state why day two isn’t called “good,” some Bible commentators and theologians have used biblically inferred hypotheses. The first and most prominent hypothesis is that God didn’t actively create anything on day two. Rather, he took material created on day one and separated it. Yes, he made the expanse (sometimes called the firmament), but this appears to be just a separation of what was created on day one , rather than a unique creative event.
Yes, that might explain it. But wait — there’s another explanation. We’re told:
The second hypothesis is that if God did actively create on day two, he may have spent his creative time on the heavens, so this would have been the only day where earth was not the primary focus of his creation. Even in creating the celestial objects on day four, God stated that their purpose was to give light on the earth and to function as signs and seasons (for the later inhabitants of the earth). Perhaps God created atomic, subatomic and gravitational forces, and natural laws on this day. He may have even instigated episodes of accelerated nuclear decay on day two. While these things are necessary, they are not only related to the earth or mankind and the creatures on earth.
Now we’re confused. Which hypothesis is The Truth™? The creation scientists explain:
However, day two not being referred to as “good” is not an omission. Omission implies that it should have been there but was forgotten or accidently [sic] not included. It was deliberately left out.
Why? What does that omission mean? The creation scientists inform us:
It was also deliberately left out on day seven (Genesis 2:2–3). While the Bible states that God rested on the seventh day and that he “blessed” that day and “made it holy” (which would certainly qualify it as being a “good” day), the “it was good” statement is also absent from that day.
Egad, we’re really confused! The answer better come soon, because now we’re at the end:
Again, we can only speculate, but it seems the most likely reason is that God did not actively create anything on that day.
This is most unsatisfactory. Perhaps you, dear reader, can provide us with a better answer.
Copyright © 2018. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.