4 Reasons to Believe in Creation

4 Reasons to Believe in Creation

Those that believe in creation believe that the universe and all human life is the result of divine creation. For creationists, God is responsible for the creation of the entire cosmos.

While there are differing opinions among Christians regarding creation (e.g. young earth creationism, gap creationism, theistic evolution), almost half of Americans now consider themselves to be creation believers, with almost all of those acknowledging that God created the universe, as described in the Biblical accounts. A recent article in the Daily Mail states that:

“Nearly half of Americans believe God created mankind in a single day about 10,000 years ago, a literal interpretation of the Bible, according to a new survey that shows the view toward evolution in the United States hasn’t changed in 30 years. 

About 46 percent of people say creationism explains the origin of humans. Just 15 percent say humans evolved without the assistance of God.”  (Read the article)

With so many now believing in the creative work of God, it’s important to look at why creation continues to stand up, in spite of modern scientific theories which appear to contradict the Biblical accounts. We hope this list of four reasons to believe in Biblical Creationism will inspire your faith in God’s creative work, and strengthen it.


  1. The Bible Reveals Creation

The Bible states over 30 times that God created all life including plant, animal and human.

The first two books of the Bible are even specifically devoted to the accounts of God’s creative activity and our origins. Genesis functions as the foundational book of the Bible and tells the story of the beginnings of the universe, the earth and humanity. The accounts of God’s creation serve to help us understand the book we are about to read, and to grasp God’s redemptive plan for the world.

As a complete work, the Bible reveals the nature of God through his creation, and through his relationship to creation – from Genesis to Revelation.  The Primeval History laid out in Genesis 1-11 is referred to over 100 times throughout the New Testament alone, and is referred to by every New Testament author. The importance of the Genesis accounts of creation cannot be overstated.

A belief in evolution is a misreading of scripture as it cannot be reconciled with passages such as Genesis 1 or Exodus 20:11 which states:

 For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.”

 Beliefs in anything other than God’s creation of the universe are inconsistent with the omnipotent, omniscient and redemptive picture of God that the Bible paints.


  1. Jesus Confirmed Creation

Jesus referred to Genesis himself, on several occasions – always affirming his belief in the accounts as historical realities.

In Mark he states that:

“But at the beginning of creation, God made them male and female.” (10:6)

And in Matthew Jesus responds to the Pharisees questions on divorce:

“Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.” (19:3-6)

Jesus confirmed the accounts of Genesis: Adam and Eve were real people, as were Cain and Abel. Jesus also affirms the historical validity of Noah and the flood later on in Matthew.

For Jesus, the events described in Genesis were real events with real people. The historicity of The Primeval History is bound up with much of Christ’s teaching on theological matters. Understanding Jesus relies on our understanding of, and belief in, the creation narrative.


  1. The Authority of Scripture Relies On It

If we deny creation, or allege that some passages should be understood as mere myth or allegory, then we are putting the authority of the canon at risk for two reasons:

Firstly, if these stories do not describe events as they state, then what other parts of the Bible might be misleading? Deciding not to believe in the creation accounts of Genesis will inevitably lead to questions about the reliability of other parts of the Bible, and the Bible as a complete work.

Secondly, if the Bible is in fact unreliable, then we undermine our own belief in God’s inerrant word. If we do not subscribe to the creation accounts which appear throughout the Bible, then we open the Bible up to be considered full of errors and not divinely inspired – as Christians usually understand it.


  1. God’s Character is Grounded in Creation

The Bible reveals God’s nature through his creation. In the beginning we are created in his image. Throughout the Old Testament the people are called to be the people of a creative God and in the New Testament we see God revealed through Jesus, who was with the father at the creation:

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.” (John 1:1-3)

The New Testament even closes with the promise of a new creation, in which God will carry out his redemptive plans and see his kingdom reign on earth. In order to understand God, we must believe and recognise him as the creator of the entire cosmos. The Psalmist wrote that:

“The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands.” (19:1)

To exist within creation is to exist within the presence of God. God is deeply embedded into his creation.   




To celebrate God’s creation, sign our petition to establish Creation Day as an official holiday

How Many Of Each Animal Was On The Ark?

How Many Of Each Animal Was On The Ark?

Ask any man, woman or child who is even vaguely familiar with the story of Noah’s Ark how many of each animal was taken on board the Biblical boat and you will get the usual answer: two. This answer is usually given because of the instructions recorded in Genesis, which God gave to Noah:

 You are to bring into the ark two of all living creatures, male and female, to keep them alive with you. Two of every kind of bird, of every kind of animal and of every kind of creature that moves along the ground will come to you to be kept alive.

– Gen 6:19-20

However, what most people don’t know is that later on in Genesis, God also gave Noah these instructions:

Take with you seven pairs of every kind of clean animal, a male and its mate, and one pair of every kind of unclean animal, a male and its mate,  and also seven pairs of every kind of bird, male and female, to keep their various kinds alive throughout the earth.

– Gen 7:2-3

This discrepancy between texts, begs the question:


How many animals was Noah to take onto the ark? Was it two….or seven?


At a glance, these two passages appear to offer contradictory information.


The Documentary Hypothesis

One manner used by Biblical scholars to resolve this apparent issue is the documentary hypothesis. The documentary hypothesis maintains that the Old Testament was put together from multiple sources which wrote independent of each other. According to this theory, an editor – or multiple editors – came along and fitted the texts together into one narrative which could explain any contradictions or duplicate material in the Biblical text (a noticeable duplicate often cited to support the documentary hypothesis is the two human creation stories which appear in Genesis 1 and 2). Biblical scholars who subscribe to the documentary hypothesis argue that God’s command to bring seven pairs of clean animals was a later addition to the original story in order to explain how Noah was able to sacrifice animals after the flood without risking the animal population’s future.


A Close Reading

While the documentary hypothesis may provide an explanation for the discrepancy in the two passages, the inconsistency may also be able to be resolved by a careful reading of what the verse says.

The first passage states that Noah is “to bring into the ark two of all living creatures.” Here, God is instructing Noah to bring one pair of every living creature with him – every kind of animal on earth. This instruction is delivered with the specification that each pair be made up of one male and one female in order for each pair to repopulate the earth after the flood. The command here is universal: it concerns all animal life.

The second passage states that Noah is to bring “seven pairs of every kind of clean animal.” The distinction between the two passages is clear – the second instruction is bound up with the idea of ‘clean’ and ‘unclean’ animals. In this passage God instructs Noah to bring extra pairs of ‘clean’ animals. The command here is specific, referring only to ‘clean’ animals. This passage also confirms the instructions given in the first passage, stating that seven pairs of clean animals need to come aboard the ark, in addition to the one pair of unclean animals that has already been commanded.

The two passages differ because the second one is a command given in addition to the first passage – while the first instruction concerns all animals, ensuring that the pairs taken on board will repopulate the earth, the second instruction concerns only clean animals and is probably referring to animals for sacrificial purposes. This is indicated by the sacrifice Noah makes immediately after the flood:

“ So Noah came out, together with his sons and his wife and his sons’ wives…Then Noah built an altar to the Lord and, taking some of all the clean animals and clean birds, he sacrificed burnt offerings on it.”

– Gen 8:18-20

If Noah took only the reproductive pairs then he would not have had any available animals to sacrifice. God knew this, and so gave a further instruction to ensure that all needs would be met.



What we have here is not a contradiction – it is two different instructions given by God, to Noah, regarding the animals that needed to survive the flood.

Each instruction has its own purpose – one reproductive, one sacrificial – and is given for its own reasons. God supplemented his original instructions to ensure that clean animals were brought onto the ark for the purpose of sacrifice.




To subscribe to our mailing list sign up HERE

Living A Christian Life In A Culture of Consumption

Living A Christian Life In A Culture of Consumption


What is Consumption?

Consumption is an inherent part of the human condition. We all consume and we always will. Consumption is merely our need to use things in order to fulfil our basic needs as humans. However, we must recognise the difference between consumption and consumerism.

When most people think of consumerism, they think of shopping sprees and violent squabbles at Boxing Day sales. However, consumerism is much more than mere materialism. Consumerism is a much broader problem, and has now come to be the broader framework in which people view their lives and themselves: a person’s worth is determined in terms of ‘having’ rather than ‘being’. Consumerism is the force behind the culture of consumption in which we now live. While consumption is an action we must all take at times, consumerism has established consumption as a culture which has come to define our society in the wider sense.

Consumerism defines life individualistically – by what one has rather than what one experiences or who one shares it with. Within consumerism, a person’s achievements are measured by what personal possessions they have – reducing people to objects of consumption. Consumerism teaches us that we do not need education or experiences to be privileged – we can achieve this status by simply purchasing a large amount of material goods in order to achieve satisfaction, happiness and contentment.

The good life is but a purchase away.


A Family Affair

Families are also suffering under the culture of consumption as we appear to have lost our commitment to family values.

The boundaries between family commitments and career advancement have now blurred, and the marketplace now reigns as more and more parents choose work over family – often rationalizing that the higher income will naturally mean the better choice for everyone. People no longer hesitate to take work on Sunday’s and often take on as much work as they can. According to studies, the average amount of hours worked by all family members has increased by 11 percent since the 1970s and more than 30 percent work on weekends and holidays. These numbers are also in keeping with new numbers that suggest that the average amount of time parents spend with their children has declined by 22 hours per week since the 1960s. The increase in monetary work has also meant a decrease in the time spent in community involvement. Weekly church attendance has reached an all-time low and it is not uncommon now for neighbours to not even know each other’s names.

The culture of consumption tells us to work hard now, and make time for family later but this does not always come to fruition. It also fosters a culture of working hard until everything is done, when we will be able to ‘start living’. The idea is that if we work hard and make enough money, we will finally be able to buy all of the things we need in order to start enjoying life. The problem with that is that our children will grow up and our families will deteriorate while we are working. Life passes by whether we are ready to ‘start living’ or not.


Living to Consume

A common argument amongst people who overeat is that while alcoholics can give up alcohol, food-addicts cannot give up food. Going cold turkey is not an option and so it is more difficult to rehabilitate those who are addicted to food than it is for those who are addicted to substances such as alcohol. The same applies for consumption: because we have to consume to meet our basic needs, it is not as simple as ‘giving it up’. The problem, however, does not lie in the consuming to live, but rather, when we start living to consume.

Any critique of consumption must address the issue of idolatry. When we begin to start living to consume, we put material goods at the centre of our lives, rather than God. Buying things is not the issue – nor is collecting material goods. The issue is what priority we give those goods in our lives.

The culture of consumption encourages us to define meaning and assign value based on material goods. One’s identity can be defined by the clothes they choose to wear, the car they choose to drive and the things they possess.  No longer does the old adage “you are what you eat” resonate. You are what you consume.


Take Me to Church

Consumerism is the driving force behind everything in our culture. It undermines individuals as well as disintegrates families and communities with its silent, but deadly, presence. More recently, it has also been at work in undermining the Church and its influence. Shopping is now considered the number one leisure activity in the United States – a position that was once occupied by religion. Consumption is no longer simply an economic phenomenon – it is a worldview, a framework through which we interpret everything else…including God.

Much dialogue has taken place, particularly online, regarding the church’s recent decision to cash in on consumerism, often participating in capitalism, without even being aware of it. Because consumption has become so ingrained in our worldview, we barely even recognise that it’s happening, let alone question it.

With the advent of ‘church-shopping,’ churches have adopted a corporate model which employs marketing strategies and business values in order to be competitive within the church market. In order to add appeal, some churches are even cashing in on the consumeristic nature of their members – putting their logo on shirts, coffee mugs and other merchandise and making it available for purchase. Christian stores have also cashed in on the culture, offering Christian merchandise – books, CD’s and jewellery. Instead of striving to counter the culture of consumption, churches and Christians everywhere, are reinforcing it. If you love to shop –then you can now do so… in Jesus’ name.


Being a Christian Witness in the Face of Consumerism

Though ‘consumption’ has come to be a dirty word it doesn’t necessarily need to be. While the consumption discussed above has left behind it a trail of credit-card debt, bankruptcy and gum wrappers, the word needn’t be associated with such negative connotations. We are all consumers – participating in transactions for goods that we need. If we do it well, we can be healthy consumers, fostering a culture that contributes to meeting people’s needs and watching the human population flourish.

As Christians, we must lead the charge on consumption. We have participated in it as much as everyone else – we have been reckless and overindulgent in our consumer habits and have allowed too many issues to go under the radar, accepting them as part of the society in which we live.  Consumerism has now become so bound up with identity, that we cannot ignore the issue any longer.

Social media has further driven our consumer identity – we write status updates about our purchases, photos of us in clothing that we bought and take pictures of the food we are eating. By putting ourselves on display we are allowing ourselves to be identified by the books that we read, the brands we are wearing and the products we are buying. Consumerism has become the outer layer of our identity, and we are posting it on Facebook for everyone to see. We must be mindful about what messages we are sending, and what consumer habits we are putting on display.


So What Do I Do?

The following is a practical list, of steps to take in order to live a Christian life in a culture of consumption:

  • As Christians, we must intentionally be present on the front lines of the debate surrounding the culture of consumerism. And, most importantly, we must critique it – whether or not that makes us popular
  • In order to consume well, we must ensure that our consumption is about God – not about us. Christians cannot consume well unless they are first, wholly consumed by Christ. Christ must be at the center of our lives, instead of material objects
  • We must reflect a Christ-like approach to ‘things’ both in how we spend our money and in how we choose to give it
  • We must reflect deeply on issues of suffering, and how we can help with the resources that we have – no matter how big or small. We can pray to God that he is able to use us in helping those less fortunate
  • As Christians, we should take small steps to deny ourselves some comforts. This might be skipping a meal in order to buy one for a homeless person, or giving to the church on a regular basis. Denounce the culture of consumption in the name of Jesus Christ and put some of your resources to use amongst those who are suffering
  • Think about your daily bread – Christians should not aim to be poor, but should also not aim to be rich. Think about what you need in your household and re-evaluate areas where money is being spent out of consumerism


To indulge in a culture of consumption is to forget our identity in Christ. By filling ourselves with brands and products we are giving our identity over to the culture of consumption. We must live for God, in Christ, filled with the spirit. Only when we can do this will our true identity shape our lives.




To celebrate Creation Day, sign our petition to establish it as an official holiday!


Creation vs Evolution: The Basics

Creation vs Evolution: The Basics

Unless you have been living under a rock, you will be aware of the ever growing divide between the world of science, and faith – particularly in relation to the creation versus evolution debate.

Mainstream science believes that the earth is billions of years old and has come into existence through the process of evolution, popularised by Charles Darwin. Evolution also maintains that humans have evolved from single-cell organisms to their present state: homo sapiens.

Christianity adheres to the Biblical account of creation, described in Genesis. This view maintains that the universe was created in a seven day time period and a literal reading indicates that the earth may only be 6,000 to 10,000 years old. Genesis also describes humans as having been divinely created in the image of God himself.

It is at the cross section of these two views that we, as 21st century people, find ourselves. The media has done a fantastic job of branding these two views as polar opposites, placing Christianity and science as two teams fighting within a cultural war. Recent studies indicate that most people now believe that their position on our origins is an ‘all-or-nothing’ issue. They must choose a side: Christian and creation, or non-Christian and evolution.

If this is the case, then how do we know which side we should be on? With children now being taught evolution in schools and being raised in a culture where we are encouraged to choose a side, we need to have a good understanding of this faith issue.


History of Evolution

The creation versus evolution debate is relatively recent, having began during the late 18th century in Europe and North America. When new interpretations of geological evidence began to emerge, questions were raised about the age of the earth. This drove some early ideas about evolution, including Lamarckism, which describes the idea that a cell can pass on characteristics to its offspring. By the mid-19th century, books were being written such as Robert Chambers’ “Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation” which began popularising the idea of the transmutation of species. This idea paved the way for Darwin’s theory of natural selection.

While on a voyage studying the wildlife, Charles Darwin observed the variation in the appearance of individual animals. This, he concluded, meant that with enough time, these variations in their physical appearance would look significantly different. The publication of his work “On the Origin of Species” in 1859 further popularised the theory of evolution and allowed the theory to become an entire field of study.


History of Creationism

By the early 19th century, debate had begun to develop regarding the Bible and how this should be read and interpreted. Some theologians were arguing that a less literal approach should be taken, with the focus shifting to the theological concerns presented within the Biblical accounts. With the advent of new thinking on the age of the earth, religious thinkers sought to reconcile the two ways of thinking by developing ideas such as ‘gap-creationism’.

While most 19th century scientists came to accept the theory of evolution, theologians were accepting it also, understanding it as a vehicle God had used to bring about the earth.  In the 20th century, several factors including the rise of Biblical literalism, Christian fundamentalism and the scepticism of the post-modern era led to a backlash against evolutionary ideas – parents soon began to voice concern over evolutionary teaching in schools and clergy became concerned that belief in evolution would invalidate the creation story described in the Bible.

Then 1960s saw the first major modern creationist book go to print. “The Genesis Flood: The Biblical Record and Its Scientific Implications argued for a literal reading of creation week and suggested that humanity must have co-existed with dinosaurs. These views rose in popularity, particularly in Britain and were soon the foundation for the establishment of the Institute for Creation Research which aimed to promote creationism throughout the world.

The belief held within the scientific community that evolution explains the origins of life continues to be challenged by creationists today.


The Debate

Alongside the rise of the theory of evolution on the world stage in the 19th century, was support, particularly from Christianity. The reverend Charles Kingsley of the Church of England, openly supported the theory of evolution and saw God as having worked through evolution in order to bring about the earth. Prominent botanist Asa Gray also produced an influential book explaining that religion and science were not mutually exclusive, and set forward his support for Darwin’s work. As the theory found more global support, the Catholic Church became accepting of Darwin’s ideas and more recently Pope Francis has even stated that both evolution and creation may be two halves of the same equation.

Though on some occasions faith and science have been able to see eye-to-eye, there are many points on which they have not. Creationists often feel that scientific theories are inadequate due to the processes and biases involved in developing them, while science claims that creationism is a pseudo-science, based on faith and lacking in solid evidence.

Biology often comes under significant scrutiny within the controversy between creationism and science. Within biology, human evolution is by far the most hotly debated topic as it is perceived to threaten the accounts of human creation found in the Biblical texts. Scientists argue that fossil records and DNA comparisons demonstrate the evolutionary process that the human race has undergone, having evolved from primates to humans. Creationists reject this idea, and argue that the theory of human evolution is largely based on assumptions. While science argues that all organisms (including humans) have common descent, Christianity proposes that God created different kinds (humans and different kinds of animals) at the same time, so not every organism can have a common ancestor.

Two other areas of frequent dispute are macroevolution and transitional fossils. Creationists readily accept microevolution (the idea that small evolutionary processes take place within kinds – dog breeds for instance) but reject the scientific idea of macroevolution which argues that evolution also happens on a grand scale.  Creationists also reject the existence of transitional fossils, which scientists use as evidence in the case for evolution.

Geology is another prominent area of debate within the creation versus evolution debate. Creationism maintains the position that based on the Biblical chronologies, the world cannot be older than around 6,000 years, when God created it. Science claims that the age of the earth is closer to around 4.5 billion years – a point which is rejected by creationists on the grounds that the methodology used to come to these conclusions is flawed. Creationists argue that scientific processes such as radiometric dating are unreliable, and thus cannot be used to make conclusions about the age of the earth.


How Should We Handle This?

While Christianity and creationism have often been diametrically opposed to scientific claims about the origins of the earth and humanity, we must also recognize that the world of faith and science approach these ideas with very different ways of thinking, asking fundamentally different questions about our reality. We must allow space for both science and faith to take place within us, and not continue to reinforce the dichotomy that exists between the two.

Although some Christian leaders have come forward and posited views which either accept or reject claims from the scientific community, as Christians we must have an awareness that everything depends on our creative God – and our finite, human understandings may  never be able to fully grasp how he went about his creative activity.

We must also acknowledge that while the accounts of Genesis describe the origins of our earth and of human life, it also contains writing that is beautiful, poetical and ultimately theological. While these texts may contain clues about the science behind God’s creative action, they are not designed to be a scientific manual. They are designed to provide us with a theological guide to understanding our creative God.


Sign our petition to establish Creation Day as an official holiday!

Why Do We Not Live As Long As Methuselah?

Why Do We Not Live As Long As Methuselah?

Genesis 5 describes the oldest man to ever live:

“Thus all the days of Methuselah were 969 years, and he died.” (v27)

Though Methuselah did not have a starring role in the Old Testament, his life, and its length in particular, has been a subject of much interest for creationists and theologians. Nowadays, the name Methuselah has come to be associated with anything that is old.

Though Methuselah is only mentioned briefly in the Hebrew Bible, he came from a prominent line of Old Testament characters (Methuselah was the son of Enoch, the father of Lamech and the grandfather of Noah) and his final mention in Genesis 5 is of great significance, begging the question:


Why do we not live as long as Methuselah?


Some creationists argue that certain environmental and theological factors have affected our ability to age to this degree, including the introduction of sin into the original design, the elimination of the water vapor canopy over the earth. DNA and changes in lifestyle factors.

Without further ado, let’s take a look at each of these factors.


The Original Design

Anybody who has read the book of Genesis and taken notice of the genealogies it contains will have noticed a sharp shift that occurred after the flood, particularly in relation to lifespans. Creationists have long agonised over how to explain the discrepancies in lifespans in the pre- and post-flood ages but have failed to come up with any single argument to explain the difference.

Theologians, however, often argue that the solution lies back at the beginning, in the Garden of Eden.

According to Genesis, God created the first man and woman, perfect and without sin. The Garden of Eden where he placed them was abundant with everything they would need to live forever in their perfected state. Adam and Eve were commanded not to eat from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil:

“Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat; but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.” (v16)

In Genesis 3, Adam and Eve eat from the forbidden tree and humanity is changed forever.  Access to the tree which was once able to sustain their lives permanently was forbidden:

Then the Lord God said, “Behold, the man has become like one of Us, to know good and evil. And now, lest he put out his hand and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever”— therefore the Lord God sent him out of the garden of Eden to till the ground from which he was taken. So He drove out the man; and He placed cherubim at the east of the garden of Eden, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to guard the way to the tree of life.”

From this point onward, the perfect creation had been radically altered. Sin and death had entered the world and changed the original design. Humanity was no longer able to live forever.

Genesis 5 tells us that Adam eventually went onto die, as God predicted:

Thus all the days that Adam lived were 930 years, and he died.” (v5)


The Great Deluge

In the time between Adam and Eve’s fall in the Garden of Eden and the great flood, lifespans continued to be long, though not eternal as they had been originally intended. However, after the flood, there is a progressive decline in the lifespans of the Old Testament characters, which raises questions about how the flood and the conditions of the earth after it took place, affected humanity’s claim to long life.

The decline is depicted as rather rapid, describing Noah as one who lived to be 950 years old, with Abraham living only to 175. By the time of Moses, the expected lifespan is only 70-80 years old (similar to what we would expect today):

“Our days may come to seventy years, or eighty, if our strength endures” (Psalm 90:10)

Interestingly, extra-biblical evidence also supports the decline of long life spans after the flood in Genesis. The Sumerian King List is an ancient surviving manuscript which describes a flood similar to what is depicted in the Hebrew Bible, as well as a list of kings who reigned before the flood took place. What is most interesting is that the Sumerian King List also portrays a significant decrease in lifespan following the flood.

The rapid decline in life years which appears to take place after the flood indicates that something about the world radically changed at the flood. We can assume that such a cataclysmic event would have changed the environment and living conditions substantially and possibly changed larger systems such as weather patterns. Crop fields and pastures were wiped out, as were trees and all animal life. Where, before the flood, the world had been a perfect creation which was fractured, now it was completely destroyed.



In addition to the environmental changes that took place at the flood, something else about humanity changed radically – Noah and his family were granted permission to eat meat. At the creation of Adam and Eve, the pair are given abundant access to all plant life for food, but after the flood, in a world now filled with nothing but scarcity, humanity is now able to start incorporating meat into their diet.
In his Commentaries on Genesis, Martin Luther attributed the long, pre-flood lifespans to the diet that was adhered to in the opening chapters of Genesis, stating that:

“…the general vigor and strength of limb which men had in paradise before the advent of sin, had passed away…. With reference to food, who cannot easily believe that one apple, in that primeval age, was more excellent and afforded a greater degree of nourishment than a thousand in our time? The roots, also, on which they fed, contained infinitely more fragrance, virtue and savor, than they possess now. All these conditions, but notably holiness and righteousness, the exercise of moderation, then the excellence of the fruit and the salubrity of the atmosphere – all these tended to produce longevity till the time came for the establishment of a new order by God which resulted in a decided reduction of the length of man’s life.”

At creation, humanity was appointed a vegetarian diet which would sustain them, but after the flood, meat was allowed to become a part of the human diet. Modern medicine is quite clear about the effects of meat eating on human health, so it stands to reason that in allowing meat eating, God may have intended on shortening the human lifespan, as Luther suggests.

Since we now cannot live beyond the age of around 120, the effects of moderate meat eating are probably negligible, but in an age where humans lived for several hundred years, the introduction of meat eating may have changed everything.



Since we know that Noah continued to live for another 350 years after the flood, some suggest that it’s unlikely that the post-flood environment was so hostile that it alone was the cause of lifespan decrease. Rather, they argue, it is more likely that other internal factors, such as DNA were responsible.
Modern science has found that DNA in our systems is constantly mutating and evolving. If Adam and Eve were created with perfect DNA, then it’s likely that the DNA become less and less perfect as it was passed down through each generation. We develop genetic mutations of our own, as well as inheriting some of the mutations from our parents, which we then pass down to our children. This creates a kind of snowballing effect for substandard DNA.

Since we know that the first humans were created perfect, we must assume that genetics associated with aging and lifespan were radically affected at the fall – in fact, we know that they were, since death did not exist before the fall.


Water Vapor Canopy

Though a lot of creationists no longer subscribe to the vapor canopy idea, some still insist that this theory is the cause for the dramatic change in lifespan.

Genesis 2 tells us that before the flood, it did not even rain:

“Now no shrub had yet appeared on the earth and no plant had yet sprung up, for the Lord God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no one to work the ground, but streams came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground.” (5-6).

However, we know from earlier in Genesis, that God placed large amounts of water above the sky:

“And God said, “Let there be a vault between the waters to separate water from water.” So God made the vault and separated the water under the vault from the water above it. And it was so.”(v 6-7)

Since we know that it did not rain, we can conclude that this body of water was not simply a collection of rain clouds. This body of water was what creationists call the ‘water vapor canopy’ – a large body of water suspended above the sky.

When we come to the great flood in Genesis 7, we see God using this canopy of water to cause the deluge.

“In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.” (11)

These ‘fountains of the great deep’ most likely refer to the water vapor canopy which is unleashed over the surface of the world for ‘forty days and forty nights’ (12). The fact that there is no mention of rain in the Bible until after the food reinforces this idea.

The argument put forward by creationists is that this body of water, while suspended in the air, would have been functioning as a filtration system for much of the harmful radiation that the earth is exposed to from space. Once this water had been released, our earth would have undergone many changes, including a decrease in the amount of oxygen we inhale, and an increase in the UVA and UVB rays that we are exposed to – two significant factors which scientists agree have an impact on health and lifespan.


So, Can We Live for 900 Years?

Put simply, no. The Bible is very clear that the sin of humanity, both through Adam and Eve and through the pre-flood generations caused an unrepairable fracture in God’s creation. We will never be able to attain the long lifespans granted to those early generations because they were a result of God’s perfection which was ruptured in Eden. We also know that the earth underwent significant changes during the great flood, and we cannot repair it back to its original pre-flood state.

We also know that regardless of how long we get to live, death is always going to be the end result. Even if it were possible for us to live until we are 900 years old, we would never be able to eliminate death. It also pays to remember these words by the Psalmist, which point out that our lifespan has already been predetermined by God before we are even born, whether it be set for 100 days or 100 years.

“…all the days ordained for me were written in your book, before one of them came to be.” (139: 16)






Subscribe to Creation Day