LogoNNN
The Norfolk and Norwich Christian community website

Opinion column


planet earth 750pb

Creation was very good, but was it perfect?

Regular contributor James Knight explains why he believes that God’s very good Creation was not actually perfect prior to the fall.

It's amazing how many Christians you meet who think the world is only a few thousand years old (hint: it isn't - it's 4.6 billion years old). It's also amazing how many Christians you meet who don't understand what the Immaculate Conception is (hint: it's not the foetal or baby Jesus). Thinking of other popular misconceptions - another one I've heard quite often is that the world was once perfect, because God created it that way, and it only became imperfect after the fall in Genesis 3.
 
The reality is, there is absolutely no reason to suspect the world was perfect before humans came along and spoiled the party by sinning in the Garden of Eden, and there is no scientific basis for a once perfect world either. I have complex views about what the Garden of Eden represents in the story, but I'm pretty sure it isn't a perfect paradise.
 
In Genesis 1, we read that creation of material things, plants and animals was 'good'. When God created humans, He called this creation 'very good', delineating a special categorisation for creatures created in His image. But good and very good are not the same as a 'perfect world' prior to sin.
 
Moreover, Satan was in the garden too, and lied to Eve, and Eve makes the mistake of believing that the fruit should not be touched, when God said the fruit should not be eaten. Whichever way we interpret those verses, it is clear that whether they are lies, deceptions or simple mistakes, they would not have existed in a perfect world.
 
Some try to get around this by saying that it was Lucifer's fall that occurred in the perfect world. But that doesn't address the matter - it simply puts the same problem one step back. If Lucifer was happily co-existing alongside God and the other angels in a perfect paradise, then it must have been pride that caused his fall from grace. But pride and falling from grace also wouldn't happen in a perfect world, so this theory doesn't resolve the matter either.
 
The upshot is, the idea that the original creation was 'perfect' is one that seems to have been made up out of thin air by a small proportion of Christians. There is nothing in scripture or in science that gives the slightest indication of an initial perfect paradise - and it's a misconception that Christians would do well to terminate at their earliest convenience.

The image is courtesy of pixabay.com.



james knight 500James Knight is a local government officer based in Norwich, and is a regular columnist for Christian community websites Network Norfolk and Network Ipswich. He also blogs regularly as ‘The Philosophical Muser’, and contributes articles to UK think tanks The Adam Smith Institute and The Institute of Economic Affairs, as well as the London Institute for Contemporary Christianity (LICC). 


The views carried here are those of the author, not necessarily those of Network Norfolk, and are intended to stimulate constructive debate between website users. 


We welcome your thoughts and comments, posted below, upon the ideas expressed here. 
 
Click here to read our forum and comment posting guidelines

You can also contact the author direct at j.knight423@btinternet.com
 
Feedback:
(Guest) 13/04/2023 15:06
I hate Christians to disagree in public, but this needs challenging.
Many evangelical pastors in Norwich and Norfolk teach Biblical creation: James is wrong to state as 'fact' the earth is billions of years old. He is also wrong to call creation a story: it is God's reliable record of the origins of humanity.
I am aware that some evangelical theologians teach Theistic Evolution, but am not aware of any who say that God's creation was not perfect (although it would be consequence of theistic evolution, as millions of animals were dead before Adam and Eve arrived).
When God added humans to the created order, He said it was 'very good'. Millions of dead animals, animals tearing each other apart, whole species wiped out, disease and cancer prevalent does not paint a picture of 'very good'. And remember, this is God's description of 'very good' and He holds to standards that go beyond our perfect!
It may have been a little clumsy of Network Norfolk to publish an article that you must have been aware would go against the teaching of many of the Churches you speak to.
Apologies again for disagreeing on a public forum - it does not do Christianity any favours - but I could not let this pass. People may have thought it was the normal position of Churches in this region.
Stuart Bailey, Pastor, The Open Door Christian Fellowship
Timothy V Reeves (Guest) 13/04/2023 19:22
When Cambridge biologist & evangelical Christian, Denis Alexander came to Norwich and lectured on this subject his view was that the Genesis term “very good” meant “fit for purpose”. Even in our own language something can be “good” but not “perfect”. Also, the story of the serpent suggests that humans did not enter a perfect world; at least one Created being had already fallen. Moreover, the human duty to “subdue” the creation is evidence that further work was needed. The biggest evidence that creation was not perfect is seen in that two of its main players (humanity and Satan) had a propensity to fall. That, presumably, will not be the case in the metamorphosed creation mentioned in the New Testament.

Many evangelical Christians leaders and rank & file agree with James that the creation is millions of year old; I can only think that Guest lacks church experience. James is also right to question the meaning of “very good” in order to promote thought and bring the question to the fore.

What is most disturbing about Guest’s views are not so much his Biblical literalist interpretations (which I can understand) but his authoritarian presumption which expresses itself in his opinion that this issue should not be publicly explored, and that Christians should keep mum about tensions in their midst. That goes against 2000 years of history. Moreover, Ken Ham, boss of Young Earth ministry “Answers in Genesis”, is very vocal in his disagreement with those Christian who believe in a flat earth (Yes they really do exist) and very vociferous toward Christain evangelicals like N T Wright and Francis Collins who don't follow Ken's old Earth interpretation.

Guest's cover up sentiments, expressed on public forum does not do Christianity any favours. It’s deceitful. And why hasn’t he identified himself? Is he unwilling to take responsibility for his views?


James Knight 13/04/2023 23:45
I will, of course, continue to be polite - but if you come on to my article page, and 1) declare that you are part of a minority fundamentalist group that denies empirically grounded science that most of the world (including most Christians) accept as evidential fact, 2) undermine the reputation of the Christian faith to outsiders with your counterfactual views and spiritual haughtiness, 3) inaccurately posit your position as the mainstream one, and 4) then proceed to suggest that I'm in the wrong for writing this article, and that NN is 'clumsy' for publishing it - then you will not get an easy time from me in the comments section.

(Guest) 14/04/2023 09:47
If Stuart Bailey's views are those of a fundamentalist then I'm happy to align myself with him as his views are biblical. I am part of a church who teaches biblical creation and it is not the same church as Stuart. In fact, having grown up as a pastors kid, a missionary kid and then gone on to study theology at Bible college and work in a number of churches, I have never been in a church that did teach biblical creation. His view are not the minority, we just don't feel the need to justify our position because the Bible does that for us. Thank you for your comment Stuart.
Gwilym Davey
Timothy V Reeves (Guest) 14/04/2023 11:22
I think Gwilym, it very much depends on what sort of church culture you associate with. Ken Ham of the "Answers in Genesis" Young Earth ministry has bemoaned the fact that most churches, even in America, do not teach young earthism. That suggests young earthism is a (large) minority view. The way round this for some young earthist ultras is to simply redefine the meaning of "church", so that Old Earth creationists (like myself) are regarded as spiritually suspect compromisers who are beyond the pale.

Clearly your view that there is no need for young earthists to justify a Bible which speaks for itself is invalidated by the presence of many young earthist ministries who promote their views with vociferous vehemence and with threats of divine displeasure should one believe anything else.

James Knight 14/04/2023 14:34
Ah, Gwilym Davey - the guy who made a video about my NN article on evolution, invited me to discuss it, realised he couldn't compete with the arguments, blocked communication, and then censored the video so my comments correcting Jeanson's pseudo-science were not published on the comments below the video. As expected, Jeanson later bottled out of the debate too when he read my articles.
James Knight 14/04/2023 15:21
It's so sad that this young earth creationism virus has infected the reputation and credibility of the Christian faith to outside onlookers - it's just so foolish ad unnecessary, and needlessly makes so many elements of the church a laughing stock. God must be so disappointed with His followers - heck, there's enough to be disappointed about anyway, without this being thrown in to add even more shame and discredit to the mix.
Timothy V Reeves (Guest) 17/04/2023 18:24
Thanks Keith for putting Stuart's identity on his post. (It wasn't there to begin with). I think it is now clear that Stuart's comment, which started this thread, is rather clumsy: It seems that he doesn't want views similar to James' expressed. And yet he is part of a Christian subculture (Ditto Gwilym) that is very vocal in denying an old Earth and in some cases (e.g. Ken Ham) will go as far as to publicly claim that old Earth Christians are "attacking God". One rule for literalists.........?


However I do understand the motivation to somehow "cosify" a very perplexing cosmos with its huge dimensions in time space and space. In fact flat earthist Christians have gone one step further with their literalisms than just declaring a young earth, of course!

In my books the literalism that leads to young earth and flat earth doctrines isn't sufficient to define someone as a fundamentalist - that latter has more to do with bad attitude than doctrine and that bad attitude is well developed among many literalists.
Timothy V Reeves (Guest) 17/04/2023 18:36
I have done a lot of work on young earthism when it is launched from a platform with fundamentalist attitudes:

See here:

hxxps:\\quantumnonlinearity,blogspot,com/search/label/Fundamentalism

To get the link replace "xx" by "tt", "//" by "\\" and commas by ".".
(Guest) 20/04/2023 09:59
From James Knight:

It is ironic here, of course, that the literalists impugning my effort in this article, are doing so on an occasion where I am actually taking Genesis literally when it says God’s creation was ‘very good’ (fit for purpose) and not ‘perfect’ (where there is no mention of perfect). The young earthers cherry pick their hyper-literal agenda when it suits them, but fail to see the irony behind their aims.



James

6483 views
To submit a story or to publicise an event please email: web@networknorwich.co.uk