DNA: marvellous messages or mostly mess?

by Jonathan Sarfati    

https://creation.com/dna-marvellous-messages-or-mostly-mess

2003 is the 50th anniversary of the discovery of the double helix structure of DNA. Its discoverers, James Watson, Francis Crick and Maurice Wilkins, won the Nobel Prize for Physiology and Medicine in 1962 for their discovery. [2011 update: this online version has been updated with animations and links to further amazing discoveries about the multiple codes in DNA.]

The amazing design and complexity of living things provides strong evidence for a Creator. We know from the Bible that God rested from (i.e. finished) His creative work after Day 6 (Genesis 2:2–3) and now sustains His creation (Col. 1:16-17, Hebrews 1:3). So how do complex living creatures arise today?

God’s information technology

One aspect of this sustenance is that God has programmed the ‘recipe’ for all these structures on the famous double-helix molecule DNA.1 This recipe has an enormous information content, which is transmitted one generation to the next, so that living things reproduce ‘after their kinds’ (Genesis 1, 10 times). Leading atheistic evolutionist Richard Dawkins admits:

‘[T]here is enough information capacity in a single human cell to store the Encyclopaedia Britannica, all 30 volumes of it, three or four times over.’2

Just as the Britannica had intelligent writers to produce its information, so it is reasonable and even scientific to believe that the information in the living world likewise had an original compositor/sender.3 There is no known non-intelligent cause that has ever been observed to generate even a small portion of the literally encyclopedic information required for life.4

The genetic code (see ‘The programs of life’ below) is not an outcome of raw chemistry, but of elaborate decoding machinery in the ribosome. Remarkably, this decoding machinery is itself encoded in the DNA, and the noted philosopher of science Sir Karl Popper pointed out:

‘Thus the code can not be translated except by using certain products of its translation. This constitutes a baffling circle; a really vicious circle, it seems, for any attempt to form a model or theory of the genesis of the genetic code.’5,6 

The unity of life

Many evolutionists claim that the DNA code is universal, and that this is proof of a common ancestor. But this is false—there are exceptions, some known since the 1970s. An example is Paramecium, where a few of the 64 (4³ or 4×4×4) possible codons code for different amino acids. More examples are being found constantly.1 Also, some organisms code for one or two extra amino acids beyond the main 20 types.2But if one organism evolved into another with a different code, all the messages already encoded would be scrambled, just as written messages would be jumbled if typewriter keys were switched. This is a huge problem for the evolution of one code into another.

Also, in our cells we have ‘power plants’ called mitochondria, with their own genes. It turns out that they have a slightly different genetic code, too.

Certainly most of the code is universal, but this is best explained by common design—one Creator. Of all the millions of genetic codes possible, ours, or something almost like it, is optimal for protecting against errors.3 But the created exceptions thwart attempts to explain the organisms by common-ancestry evolution.

So, such a system must be fully in place before it could work at all, a property called irreducible complexity. This means that it is impossible to be built by natural selection working on small changes.

DNA is by far the most compact information storage system in the universe. Even the simplest known living organism has 482 protein-coding genes. This is a total of 580,000 ‘letters,’7—humans have three billion in every nucleus. (See ‘The programs of life’, for an explanation of the DNA ‘letters.’)

The amount of information that could be stored in a pinhead’s volume of DNA is equivalent to a pile of paperback books 500 times as high as the distance from Earth to the moon, each with a different, yet specific content.8 Putting it another way, while we think that our new 40 gigabyte hard drives are advanced technology, a pinhead of DNA could hold 100 milliontimes more information.

The ‘letters’ of DNA have another vital property due to their structure, which allows information to be transmitted: A pairs only with T, and C only with G, due to the chemical structures of the bases—the pair is like a rung or step on a spiral staircase. This means that the two strands of the double helix can be separated, and new strands can be formed that copy the information exactly. The new strand carries the same information as the old one, but instead of being like a photocopy, it is in a sense like a photographic negative. The copying is far more precise than pure chemistry could manage—only about 1 mistake in 10 billion copyings, because there is editing (proof-reading and error-checking) machinery, again encoded in the DNA. But how would the information for editing machinery be transmitted accurately before the machinery was in place? Lest it be argued that the accuracy could be achieved stepwise through selection, note that a high degree of accuracy is needed to prevent ‘error catastrophe’—the accumulation of ‘noise’ in the form of junk proteins. Again there is a vicious circle (more irreducible complexity).

Also, even the choice of the letters A, T, G and C now seems to be based on minimizing error. Evolutionists usually suppose that these letters happened to be the ones in the alleged primordial soup, but research shows that C (cytosine) is extremely unlikely to have been present in any such ‘soup.’9Rather, Dónall Mac Dónaill of Trinity College Dublin suggests that the letter choice is like the advanced error-checking systems that are incorporated into ISBNs on books, credit card numbers, bank accounts and airline tickets. Any alternatives would suffer error catastrophe.10

Introns

DNA is not read directly, but first the cell makes a negative copy in a very similar molecule called RNA,11 a process called transcription. But in all organisms other than most bacteria, there is more to transcription. This RNA, reflecting the DNA, contains regions called exons that code for proteins, and non-coding regions called introns. So the introns are removed and the exons are ‘spliced’ together to form the mRNA (messenger RNA) that is finally decoded to form the protein. This also requires elaborate machinery called a spliceosome. This is assembled on the intron, chops it out at the right place and joins the exons together (see also this animation of the spliceosome machinery). This must be in the right direction and place, because, as shown above, it makes a huge difference if the exon is joined even one letter off. Thus, partly formed splicing machinery would be harmful, so natural selection would work against it. Richard Roberts and Phillip Sharp won the 1993 Nobel Prize in Physiology and Medicine for discovering introns in 1977. It turns out that 97–98% of the genome may be introns and other non-coding sequences, but this raises the question of why introns exist at all. [Update, 2011: now we know there is a splicing code; see related articles below.]

Junk DNA?

Dawkins and others have claimed that this non-coding DNA is ‘junk,’ or ‘selfish’ DNA. Supposedly, no intelligent designer would use such an inefficient system, therefore it must have evolved, they argue. This parallels the 19th century claim that about a hundred ‘vestigial organs’ exist in the human body,12 i.e. allegedly useless remnants of our evolutionary history.13 But more enlightened evolutionists such as Scadding pointed out that the argument is logically invalid, because it is impossible in principle to prove that an organ has no function; rather, it could have a function we don’t know about. Scadding also reminds us that ‘as our knowledge has increased the list of vestigial structures has decreased.’14,15,16

While Dawkins has often claimed that belief in a creator is a ‘cop-out,’ it’s claims of vestigial or junk status that are actually ‘cop-outs.’ Such claims hindered research into the vital function of allegedly vestigial organs, and they do the same with non-coding DNA.

Actually, even if evolution were true, the notion that the introns are useless is absurd. Why would more complex organisms evolve such elaborate machinery to splice them? Rather, natural selection would favour organisms that did not have to waste resources processing a genome filled with 98% junk. And there have been many uses discovered for so-called junk DNA, such as the overall genome structure and regulation of genes. Some creationists believe that this DNA has a role in rapid post-Flood diversification of the ‘kinds’ on board the Ark.17

Some non-coding RNAs called microRNAs (miRNAs) seem to regulate the production of proteins coded in other genes, and seem to be almost identical in humans, mice and zebrafish. The recent sequencing of the mouse genome18 surprised researchers and led to headlines such as ‘“Junk DNA” Contains Essential Information.’19 They found that 5% of the genome was basically identical but only 2% of that was actual genes. So they reasoned that the other 3% must also be identical for a reason. The researchers believe the 3% probably has a crucial role in determining the behaviour of the actual genes, e.g. the order in which they are switched on.20

Also, damage to introns can be disastrous—in one example, deleting four ‘letters’ in the centre of an intron prevented the spliceosome from binding to it, resulting in the intron being included.21Mutations in introns also interfere with imprinting, the process by which only certain genes from the mother or father are expressed, not both. Expression of both genes results in a variety of diseases and cancers.22

Another intriguing discovery is that DNA can conduct electrical signals as far as 60 ‘letters,’ enough to code for 20 amino acids. This is a typical length for molecular switches that turn on adjoining genes. Theoretically, the electrical signals could travel indefinitely. However, single or multiple pairings between A and T stop the signals; that is, they are insulators or ‘electronic hinges in a circuit.’ So, although these particular regions don’t code for proteins, they may protect essential genes from electrical damage from free radicals attacking a distant part of the DNA.23

So times have changed—Alexander Hüttenhofer of the University of Münster, Germany, says:

‘Five or six years ago, people said we were wasting our time. Today, no one regards people studying non-coding RNA as time-wasters.’24

More than just a super hard drive

Actually, DNA is far more complicated than simply coding for proteins, as we are discovering all the time.1 For example, because the DNA letters are read in groups of three, it makes a huge difference which letter we start from. E.g. the sequence GTTCAACGCTGAA … can be read from the first letter, GTT CAA CGC TGA A … but a totally different protein will result from starting from the second letter, TTC AAC GCT GAA …

This means that DNA can be an even more compact information storage system. This partly explains the surprising finding of The Human Genome Project that there are ‘only’ about 35,000 genes, when humans can manufacture over 100,000 proteins.

Reference

1. Batten, D., Discoveries that undermine the one gene→one protein idea, Creation24(4):13, 2002.

Advanced operating system?

Dr John Mattick of the University of Queensland in Brisbane, Australia, has published a number of papers arguing that the non-coding DNA regions, or rather their non-coding RNA ‘negatives,’ are important components of a complicated genetic network.25,26 These interact with each other, the DNA, mRNA and the proteins. Mattick proposes that the introns function as nodes, linking points in the network. The introns provide many extra connections, enabling what in computer terminology would be called multi-tasking and parallel processing.

In organisms, this network could control the order in which genes are switched on and off. This means that a tremendous variety of multicellular life could be produced by ‘rewiring’ the network. In contrast, ‘early computers were like simple organisms, very cleverly designed [sic], but programmed for one task at a time.’27 The older computers were very inflexible, requiring a complete redesign of the network to change anything. Likewise, single-celled organisms such as bacteria can also afford to be inflexible, because they don’t have to develop as many-celled creatures do.

Evolutionary interpretation

Mattick suggests that this new system somehow evolved (despite the irreducible complexity) and in turn enabled the evolution of many complex living things from simple organisms. However, the same evidence is better interpreted from a Biblical framework. This system can indeed enable multicellular organisms to develop from a ‘simple’ cell—but this is the fertilized egg. This makes more sense; the fertilized egg has all the programming in place for all the information for a complex life-form to develop from an embryo.

It is also an example of good design economy pointing to a single designer as opposed to many. In contrast, the first simple cell to allegedly evolve the complex splicing machinery would have no introns needing splicing.

But Mattick may be partly right about diversification of life. Creationists also believe that life diversified—after the Flood. However, this diversification involved no new information. Some creationists have proposed that certain parts of currently non-coding DNA could have enabled faster diversification,28 and Mattick’s theory could provide still another mechanism.

Hindering science

A severe critic of Mattick’s theory, Jean-Michel Claverie of CNRS, the national research institute in Marseilles, France, said something very revealing:

The circle of life

• All living things have encyclopedic information content, a recipe for all their complex machinery and structures.
• This is stored and transmitted to the next generation as a message on DNA ‘letters,’ but the message is in the arrangement, not the letters themselves.
• The message requires decoding and transmission machinery, which itself is part of the stored ‘message.’
• The choices of the code and even the letters are optimal.
• Therefore, the genetic coding system is an example of irreducible complexity.

‘I don’t think much of this work. In general, all these global ideas don’t travel very far because they fail to take into account the most basic principle of biology: things arose by the additive addition of evolution of tiny subsystems, not by global design. It is perfectly possible that one intron in one given gene might have evolved—by chance—some regulatory property. It is utterly improbable that all genes might have acquired introns for the future property of regulating expression.’

Two points to note:

• This agrees that if the intron system really is an advanced operating system, it really would be irreducibly complex, because evolution could not build it stepwise.
• It illustrates the role of materialistic assumptions behind evolution. Usually, atheists such as Dawkins use evolution as ‘proof’ for their faith; in reality, evolution is deduced from their assumption of materialism! E.g. Richard Lewontin wrote, ‘ … we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. … Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.’29 Scott Todd said, ‘Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic.’30

Similarly, while many use ‘junk’ DNA as ‘proof’ of evolution, Claverie is using the assumption of evolution as ‘proof’ of its junkiness! This is again a parallel with vestigial organs. In reality, evolution was used as a proof of their vestigiality, and hindered research into their function. Claverie’s attitude could likewise hinder research into the networking capacity of non-coding DNA.

Summary

• ‘Junk DNA’ (or, rather, DNA that doesn’t directly code for proteins) is not evidence for evolution. Rather, its alleged junkiness is a deduction from the false assumption of evolution.
• Just because no function is known, it doesn’t mean there is no function.
• Many uses have been found for this non-coding DNA.
• There is good evidence that it has an essential role as part of an elaborate genetic network. This could have a crucial role in the development of many-celled creatures from a single fertilized egg, and also in the post-Flood diversification (e.g. a canine kind giving rise to dingoes, wolves, coyotes etc.).

The programs of life

Information is a measure of the complexity of the arrangement of parts of a storage medium, and doesn’t depend on what parts are arranged. For instance, the printed page stores information via the 26 letters of the alphabet, which are arrangements of ink molecules on paper. But the information is not contained in the letters themselves. Even a translation into another language, even those with a different alphabet, need not change the information, but simply the way it is presented. However, a computer hard drive stores information in a totally different way—an array of magnetic ‘on or off’ patterns in a ferrimagnetic disk, and again the information is in the patterns, the arrangement, not the magnetic substance. Totally different media can carry exactly the same information. An example is this article you’re reading—the information is exactly the same as that on my computer’s hard drive, but my hard drive looks vastly different from this page. In DNA, the information is stored as sequences of four types of DNA bases, A,C,G and T. In one sense, these could be called chemical ‘letters’ because they store information an analogous way to printed letters.1 There are huge problems for evolutionists explaining how the ‘letters’ alone could come from a primordial soup.2 But even if this was solved, it would be as meaningless as getting a bowl of alphabet soup.

The ‘letters’ must then link together, in the face of chemistry trying to break them apart.3 Most importantly, the letters must be arranged correctly to have any meaning for life.

A group (codon) of 3 DNA ‘letters’ codes for one protein ‘letter’ called an amino acid, and the conversion is called translation. Since even one mistake in a protein can be catastrophic, it’s important to decode correctly. Think again about a written language—it is only useful if the reader is familiar with the language. For example, a reader must know that the letter sequence c-a-t codes for a furry pet with retractable claws. But consider the sequence g-i-f-t—in English, it means a present; but in German, it means poison. Understandably, during the post–September-11 anthrax scare, some German postal workers were very reluctant to handle packages marked ‘Gift.’ Return to main text.

References and notes

1. Adenine, cytosine, guanine and thymine. They are part of building blocks called nucleotides, which comprise the sugar deoxyribose, a phosphate and a base. In RNA, uracil (U) substitutes for thymine and ribose substitutes for deoxyribose.
2. Sarfati, J., Origin of life: instability of building blocks, Journal of Creation 13(2):124–127, 1999.
3. Sarfati, J., Origin of life: the polymerization problem, Journal of Creation 12(3):281–284, 1998.

Dear Augustine: You are welcome to post CMI articles on the mentioned website, as long as you agree not to change any of the content and reference creation.com and the relevant authors, as you have indicated.

Kind regards,  Annalouise Bekker  Administration
Creation Ministries International (Australia)

Advertisements

Occasionally, some of your visitors may se

Letting the Bible Explain Itself

by	Eric Lyons, M.Min.

The scene is quite familiar to many people: a nervous, well-intentioned, but sometimes ill-prepared Bible teacher stands or sits before the class, reads a passage of Scripture, and then begins a discussion with this simple question, “What does this mean to you?” The question seems innocent enough. Many people find it quite appropriate. After all, Bible teachers don’t know everything, and class discussions can be very beneficial.1 So why not give everyone an opportunity to tell the class what a Bible verse means to them?

In short, because it simply does not matter what a particular Bible passage means to you orme. The actual, true explanation of the text is ultimately all that matters (i.e., what did Godmean?). If there is a right interpretation of a section of Scripture, then that particular, correct explanation should be the only interpretation we seek. Application of the sacred text to our own individual lives certainly is vital to genuine Christian living, but first, we must come to a right understanding of the text (Ephesians 5:17).2 How do we do this? By allowing God to explain Himself. Similar to how we frequently ask those with whom we are engaged in conversations to explain themselves when they use words or expressions that we do not understand, if God gave us the Bible, then we need to seek His explanation of His Word. Whenever possible, we must allow the Bible to explain itself. This principle of Bible interpretation is both logical and God-honoring.

As great and faithful as was Joseph the patriarch, he informed the King of Egypt that “it is not in me” to interpret Pharaoh’s divinely revealed dreams (Genesis 41:16).3 God was the only One Who knew for sure what the dreams meant (since He was the One Who caused them in the first place), and He chose to give Joseph the meaning so that he, in turn, could inform Pharaoh. More than 1,000 years later, Nebuchadnezzar, King of Babylon, also had a special dream from God. As he sought a revelation and an interpretation of the inspired dream, the prophet Daniel informed the king that “there is a God in heaven Who reveals secrets” (Daniel 2:28). Only when God revealed the meaning of the dream to Daniel (2:19-23) could he in turn be of real help to Nebuchadnezzar. In essence, the faithful prophet Daniel logically and honorably allowed God to explain Himself.

Bible students and teachers in the 21st century need to learn from the faithful prophets of old the important lesson of humbly seeking God’s explanation of His revealed will. Since some things in Scripture are “hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures” (2 Peter 3:16), we must approach the study of the Scriptures with the utmost care and attention. Like the apostles, we prayerfully need to seek the Master’s truthful explanations (“Explain to us the parable of the tares,” Matthew 13:36) and not rely on the imaginative, diverse, biased, and ever-changing opinions of man. If the Bible is God’s all-sufficient revelation to mankind,4 and the entirety of His Word is truth and forever settled in heaven (Psalm 119:160,89), then whenever and wherever possible, we must allow the Bible to explain itself. Although helpful man-made commentaries have their place,5 no uninspired commentary can compare to the divinely authoritative commentary within the Bible itself. We must allow the immediate and remote contexts of inspiration to assist us in our studies. We must use the simple, straight-forward language of Scripture to help us understand the more challenging texts, and use the literal language to help us better understand the figurative. It is paramount that we use God’s Old Testament to better understand His New Testament and vice versa. If an authoritative elucidation to a particular biblical statement exists,6 we must (as much as possible) get out of God’s way and allow Him to explain Himself! Indeed, as has often been said, “The Bible is its own best interpreter.”

A WORD OF CAUTION

When “rightly dividing the word of truth” (2 Timothy 2:15) by using the Bible to explain the Bible, we must handle the potential associated passages with the utmost integrity and care. Do the verses actually relate to the primary passage in question, or am I rather carelessly using them to “prove” a preconceived idea? Do I actually understand the secondary passages in their own contexts, or am I rushing ahead to use them to “explain” the principal passage, when I have not yet even understood the supposed “inspired commentary” (the secondary passages)?

Example: A Misuse of 2 Peter 3:8

Second Peter 3:8 is one of the most frequently cited proof texts for the six days of Creation actually being thousands of years (or more) long. Allegedly, “Peter said, ‘One day is a thousand years and a thousand years is one day,’ thus the days of Creation were (or at least could have been) a thousand years (or more) long.” Sadly, for many Christians, 2 Peter 3:8 has become their leading commentary on Genesis 1.

Notice first of all that Peter does not actually say, “With God one day is a thousand years and a thousand years is one day.” The apostle actually wrote: “[B]eloved, do not forget this one thing, that with the Lord one day is as (Greek hos) a thousand years, and a thousand years as (hos) one day.” Peter used a figure of speech known as a simile to compare a day to a thousand years. It is not that one day is precisely equivalent to 1,000 years or vice versa. Rather, within the specific context of 2 Peter 3, one could say that they share a likeness.

In 2 Peter 3, the apostle reminded Christians that “scoffers” would arise in the last days saying, “Where is the promise of His [Jesus’] coming?” (vss. 3-4). Peter declared: “[T]he heavens and the earth…are reserved for fire until the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men” (vs. 7). Regardless of what the scoffers alleged about the Second Coming, Peter wanted the Church to know that “the Lord is not slack concerning His promise [of a return], as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance” (vs. 9). Sandwiched between these thoughts is the fact that the passing of time does not affect God’s promises, specifically the promise of His return. If Jesus promised to return 1,000 or 2,000 years ago, it is as good as if He made the promise one or two days ago. Indeed, “with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.” With men, the passing of long periods of time generally affects their keeping of promises, but not with God. Time has no bearing on whether He will do what He said He would do: “a thousand years are like a day” (vs. 8, NIV).

Bible students should also consider the fact that Peter used the term “day” (Greek hemera) and the phrase “thousand years” (chilia ete). This, in itself, is proof that God is able to communicate to man the difference between one day and 1,000 years.7 (For similes to make sense, one first must understand the literal difference between what is being compared. If there were no difference, then it would be meaningless to use such a figure of speech.) What’s more, within Genesis 1 God used the terms “days” (Hebrew yamim) and “years” (shanim). Many rightly have questioned, “If a day in Genesis is really a thousand years (or some other long period of time), then what are the years mentioned in Genesis 1?” Such a definition of “days” makes a reasonable interpretation of Creation impossible. The facts are: (1) God knows the difference between a day and a thousand years; (2) Peter and Moses understood this difference; (3) their original audience comprehended the difference; and (4) any serious student today can do the same.8

“RIGHTLYDIVIDING THE WORD OF TRUTH”

Although there is always the possibility of misusing Scripture when seeking to understand it (just as any communication can be misunderstood when treated carelessly), we must not allow the potential mistreatment of God’s Word to keep us from carefully and sincerely interpreting it. The saving faith of Jesus Christ “comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God” (Romans 10:17). Hearing and understanding the revelation of God both precedes faith and continues working alongside it as faithful men and women continue to “grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ” (2 Peter 3:18). Just as the Corinthian Christians were expected to “understand, even to the end” (2 Corinthians 1:13), a continual proper understanding of God’s Word is vital to our spiritual success throughout life.

Like the Bereans, we must seriously “search” or “examine” (Greek anakrino) the Scriptures in a noble, fair-minded fashion (Acts 17:11). The Greek word anakrino means to “engage in careful study of a question;” to “question, examine.”9 It is to “sift up and down;” “to make careful and exact research as in a legal process.”10 Similar to how Pilate “examined” (anakrino) Jesus and found no fault with Him concerning the things of which He was being accused (Luke 23:14), the Bereans examined the Scriptures daily to see whether the things that Paul preached were true. There is a commendable, reasonable manner in which to interpret Scripture, including and especially, allowing God to explain Himself—using the Bible to illuminate the Bible.

Exodus 20:11—To “Make” or to “Remake”?

“For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day.”

Several years ago, I listened to an evolutionary-sympathizing, radio evangelist emphatically and repeatedly stress that Exodus 20:11 does not mean that God created the Universe and everything in it in six days. Instead, God supposedly “fashioned” or “remade” the Universe in six days after an original creation billions of years earlier. Allegedly, between the time God (1) “created” the world (Genesis 1:1), and (2) “made” (or “recreated”) the world (Genesis 1:3-31), billions of years of time transpired in which evolution supposedly took place. This gentleman based his entire argument about Exodus 20:11 on the belief that “to create” (Hebrew bara) and “to make” (Hebrew asah) always mean two different things in relation to God’s creative acts.

The problem with this theory (commonly known as the Gap Theory) is that the inspired “explanatory notes” God has given us throughout the Old Testament concerning the events recorded in Genesis 1 reveal that the words “create” (bara) and “make/made” (asah) are used interchangeably in reference to the creation of the Universe and everything in it.

Since Exodus 20:11 refers to the events that took place in Genesis, it is quite appropriate to revisit the book of beginnings to see how these two words are used in reference to what took place during the Creation. In Genesis 1-2, bara and asah are used several times in reference to God’s work. Interestingly, they never stand at odds with one another; they teach one central truth: God created/made the Universe and everything in it in six days. For example, on day five “God created (bara) great sea creatures and every living thing that moves” (1:21), while on day six “God made (asah) the beast of the earth according to its kind” (1:25). On day six of Creation, God said: “Let us make (asah) man in Our image, according to Our likeness.” Then we are told in the very next verse that He “created (bara) man in His own image.” When Moses commented on this day of Creation in Genesis 5:1-2, he again used these words interchangeably: “In the day that God created (bara) man, He made (asah) him in the likeness of God. He created (asah) them male and female” (5:1-2).

In Genesis 2:4 Moses summarized the events of Creation, stating: “This is the history of the heavens and the earth when they were created (bara), in the day that the Lord God made(asah) the earth and the heavens.” The phrases “the heavens and the earth…were created” and “God made the earth and the heavens” parallel each other. They are two ways of saying the same thing.

Notice the prophet Isaiah’s use of four different Hebrew terms (including bara and asah) to refer to God’s work at Creation: “For thus says the Lord, Who created (bara) the heavens, Who is God, Who formed (yatsar) the earth and made (asah) it, Who has established (kun) it, Who did not create (bara) it in vain, Who formed (yatsar) it to be inhabited: I am the Lord, and there is no other” (Isaiah 45:18). Did God intend to communicate a different message every time He used different words to describe something? Not according to His inspired commentary. Just as you may tell one person, “I mowed the yard,” you might mention to someone else that “I cut the grass.” You have spoken one truth, even though you used two different phrases.

Though the term asah has a broader semantic range than bara and they may not always be synonymous terms, the fact is, as Hebrew scholar Dr. Justin Rogers concluded: “As any careful reader of the Bible will observe, the Hebrew language does not make a sharp distinction between bara and asah in accounts depicting the Creation. On the contrary, the terms are used interchangeably for Creation throughout the Old Testament, and can often be found in parallel expressions.”11

Gap theorists who contend that the Hebrew words bara and asah must have two different meanings when referring to God’s creative acts “in the beginning,” and who allege that Exodus 20:11 (and other verses) refer to a re-creation of Earth and everything on it, are not logically and fairly interpreting the Bible. Rather than respectfully allowing God’s Word to explain itself, it seems they have chosen to use the latest theories in old-Earth, evolutionary science to manipulate the Scriptures to their liking.

John 2:4—Was Jesus Disrespectful to His Mother?

“Jesus said to her, ‘Woman, what does your concern have to do with Me? My hour has not yet come.’”

Prudent world travelers take into consideration the differences in the countries they visit. They carefully consider their words and actions, knowing that sometimes the same word or action can mean two totally different things in different places at the same time. Wearing “pants” (trousers) in the U.S. is not equivalent to wearing “pants” (underwear) in England, nor is holding up two fingers (which may be interpreted as an obscene gesture by Englishmen).

Similar to conscientious world travelers who fairly interpret the words and actions of those in other countries according to the language and customs of those countries, Bible students must interpret the Bible with the Bible. Allowing the Bible to explain itself is fundamental to a proper understanding of it since the events of Scripture took place in very different times in different places with different people who spoke different languages and who had different customs.

The first time a person reads Jesus’ statement to His mother at the wedding feast in Cana of Galilee (“Woman, what does your concern have to do with me?—John 2:4), he may be a little confused. Why did the sinless Son of God address His mother with the term “woman”? According to Richard Dawkins, “Jesus’ family values, it has to be admitted, were not such as one might wish to focus on. He was short, to the point of brusqueness, with his own mother.”12 According to Dennis McKinsey, “Jesus needs to practice some parental respect.”13 “Imagine someone talking to his own mother in such a disrespectful manner and addressing her by such an impersonal noun as ‘woman.’ Talk about an insolent offspring!”14

As with most Bible critics, Dawkins and McKinsey are guilty of judging Jesus’ words by what is common in 21st-century English vernacular, rather than putting Jesus’ comments in their proper biblical context in a first-century setting. When we allow the Bible to explain itself, we learn that it was not rude or inappropriate for a man in the first century to speak to a lady by saying, “Woman” (Greek gunai). Jesus used this word when complimenting the Syrophoenician woman’s great faith in Matthew 15:28 (“O woman, great is your faith”). Later, as He was dying on the cross, Jesus spoke to His disconsolate mother one last time, saying, “Woman, behold your son” (John 19:26). Then, after He rose from the dead, Jesus affectionately addressed Mary Magdalene (as the angels had just done—John 20:13) with these words: “Woman, why are you weeping?” (John 20:15). As disrespectful as it may sound to us today, the use of the term “woman” in the first century “was a highly respectful and affectionate mode of address,”15 “with no idea of censure.”16 As Adam Clarke remarked: “[C]ertainly no kind of disrespect is intended, but, on the contrary, complaisance, affability, tenderness, and concern, and in this sense it is used in the best Greek writers.”17 The New International Version captures the true sense of this word in John 2:4: “Dear woman, why do you involve me?”

As to why Jesus used the term “woman” (gunai) instead of “mother” (meetros) when speaking to his own mother, we simply do not know.18 We must be careful to say “why” someone did or said something a certain way if the Bible does not give some indication, especially if we are assuming the worst about an individual.19 Contemplating and discussing why Jesus made this statement (and many others which may be left unexplained) is not wrong.20 We simply must differentiate between Bible-inspired explanations and the uninspired suggestions of men (however interesting they may be).

Mark 8:31—On What Day Exactly Did Jesus Rise From the Dead?

“And He [Jesus] began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things, and be rejected by the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again.”

The most frequent reference to Jesus’ resurrection in the New Testament reveals that He rose from the grave on the third day of His entombment. Matthew and Luke both record Jesus as prophesying that He would rise from the grave on this day (Matthew 17:23; Luke 9:22). The apostle Paul wrote in his first epistle to the Corinthians that Jesus arose from the grave “the third day according to the Scriptures” (1 Corinthians 15:4). And while preaching to Cornelius and his household, Peter taught that God raised Jesus up “on the third day” (Acts 10:40). According to Mark 8:31, however, Jesus predicted that He would “be killed, and after three days rise again” (Mark 8:31). How could Jesus arise both “on” and “after” the third day? Does the Bible help explain this difference in time in the most important event in the history of the world? Indeed, it does.

Scripture is peppered with references which demonstrate that in Bible times a part of a day was oftentimes equivalent to a whole day. Consider two examples:

• When the Israelites visited King Rehoboam and asked him to lighten their burdens (2 Chronicles 10:3-4), he wanted time to contemplate their request, so he instructed Jeroboam and the people of Israel to return “after three days” (10:5). Verse 12 of that chapter indicates that Jeroboam and the people of Israel came to Rehoboam “on the third day, as the king had directed, saying, ‘Come back to me the third day.’” Interesting, is it not, that even though Rehoboam instructed his people to return “after three days,” they understood him to mean “on the third day” (cf. 1 Kings 12:5,12).
• In Acts 10, we glean further insight into the ancient practice of counting consecutive days (in part or in whole) as complete days. Luke recorded how an angel appeared to Cornelius at “about the ninth hour of the day” (10:3, approximately 3:00 p.m.). “The next day” (10:9) Peter received a vision from God and welcomed visitors sent by Cornelius. “On the next day” (10:23) Peter and the servants of Cornelius departed for Caesarea. “And the following day they entered Caesarea” where Peter taught Cornelius and his household the Gospel (10:24). At one point during Peter’s visit, Cornelius spoke about his encounter with the angel of God. Notice carefully how he began the rehearsal of the event. He stated: “Four days ago to this hour, I was praying in my house during the ninth hour” (10:30, NASB). Although the event really had occurred only 72 hours (or three literal days) earlier, Cornelius spoke of it as taking place “four days ago to this hour.” Why four days instead of three? Because according to the ancient Jewish method of reckoning time, a part of the first day and a part of the fourth day were counted as whole days. Surely one can see how this information aligns itself perfectly with Jesus’ burial taking place on Friday and His resurrection occurring on Sunday. A part of Friday, all day Saturday, and a part of Sunday would be considered three days in ancient times, not one or two.

By studying these and other passages,21 one can see clearly that the Bible uses expressions such as “three days,” “the third day,” “on the third day,” “after three days,” and “three days and three nights” to signify the same period of time.

Further evidence proving that Jesus’ statements regarding His burial were not contradictory center around the fact that even His enemies did not accuse Him of contradicting Himself. No doubt this was due to their familiarity with and own use of the flexible, customary method of stating time. In fact, the chief priests and Pharisees even said to Pilate the day after Jesus was crucified: “Sir, we remember, while He was still alive, how that deceiver said, ‘After three days I will rise.’ Therefore command that the tomb be made secure until the third day” (Matthew 27:63-64). The phrase “after three days” must have been equivalent to “the third day,” else surely the Pharisees would have asked for a guard of soldiers until the fourth day. Interesting, is it not, that modern skeptics charge Jesus with contradicting Himself, but not the hypercritical Pharisees of His own day?

The expressions that Jesus and the Bible writers employed to denote how long Jesus would remain in the grave does not mean that He literally was buried for 72 hours. If we interpret the account of Jesus’ crucifixion, burial, and resurrection in light of God’s divine commentary (as well as helpful, uninspired historical writings which shed light on the culture of the day),22 and not according to the present-day (mis)-understandings and biases, we find perfect harmony in the expressions that Jesus and the gospel writers used to describe Jesus’ resurrection from the dead.

CONCLUSION

How often have we “heard” God, but not actually understood Him? Twentieth-century American author and children’s book illustrator Robert McCloskey once stated, “I know you believe you understand what you think I said, but I’m not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.”23 Sadly, billions of people on Earth either don’t care what God’s Word says or they don’t care enough to put forth the effort to understand it properly.

Some things are definitely harder to understand than others, and some things we may never fully understand, but one thing is for sure: if we humbly and honestly allow the Bible to explain itself whenever possible, we will successfully arrive at the proper conclusions that God intended for us to reach.

ENDNOTES

1 Both as a student and as a teacher, I have often benefited from the scriptural, relevant, and practical comments of others in a Bible class.

2 “Explanation” logically precedes “application.” That is, we cannot apply what we do not understand.

3 All bold text in Scripture quotations has been added for emphasis.

4 Read 2 Peter 1:3; John 16:13; 14:26; 2 Timothy 3:16-17; Ephesians 3:1-5; Jude 3; Revelation 22:18-19. See also Eric Lyons (2003), “Hearing God in the Twenty-First Century,” http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=11&article=912&topic=86.

5 Commentaries are often helpful in noting corresponding historical information, which leads to a better overall understanding of the time, place, and setting of a particular book of the Bible. The underlying Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic words are also frequently defined and discussed in a search for a better understanding of the text.

6 Keep in mind, just as the apostles did not understand all of Jesus’ teachings during His ministry (cf. Mark 9:32; John 12:16; 13:7), there are likely a number of things that we will never fully understand about the Bible this side of eternity. No doubt, we can understand everything we need to know to become a Christian and to live the faithful Christian life (John 8:32; 1 John 5:13; 1:5-10), but there may be many things about angels, the Trinity, Satan, heaven, hell, the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, etc. that we will likely never fully understand while on Earth. Perhaps one way God tests the sincerity of our hearts is by examining whether or not we are willing to concede that we are uncertain what some Bible passages mean exactly.

7 Some argue that since “God is not bound by time” and “could have taken as long as he wanted to create the Universe and everything in it,” then the days of Creation could have been thousands of years (or more) long. The point, however, is not whether God is outside of time (He most certainly is; Psalm 90:2), but what God has revealed to us—both in Genesis 1 and in the rest of Scripture. God could have created the Universe in any way He so desired; in whatever order He wanted, and in whatever time frame He so chose. But the question is not what God could have done; it is what He said He did. And He said that He created everything in six days (Exodus 20:8-11). Cf. Eric Lyons (2014), “Creation and the Age of the Earth,” http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=5000&topic=327.

8 Even if 2 Peter 3:8 could be tied to the length of the Creation days (logically and biblically it cannot), adding 6,000 years to the age of the Earth would in no way appease evolutionary sympathizers. A person could add 600,000 years or 600 million years and still not come close to the alleged age of the Universe. According to evolutionary calculations, one would still be 13+ billion years away from the Big Bang and four billion years this side of the formation of Earth. Truly, even an abuse of 2 Peter 3:8 will not help Day-Age theorists.

9 Frederick Danker, et al. (2000), Greek English Lexicon of the New Testament (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago), p. 66.

10 A.T. Robertson (1997), Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament (Electronic Database: Biblesoft).

11 Justin Rogers (2015), “Is the Gap Theory Linguistically Viable?” Reason & Revelation, 35[12]:134-141, http://apologeticspress.org/apPubPage.aspx?pub=1&issue=1208#.

12 Richard Dawkins (2006), The God Delusion (New York: Houghton Mifflin), p. 250.

13 Dennis McKinsey (2000), Biblical Errancy (Amherst, NY: Prometheus), p. 251.

14 Dennis McKinsey (1995), The Encyclopedia of Biblical Errancy (Amherst, NY: Prometheus), p. 134.

15 Marvin R. Vincent (1997), Word Studies in the New Testament (Electronic Database: Biblesoft).

16 A.T. Robertson (1932), Word Pictures in the New Testament (Nashville, TN: Broadman), 5:34.

17 Adam Clarke (1996), Adam Clarke’s Commentary (Electronic Database: Biblesoft).

18 Admittedly, the use of “woman” seems to have been an unusual way to address one’s mother in first-century Hebrew and Greek cultures.

19 Generally speaking, people understand the importance of the principle of being “innocent until proven guilty.” In our daily lives, we generally consider a person to be truthful until we have actualevidence that he or she has lied. In addition to giving peoplethe benefit of the doubt and generally considering them to be truthful about a matter unless we have evidence to the contrary, when we read a historical document or book, the same rule applies. The writing is considered to be truthful until it can be proven otherwise.

20 For example, commentator Leon Morris sensibly supposes that Jesus was indicating that there was going to be a new and different kind of relationship between Him and His mother beginning at the wedding in Cana. “Jesus in his public ministry was not only or primarily the son of Mary, but ‘the Son
of Man’ who was to bring the realities of heaven to people on earth (1:51)” ([1995], The Gospel According to John [Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans], revised edition, p. 159).

21 Genesis 42:17-24; 1 Kings 29:20; Esther 4:16; 5:1.

22 The Jerusalem Talmud, for example, quotes rabbi Eleazar ben Azariah, who lived around A.D. 100, as saying: “A day and night are an Onah [‘a portion of time’] and the portion of an Onah is as the whole of it” (Shabbath ix. 3, as quoted in Harold W. Hoehner [1974], “Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ—Part IV: The Day of Christ’s Crucifixion,” Bibliotheca Sacra, July, 131:248-249, bracketed comment in orig.). Azariah was indicating that a portion of a 24-hour period could be considered the same “as the whole of it.” Cf. John Lightfoot (1979), A Commentary on the New Testament from the Talmud and Hebraica(Grand Rapids, MI: Baker), pp. 210-211.

23 Attributed to Robert McCloskey, U.S. State Department spokesman by Marvin Kalb, CBS reporter, in TV Guide, March 31, 1984, citing an unspecified press briefing during the Vietnam war, http://quotes.yourdictionary.com/author/quote/601648.

Copyright © 2018 Apologetics Press, Inc. All rights reserved.

We are happy to grant permission for items in the “Doctrinal Matters” section to be reproduced in part or in their entirety, as long as the following stipulations are observed: (1) Apologetics Press must be designated as the original publisher; (2) the specific Apologetics Press Web site URL must be noted; (3) the author’s name must remain attached to the materials; (4) textual alterations of any kind are strictly forbidden; (5) Some illustrations (e.g., photographs, charts, graphics, etc.) are not the intellectual property of Apologetics Press and as such cannot be reproduced from our site without consent from the person or organization that maintains those intellectual rights; (6) serialization of written material (e.g., running an article in several parts) is permitted, as long as the whole of the material is made available, without editing, in a reasonable length of time; (7) articles, excepting brief quotations, may not be offered for sale or included in items offered for sale; and (8) articles may be reproduced in electronic form for posting on Web sites pending they are not edited or altered from their original content and that credit is given to Apologetics Press, including the web location from which the articles were taken.

http://www.apologeticspress.org

Advertisements

Occasionally, some of your visitors may see an advertisement here,
as well as a Privacy & Cookies banner at the bottom of the page.
You can hide ads completely