Dr. Bernard Northrup Articles

One of the most qualified advocates of the Young Biosphere Creation view (also known as Two Stage Biblical Creation view) was Bernard Northrup. Much of his scholarly writing is now available online courtesy of Encyclopedia of Creation Science wiki.


“Dr. Bernard Northrup, 1925-2008, was a scholar of the Old Testament and Semitic languages with a ThD from Dallas Theological Seminary. He was on the faculties of Dallas Bible College (1953–1959), San Francisco Baptist Theological Seminary (1959–1972), Baptist Bible Seminary (1972–1978), Central Baptist Seminary, Minneapolis, Minnesota (1978–1985), and Shasta Bible College (1985–2005). In addition to teaching, Dr. Northrup also advised Bible translators working with Bibles International and Baptist Mid-Missions, checking work done by pastors in 17 tribal languages in India, the Philippines, and Africa.”

He said of himself in 2001, ‘I am a Christian Hebraist [Hebrew language scholar] who has studied the Tanakh [entire Hebrew Bible – Law, Prophets, and Writings] for nearly fifty years. I have taught it in the Hebrew, Aramaic, and English languages to many young men who were preparing to serve the Eternal.’ His personal interests included Biblical creationism and geology; he wrote extensively on these subjects, the Old Testament, and living as a Christian…”

See under “Articles on Creationism”


Here are a few paragraphs of the 10 page document

“…Most creationists do not realize that they are contradicting Genesis 1: 1 by holding that earth was created before the sun. They hold that Earth was created either in Genesis 1 : 1 or in 1 : 1-3, while they interpret Genesis 1 : 14-19 as saying that the sun and moon were created on the fourth 24 hour day of creation. This “axiom” actually produces an apparent, man made contradiction in Genesis 1 itself that should be so obvious as to render the position untenable. The conclusion that the solar system comes into existence in Genesis 1:14-19 absolutely contradicts Genesis 1 : 1-5 and the revelational material which directly follows. First of all, Genesis 1 : 1 is the only place in the text of Genesis one which in any way discusses the origin of planet earth. The first verse says: “In beginning [there is no article) God created the heavens [a dual noun in Hebrew) and the earth.” The translator must recognize that the compound direct objects of the verb must be considered as coming into existence together in some way. And it is crucial to note that from Genesis 1:1 onward in the chapter, earth clearly exists. Note that in verse 2 earth not only exists but already has been covered by a universal sea and shrouded in darkness. This perfectly harmonizes with the Creator’s own description to Job of the earth’s creation in Job 38:1-9.

Earth most certainly was not created later in Genesis 1 for its rotation on its axis before a giant, distant mass which is a single, distant point, light source is required by the context. It is earth’s rotation before this body in the heavens which produced the first solar day in verses 3-5. (Most creationists unwisely insist that these are “24 hour days,” an reverse extrapolation of earth’s present rotational speed into the creation week! But this assumption is axiomatic and is not specifically revealed in the text. (Shades of uniformitarianism)! What can be proven is that the rotation of the earth before a heavenly body, remarkably like the sun if not the sun itself, produced the solar days of the chapter). Therefore it should be logical to conclude from the statement of Genesis 1:1 and the evidence of the six solar days in that chapter that the solar system and possibly the entire universe had to come into existence at the same time. Is that confirmed or denied by the context? These thoughts on the subject seem to me to be worth consideration. Earth must exist for it to rotate before an existing light source. Earth’s creation can only be described as taking place in Genesis 1 :1….

The conclusion that the sun was not created until after the creation of plant life produces another problem. Without the heat of the sun, even though that undoubtedly was widely diffused by the canopy, the seas of Genesis 1 :2·9 would have been ice. Otherwise one must postulate some other source of heat. The same Is true of the plants which were placed on the continent or at least in the garden on the third solar day of creation. Plant life would have been Impossible unless the creationist, in order to defend his position, becomes the Creator for that day. Does not plant life require the sun to warm the soil and to produce photosynthesis?

The setting of the “lights in the atmospheric heavens” speaks of the giving of governmental responsibility rather than physical placement. Another phrase by which the English reader easily is stumbled In trying to understand the events described as occurring on the fourth solar day is found in Genesis 1 :17. “And God set them (the two great lights) in the expanse of the atmospheric heavens to give light upon the earth.” The Hebrew verb which is translated “set” is the progressive form of the verb nathan. To the English reader this implies the act of moving an object and of placing it in a new location. However, the verb nathan is used in contexts of appointment to rulers hip in quite a different way. Its use in Genesis 41 :41 is very suggestive, and indeed, instructive. There Pharaoh says to Joseph: “See, I do appoint you over all of the land of Egypt.” That meaning is exceedingly appropriate here in Genesis 1 : 17. “Then God appointed them … in the expanse of the atmospheric heavens to give light upon the earth.” …

Read/download the full article: http://www.creationicc.org/1994_papers/1994_Part39.pdf

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s