http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=11&article=451
Genesis 1 thru 11—Mythical or Historical?
INTRODUCTION
On November 24, 1859, J.M. Dent & Sons of London released for distribution Charles Darwin’s book,
The Origin of Species—a
volume that would change forever the perceptions held by many people
regarding their ultimate origin. However, long before Darwin wrote his
book, he had seen his own perceptions of origins change as well. When he
was but a young man, his parents sent him to Cambridge University to
become a minister. In fact, somewhat ironically, the only earned degree
that Charles Darwin ever held was in theology. But while studying
theology, he also was studying geology and biology. After his
graduation, and a subsequent five-year voyage at sea aboard the
H.M.S. Beagle, Darwin’s attitudes and views had changed drastically.
In 1959, Nora Barlow edited Darwin’s autobiography, and included
additional material that previously had been unavailable. In that
volume, this amazing statement can be found:
I had gradually come, by this time, to see that the Old Testament from
its manifestly false history of the world and from its attributing to
God the feelings of a revengeful tyrant, was no more to be trusted than
the sacred books of the Hindoos, or the beliefs of any barbarian (pp.
85-86).
Before Darwin could give himself over wholly to the doctrine of
evolution, he first had to abandon all confidence in the historicity of
the Old Testament and any belief in its teachings on origins. That
accomplished, he then was able to imbibe evolutionary scenarios without
obvious discomfort.
There is an important moral to this real-life, historical account. The
Genesis account-taken at face value-stands in stark contradistinction to
evolutionary theory. Thus, for people who claim to view the Bible as
the Word of God (as Darwin himself once did), and yet who are determined
to retain a belief in evolution (in whole or in part), there is a very
real conflict that must be resolved.
In an attempt to resolve this conflict, some have gone so far as to suggest that Genesis contains
no world view at all.
Donald England, a distinguished professor of chemistry at Harding
University in Searcy, Arkansas, took just such a position in his book,
A Christian View of Origins:
I recognize certain irreconcilable differences between the
pronouncements of science concerning origins and the general impressions
a person gets from reading Genesis 1. However, I feel that this
dissonance need not necessarily be disturbing to a Christian’s faith....
[T]here is no world view presented in Genesis 1. I believe the
intent of Genesis 1 is far too sublime and spiritual for one to presume
that it teaches anything at all about a cosmological world view. We
do this profound text a great injustice by insisting that there is
inherent within the text an argument for any particular world view (1972, pp. 102,124, emp. added).
Dr. England has acknowledged the “irreconcilable differences” between
Genesis and what he terms “the pronouncements of science,” but he feels
no discomfiture over this “dissonance” because he disavows
any
world view whatsoever in Genesis, thereby leaving himself completely
free to accept whatever happens to be in vogue scientifically at the
time.
For those who wish to retain some semblance of a world view in Genesis,
however, what kind of amalgamation of the “irreconcilable differences”
between Genesis and evolution can be effected? John Rendle-Short
discussed the solution suggested by many today.
Theistic evolutionists generally believe that God has revealed all
that can be known of the world and man in two books, the book of Nature
and the book of Scripture. Since both originate from God they must be
compatible; there can be no final disagreement. Evolution, they believe,
is a scientifically accepted fact (granted the proviso that God, not
chance, was in control)....
Theistic evolutionists are well aware that in Genesis 1 and 2 the
creation of man is recorded as having taken place in six days after the
“beginning.” They also know that according to evolution man was created
millions of years after the origin of life. Here is the discrepancy. How
to resolve it? Since there can be no discordance between the book of
Nature and the book of Scripture, and since both appear true, the error,
they feel, must lie in our interpretation and understanding of the
Genesis account (1984, p. 13, parenthetical comment in orig.).
Once evolution has been accepted as factual, then it is the
“interpretation and understanding of the Genesis account” that must be
addressed. Therefore, theistic evolutionists (and their
counterparts—progressive and old-Earth creationists) must find a way to
reinterpret the biblical account of origins in order to accommodate it
to various evolutionary scenarios. The first step in achieving this goal
is to “reevaluate” the literary style of Genesis. As Zimmerman
observed:
In asking whether or not theistic evolution may be found in the text,
we must come to grips with the question as to what kind of literature we
have in Genesis 1. Unless we decide the kind of literature we are
dealing with, we cannot perform good exegesis. If it is historical
prose, that is one thing. If it is poetry or myth or saga or symphony,
that is quite another (1972, p. 102).
The question then becomes: “What kind of literature
is the
Genesis account of creation? May we accept it at face value as literal
history—i.e., representing events that took place exactly as described?
Or, should we view the creation account simply as poetic mythology—i.e.,
a beautiful story (on the level of a pagan myth, for example), but
certainly not literal history?
IS GENESIS 1-11 MYTHICAL OR HISTORICAL?
Is Genesis 1-11 Mythical?
If one accepts that Genesis contains at least
some world view,
then the creation account must be either literal or non-literal. For the
theistic evolutionist, of course, that question already has been
answered. There is no possibility whatsoever that a theistic
evolutionist will accept the Genesis account as literal history, since
to do so would align it squarely against evolution. Eventually, then,
the events recorded in the first eleven chapters of Genesis somehow must
be relegated to the status of a myth or an allegory; they
cannot be viewed as literal, historical events that actually transpired. This simply is not an option for the theistic evolutionist.
The literature produced by those supporting theistic evolution proves
this to be the case. In fact, it did not take long after the publication
of
The Origin of Species for compromise to occur. As early as 1923, William W. Keen wrote the following in his book,
I Believe in God and in Evolution:
In this age of general education, I can hardly believe that the most
sincere literalist can insist that while Adam was made unconscious, an
actual rib was taken from his body and out of it was fashioned a woman;
and that Eve and a serpent actually conversed together in intelligible
speech. To those who are familiar even in a general way with Oriental
literature, all this is clearly to be understood figuratively and not
literally (p. 8).
John L. McKenzie, writing on “Myth and the Old Testament” in
The Catholic Biblical Quarterly,
stated: “It is not a tenable view that God in revealing Himself also
revealed directly and in detail the truth about such things as creation
and the fall of man; the very presence of so many mythical elements in
their traditions is enough to eliminate such a view” (1959, 21:281).
In referring to the creation account in Genesis, A.M. Ramsey, one-time
Archbishop of Canterbury and a former president of the World Council of
Churches, concluded: “It is the story of disobedience of Adam. There is
no necessity for a Christian to believe it to be history; indeed, there
are reasons
why it cannot be literal history” (as quoted in Hedegard, 1964, pp. 190-191, emp. added). The authors of the popular
Westminster Dictionary of the Bible asserted: “The recital of the facts of creation is obviously not a literal, historical record” (1944, p. 119).
Bernard Ramm, in his influential book,
The Christian View of Science and Scripture,
suggested that Genesis “is a purified ancient world myth. But through
it shines the truth that God as Lord is God as Creator” (1954, p. 222).
Well-known, neo-orthodox theologian Rudolf Bultmann spoke of the
Israelites as a nation that, “like other nations, had its creation
myths. God was depicted as the workman, forming the earth and all that
is therein out of pre-existent matter. Such myths lie behind the
creation stories of Genesis 1 and 2” (1969, p. 16).
Albert Wells, in
The Christian Message in a Scientific Age,
attacked the literal nature of the Genesis record when he wrote: “It is
hardly necessary to regard the Genesis account of creation as literal
truth in order to obtain its true meaning and relevance” (n.d., p. 113).
In fact, Wells even went so far as to question the inspiration of the
account by suggesting: “The fact of creation is thus not to be
considered a direct revelation from God, unconditional by historical
contingencies. It was, rather, an essential component of both the
prophetic and the priestly mind” (n.d., p. 121). In his text,
Adam and the Ape: A Christian Approach to the Theory of Evolution, R.J. Berry stated:
The creation of woman from Adam’s side need not be interpreted
literally; the teaching of Genesis 2:21-22 is obviously about the
complementarity of the sexes and the meaning of marriage rather than the
evolution of sex or mechanisms of sexual differentiation (1975).
J. Frank Cassel, a member of the
American Scientific Affiliation, wrote in that society’s professional journal:
The sequence can be explained as spiritual. Whether this is true or a
dodge is of course an academic question, for is it not the spiritual
message which God seeks to impart to us? Then why worry about what
passages are to be interpreted literally and which figuratively? Look,
rather, to God to reveal himself more fully and more directly to you
from each passage according to your need (1960, 12:2).
M.H. Hartshorne believed: “The Biblical account of creation is a myth,
which means that it expresses the fundamental assumptions concerning the
nature and meaning of human existence that the men of the Bible held”
(1958, p. 85).
In 1981, Neal Buffaloe and N. Patrick Murray co-authored a booklet,
Creationism and Evolution, in which they addressed the type of literature they perceived Genesis 1-11 to be.
In other words, the Genesis poems are significant not because they tell us how things were, or the way things happened long ago. Rather, they are talking about man’s situation now—the
eternal importance of man’s relationship to God, and the primordial
disruption of that fellowship that lies at the root of human nature and
history. When we read the ancient Hebrew accounts of the creation—Adam
and Eve, the Garden of Eden, man’s “fall” by listening to the seductive
words of a serpent, and God’s Sabbath rest—we must understand...that
“these things never were, but always are.... The stories are told and
retold, recorded and read and reread not for their wasness but for their isness” (p. 8, emp. in orig.).
In speaking of Exodus 20:11, which records God’s creation of “the
heavens, the earth, the seas, and all that in them is” in six days, John
Clayton remarked that the acceptance of this verse by Christians as
literal history is “a very shallow conclusion” that is “inconsistent
with the Genesis record as well as other parts of the Bible” (1976,
3[10]:5). This is the case, he explained, because “Exodus 20:11 is a
quote of Genesis 2 and
Genesis 2 is not a historical account” (1979a, 7[4]:3, emp. added).
Two years before making that statement, in speaking of Genesis 2
Clayton had written: “This is, incidentally, why the order of life in
Chapter II is different than in Chapter I—
it has a different non-historical purpose”
(1977, 49[6]:7, emp. added). When both the radical nature and the
accuracy of that statement were challenged (see Jackson and Thompson,
1979), Clayton then went on the defensive in an attempt to “explain”
what he “really” meant.
First of all, I believe Genesis 1 is a literal, historical account.
Its purpose is to tell us the history of the earth. But I do not believe
that Genesis 2 is that kind of historical document.... Now it is historical, and it is historically correct. But it is not primarily a historical document the way Genesis 1 is, in my view (1980).
So Genesis 2 is historical. And it is historically correct. But it is
not primarily a historical document? Some “explanation”! [One of John
Clayton’s errors is his inability to recognize that an account may be
presented
out of chronological sequence and yet still be
literal and historical.
Acts 10, regarding the outpouring of the Holy Spirit upon Cornelius, is
not totally chronological in arrangement (cf. Acts 11, especially vs.
4), but what Christian would go so far as to deny that it is
literal history? Similarly, the fact that Genesis 2 is not arranged from a strictly chronological viewpoint
has nothing to do with the fact that it is literal history.]
This extremely unorthodox (and completely illogical) assessment by Mr.
Clayton then led him to offer a discussion on the difference, as he saw
it, between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2. In speaking of Moses, he said: “
Only an idiot would write a history and then rewrite it—
and especially rewrite it backwards” (1980, emp. added).
The implication of such a statement is crystal clear: If both Genesis 1
and Genesis 2 are the same kind of literal, historical narrative, then
an idiot’s mentality is reflected! Here, in summary form, is Clayton’s
argument.
(1) Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 are the same kind of literal, historical
documents, then they are contradictory and reflect an idiot’s mentality.
(2) But they are not really contradictory (hence, not idiotic) since
they are not the same kind of writing; Genesis 1 is literal history,
Genesis 2 is not.
(3) Since Genesis 2 is not a literal, historical account, if Exodus
20:11 is taken from Genesis 2 (as Clayton wrongly suggests it is), then
it is not literal history either.
(4) But Exodus 20:11 is based on Genesis 2 (his wrong assumption).
(5) Therefore, Exodus 20:11 is not literal history and we are not obliged to believe that the creation occurred in six, literal, historical days.
From the biblical perspective, however, the Mosaic affirmation—that in
six days Jehovah made the heavens, the earth, the seas, and everything
in them (Exodus 20:11)—is a clear reference to Genesis 1,
not Genesis 2.
And so, if Exodus 20:11 is based on Genesis 1 (which it is), and if
Genesis 1 is literal history (which Clayton admits), then Exodus 20:11
is a literal, historical account. If Genesis 2 is not historical, these questions are appropriate.
(1) Did God literally form Adam from the dust of the ground?
(2) Was the Garden of Eden a real, historical place?
(3) Was there an actual tree of knowledge of good and evil?
(4) Did Adam really name all the animals?
(5) Was Eve really made from Adam’s side?
If Genesis 2 is not historical, none of these questions can be answered
with certainty. Clayton’s position is nothing short of rank modernism.
Approximately a decade after John Clayton began calling into question
the historicity of the Genesis account, another progressive creationist,
Davis A. Young, joined in the fray when he wrote: “I suggest that we
will be on the right track if we stop treating Genesis 1 and the flood
story as scientific and
historic reports” (1987, 49:303, emp. added). Three years later, in 1990, he added:
The most acceptable view of Genesis 1 does not regard it as a
chronicle of successive events during the first seven days (however
long) of cosmic history. Rather, Genesis 1 should be regarded as a
highly structured theological cosmology that extensively employs a
royal-political metaphor because of the great importance of kingship in
the world of ancient Israel. In contrast to the pagan, polytheistic
myths of the cultures that surrounded the infant nation of Israel,
Genesis 1 portrays God as the sovereign King who calls into existence by
his royal decrees those creatures that the nations sinfully worshiped
and the myths deified. The days are part of the literary portrayal of
the royal council of divine creation and may be employed analogously to a
temporal succession of decrees by an earthly kind. The days are days in
the sphere of divine action, a sphere that transcends time, not the
first seven days of cosmic history. Genesis 1 is therefore a theological
statement and should not be used to answer scientific questions about
the age and historical unfolding of the cosmos that would have been
alien to the Israelites. Genesis 1 tells us that God is the Creator, but
it does not tell us when or how he created (pp. 58-59, parenthetical
item in orig.).
Six years later, in 1996, two important books were produced by leading
authors and subsequently published by highly respected companies. The
first was by Karen Armstrong, the
New York Times best-selling author of
A History of God. In her book,
In the Beginning: A New Interpretation of Genesis (published by Ballantine), she defended the standard Graf-Wellhausen
Documentary Hypothesis,
which suggests that the Pentateuch was not written by Moses, but
instead was produced by a multiplicity of authors and/or redactors,
including those known as J,E,D, and P. When writing about those authors’
attempts to produce the book of Genesis, she stated:
The authors of Genesis do not give us historical information about life in Palestine during the second millennium BCE. In fact, as scholars have shown, they knew nothing about the period. Frequently, they made mistakes.... Our authors are not interested in historical accuracy.... The
tales of Genesis have a timeless quality because they address those
regions of the spirit that remain opaque to us and yet exert an
irresistible fascination.... Yet precisely because the authors of
Genesis are dealing with such fundamental and difficult matters, they
give us few precise teachings. The are no glib or facile messages in
Genesis. It is impossible to find a clear theology in its pages.
...[T]he editors of Genesis seem to have introduced their readers to
P’s version of a serene and omnipotent deity only to dismantle it in
later chapters. The God who dominates the first chapter of the Bible has
disappeared from the human scene by the end of Genesis. Story after
story reveals a much more disturbing God: as we shall see, the
omnipotent God of the first chapter soon loses control of his creation;
the immutable deity is seen to change his mind and even to feel
threatened by humanity. The benevolent Creator becomes a fearful
Destroyer. The impartial God who saw all his creatures as “good” now has
favorites and teaches his protégés to behave in an equally unfair
manner to their dependents. It is impossible to come away from the Book of Genesis with a coherent notion of God (1996, p. 13, emp. added).
The second significant volume published that year,
The Bible as Literature,
was authored by John B. Gabel, Charles B. Wheeler, and Anthony York,
and was published by Oxford University Press. Gabel and his co-authors
likewise accepted the Graf-Wellhausen documentary hypothesis, and
therefore wrote:
This hypothesis explains certain obvious repetitions and
contradictions.... We are not citing these problems to undermine the
authority of scripture, as used to be the fashion when professional
skeptics would lecture to audiences on “the mistakes of Moses” [a
reference to the famous, nineteenth-century infidel Robert Ingersoll—BT].
We are merely supplying some of the data on which the documentary
theory rests. Efforts to reconcile contradictions or explain away
problems have been made and will be made by persons who feel that the
integrity of the text (which for them means its divine authority) must
be preserved at all costs. The costs, however, tend to be rather high.
Whenever there are contradictions or other problems, the documentary
theory usually presents a more reasonable alternative, and it is
accepted by a great many scholars who do not feel their faith threatened
by the possibility that the Bible text, being a product of human
history, experienced some adventures in reaching the point where it is
now... (1996, pp. 112-113, parenthetical comment in orig.).
They then asserted that there are two completely different (and
contradictory) “creation accounts” in Genesis 1 and 2, and that the
Genesis “stories” drew from a “shared tradition” with earlier works
(such as the so-called Gilgamesh epic and the Babylonian
Enuma Elish). The authors continued:
Until archaeology and the recovery of ancient languages made it
possible to go behind biblical narratives, there was no way for a reader
of, say, Genesis 8:6-12 to know that the author was drawing upon an
older narrative tradition for details in his story....
Since the detail about sending out birds from the ark is found in none of the earlier narratives except the Gilgamesh epic, we know that this is the version adapted for the Hebrew Bible, where all the key elements of the tradition are found.... The
use of a shared tradition, and especially its adaptation to the new
use, is perhaps best shown in the creation story of Genesis 1. This is a
reworking of the Babylonian creation “Enuma Elish,” sometimes called the ”Babylonian Genesis” (pp. 49,50, emp. added).
Then, late in 1999, Jeffery L. Sheler, a religion writer for
U.S. News & World Report, authored a significant—and highly publicized—volume,
Is the Bible True? He, too, defended the Graf-Wellhausen position, and suggested:
Nowhere has the question of literary genre been more central than in
the wrangling over the Bible’s veracity than in regard to what many
scholars refer to as the “primordial history” in the opening chapters of
Genesis. What are we to make of the stories of creation and of Noah’s
ark and the worldwide flood? Should they be taken as literal history, as
religious myth, or perhaps as some kind of literary hybrid that
combines features of both?...
While most biblical scholars consider the story of the flood a myth or
a folktale or assign it to some other category of literature that
allows for an allegorical interpretation, many conservatives have little
difficulty imagining that an omnipotent God could pull off precisely
what the Genesis story describes. As with the creation narrative,
however, the evidence and arguments from science stack up overwhelmingly
against a literal interpretation of the flood story.... [T]here is
little doubt that a lack of compelling evidence makes a purely literal
reading of the Bible’s primordial history a most difficult position to
sustain.... Today, a growing number of conservative scholars, harking back to Augustine, are convinced that more nuanced views of the biblical creation account are required to accommodate the knowledge revealed in science (pp. 48,54,55,52, emp. added).
The positions of the theistic evolutionist, and those sympathetic with
him, are quite clear. Genesis 1-11 cannot be accepted as literal
history, but must be “reinterpreted” as: (a) mythical; (b) spiritual;
(c) a royal-political metaphor; (d) a discussion of “things that never
were”; (e) a commentary on man’s condition
now; (f) a “priestly discussion” for the Israelite people
then; (g) etc.
Is Genesis 1-11 Literal?
Contradictory claims of theistic evolutionists aside, the question
remains: “Is the material contained in the first eleven chapters of the
Bible mythical or literal?” Zimmerman has commented:
We cannot make any progress in answering the question until we decide
whether or not Genesis is patently unscientific. By this I do not mean
to deal with the question of whether or not it is a scientific textbook.
This red herring ought to be buried permanently. The question rather
is, “Does it contain information which is correct in substance?” (1968,
1:55).
It is my contention that
the material in Genesis 1-11 is historically true,
and that it represents believable, literal history that is “correct in
substance.” I share the view of the eminent Old Testament scholar,
Edward J. Young, when he wrote:
The position adopted in this article is that the events recorded in
the first chapter of the Bible actually took place. They were historical
events, and Genesis one, therefore, is to be regarded as historical. In
employing the word “historical,” we are rejecting the definition which
would limit the word to that which man can know through scientific
investigation alone. We are using the word rather as including all which
has transpired. Our knowledge of the events of creation we receive
through the inscripturated revelation of God (1964, pp. 50-51).
Before I present the evidence documenting Genesis 1-11 as literal
history, I would like to comment on the statement that the Bible should
be accepted as “literally” true. Oftentimes, creationists are asked: “Do
you believe that
everything in the Bible is
literally true?” The answer to such a question depends on the definition of the word “literally.” In his book,
Christ and the Cosmos,
E.H. Andrews presented an excellent discussion of this issue. Although
it is somewhat lengthy, I wish to present it here because of its
clarity.
First of all, creationism does not insist on a completely literal interpretation of the Bible. It calls rather for a literary
interpretation. Let me explain. The word “literal” creates all kinds of
difficulties in people’s minds. Usually, those who oppose the
creationist viewpoint attach the label “literalist” to the creationist
and then use this assignation to ridicule him. But this is wholly
unfair, for the creationist makes no such claim. Indeed, if we try to
interpret the Bible literally at all points we find ourselves in all
kinds of trouble, for a literal statement is a statement of precise
fact, or as close to that as human language will allow....
We see, therefore, that there are different literary forms employed in
Genesis 1 and 2. We recognize that the Bible uses literary devices such
as metaphor, simile, anthropomorphism and dramatic forms to convey its
message....
Having established, then, that we do not necessarily interpret
Scripture in a slavishly literal manner, but rather according to its
literary genre and therefore according to the intention of the author,
we nevertheless insist that those passages where the form and content
are historical must be interpreted as genuine history....
When we turn to such passages as Genesis 1 to 3, and to the flood
narrative, for example, we find that their contents are presented
plainly as historical fact. Those facts may be expressed using a variety
of dramatic and literary devices, but the author nevertheless claims to
be relating events that actually took place. The narratives are
accounts, not of myth, but of reality. So then, creationism adopts a
historical approach to these historical portions of Scripture (1986, pp.
80-83, emp. in orig.).
For generations biblical creationism has adopted a historical approach
to the first eleven chapters of Genesis, and for good reason—
these chapters discuss real, literal, historical events.
There is nothing in the biblical record that suggests Genesis 1-11
should be viewed as containing mythical or allegorical material. And
such a claim is supported quite adequately by the available evidence.
Here is a portion of that evidence.
1. The style of these early chapters of Genesis does not suggest a
mythical or allegorical approach. Thomas H. Horne, in his classic,
multi-volume set,
An Introduction to the Critical Study and Knowledge of the Holy Scriptures,
wrote: “The style of these chapters, as indeed, of the whole book of
Genesis, is strictly historical, and betrays no vestige whatever of
allegorical or figurative description; this is so evident to anyone that
reads with attention as to need no proof ” (1970, 5:6). In his work,
Genesis: Historical or Mythological?, Edward C. Wharton commented in the same vein.
From the outset, the Bible is written in the context and appearance of
sane and sober history. There is not the slightest intimation that
these Scriptures contain myth. The historical and literal nature of the
Record is easily determined in contrast to the parables, allegories, and
symbolisms which are usually defined within the context. We know, for
an illustration, that Luke 8:4-15 is a parable for it is so stated at
the beginning. We know that Galatians 4:21-31 is an allegory for the
same reason. Where the Bible teaches by allegory or parable or symbolism
it is distinctly so labeled or otherwise easily understood in the
context. To read the Bible’s parables, allegories, etc., and then to
read Genesis is to know that Genesis bears no faint resemblance to any
of these, but that it appears to be what it asks us to believe it
is—historical fact (n.d., p. 2).
Edward J. Young declared:
Genesis one is not poetry or saga or myth, but straightforward,
trustworthy history, and, inasmuch as it is a divine revelation,
accurately records those matters of which it speaks. That Genesis one is
historical may be seen from these considerations: (1) It sustains an
intimate relationship with the remainder of the book. The remainder of
the book (i.e., The Generations) presupposes the Creation Account, and
the Creation Account prepares for what follows. The two portions of
Genesis are integral parts of the book and complement one another. (2)
The characteristics of Hebrew poetry are lacking. There are poetic
accounts of the creation and these form a striking contrast to Genesis
one (1964, p. 105).
Concerning Dr. Young’s final point, Raymond Surburg wrote:
To discern the difference between the historical narrative of Genesis
1:1-2:3 as a prosaic account and a truly poetic version of the creation
miracle, the reader needs only to compare Genesis 1 with Psalm 104:5-9;
Psalm 12; Job 38-39; Proverbs 8:23-31. These are extremely poetic in
character. In Psalms 8 and 19 poetic statements describe the heavenly
bodies but there is a real difference between these statements and
Genesis 1-2 (1969, p. 2).
In his book,
The Biblical Basis for Modern Science, Henry Morris commented:
Genesis 1-11 is certainly recorded as serious and sober history, and
it leads directly and naturally into Genesis 12 and the rest of Genesis.
Genesis in turn is the necessary foundation for all the rest of
Scripture. If these first eleven chapters are not historical, then our
entire Biblical foundation has been removed (1984, p. 116).
2. The Genesis narrative is to be accepted as literal history because
this is the view adopted by Jesus Christ. As Whitcomb has said:
...It is the privilege of these men to dispense with an historical
Adam if they so desire. But they do not at the same time have the
privilege of claiming that Jesus Christ spoke the truth. Adam and Jesus
Christ stand or fall together, for Jesus said: “If ye believed Moses, ye
would believe me. But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye
believe my words?” (John 5:46- 47). Our Lord also insisted that “till
heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass
from the law (and this includes Genesis) till all things be accomplished” (Matthew 5:18) [1972, pp. 110-111, emp. and parenthetical comment in orig.].
In Matthew 19, a discussion between Christ and the Pharisees is
recorded, the topic of which was marriage, divorce, and remarriage. The
passage makes it clear that the Pharisees’ intent was to trick the Lord
into contradicting the Law of Moses and thereby turn the people against
Him, because most of the Israelites viewed Moses with great respect—and
rightly so. On that occasion, however, the Lord did not fall prey to the
Jewish leaders’ trap because He understood their strategy. Instead, He
pointedly asked those hypocrites: “Have ye not read [citing Genesis 1:27
—
BT] that He who made them from the beginning
made them male and female?” (Matthew 19:4). Concerning this discourse,
Wayne Jackson observed:
Here Jesus plainly affirms that: (1) There was a beginning, (2) The first couple was made, (3) They were male and female. When Christ spoke of Adam and Eve being “made,” He used the aorist Greek verb epoisesen, stressing the fact that this pair was made by single acts
of creation. Had the Lord subscribed to the notion that the first
humans evolved over vast ages of time, he would have employed the Greek
imperfect tense, which is designed to emphasize progressive
action at some time in the past. Thus, Christ actually verbally refuted
the concept of evolutionary development. And certainly the Lord was in a
position to know what took place in the beginning, for He was
there (John 1:1), and was the active agent of creation (Colossians 1:16)
[1974, pp. 26- 27, emp. in orig.].
In the words of Henry Morris: “Denying the historical validity of the
Creation account also undermines the authority of the New Testament and
of Christ Himself!” (1966, p. 92). Whitcomb concluded: “If Genesis is
not historically dependable, then Jesus is not a dependable guide to all
truth, and we are without a Savior” (1972, p. 111).
3. The Genesis narrative is to be accepted as literal and historical
because inspired writers of the New Testament not only referred often to
the narrative, but also made doctrinal arguments that depended upon the
historical validity of the Genesis account. Paul contended that woman
was “of ” (
ek—a Greek preposition meaning “out of ”) man (1
Corinthians 11:8,12). He called Adam and Eve by name in 1 Timothy 2:13,
and based his instructions to Christians for woman’s work in the church
on the actual
order of creation. The apostle considered Adam as
historical as Moses (Romans 5:14), and he clearly said that “the serpent
deceived Eve by his craftiness” (2 Corinthians 11:3).
The creation itself is attributed to the word of God (Hebrews 11:3),
and Peter referred to the emerging of the Earth as an event that
actually occurred (2 Peter 3:5b). There was no question in Paul’s mind
about God’s fiat creation (2 Corinthians 4:6). Likewise, in 1
Corinthians 11:7 the apostle stated that man had been made in the image
of God, and he spoke specifically about man’s creation in Matthew 19:4
and Mark 10:6. Christ was called by Paul “the last Adam” (1 Corinthians
15:45). If the
first Adam was a myth, then is the
last (Jesus Christ) also a myth? Will theistic evolutionists actually be willing to go this far? Alan Hayward wrote:
Worse still, if we treat the Fall of Adam as a piece of religious
fiction we strike at the very heart of the Christian gospel. The liberal
is forced to reinterpret Paul’s teaching about salvation through
Christ’s Cross in this fashion:
For as in [the fictitious] Adam all die, so also in the [real] Christ
shall all be made alive.... Just as we have borne the image of the
[fictitious] man of dust, we shall also bear the image of the [real] man
of heaven (I Corinthians 15:22,49).
If, because of one [fictitious] man’s trespass, death reigned through
that one [fictitious] man, much more will those who receive the
abundance of grace and the [real] free gift of righteousness [truly]
reign in life through the one [real] Jesus Christ (Romans 5:17).
Such a blend of fact and fiction is a flimsy foundation on which to
build a doctrine of eternal life. Observe how Paul weaves Adam’s sin and
Christ’s righteous death together into the very fabric of salvation.
Paul evidently regarded Adam and Christ as the two key characters in
human history, each playing a vital role in the destiny of mankind. But
if Paul was mistaken, and Adam’s fall is actually little more than a
touching tale for tiny tots, then why should we believe Paul when he
tells us that Christ rose miraculously from the dead? And “if Christ has
not been raised, your faith is futile,” Paul warns us (I Corinthians
15:17) [1985, p. 191, bracketed items in orig.].
4. The Genesis narrative is to be accepted as literal and historical
because any attempt to “mythologize” it represents an overt attack upon
God’s nature. Wayne Jackson has explored this concept.
The Bible teaches that the creation of the heavens, the earth, and the
inhabitants thereof, was for the glorification of Almighty God. Any
attempt, therefore, to nullify the doctrine of creation is in reality an assault upon God Himself.
“The heavens declare the glory of God and the firmament showeth His
handiwork” (Psalms 19:1). “Even everyone is called by My name, for I
have created him for My glory. I have formed him, yea, I have made him”
(Isaiah 43:7). “For in Him, and through Him, and to Him, are all things;
to whom be glory forever!” (Romans 11:36) [n.d., p. 10, emp. in orig.].
5. The Genesis narrative is to be accepted as literal and historical
because genuine science has not discredited, and from the very nature of
the scientific method cannot discredit, the Genesis account of origins.
George Howe has discussed this point.
The topic of origins is usually treated as if it lay exclusively in
the domain of science. Such classification is unfortunate and erroneous
when the limitations of the scientific method are evaluated. Science is
properly equipped to cope with problems of “how” here and now. For
example, such matters as: “how chromosomes migrate in dividing cells,”
“how water ascends in the trunks of trees,” and “how sugars move in
phloem tissue” fall clearly in the sphere of science. Yet none of these
sample problems has been thoroughly and absolutely settled. If
scientific methods as yet cannot completely solve contemporary problems,
how can these same methods be expected to yield absolute answers about
origins? This does not belittle the amazing achievements of experimental
science, but throws the limitations of the method into full focus
(1964, p. 24).
Many theistic evolutionists have concluded that “science” has proven
evolution true, and in turn has disproven the biblical account of
creation. But their beginning premise is incorrect; science has not
proven evolution true. Nor will it ever do so, for such a task falls far
beyond the scope of the scientific method.
6. The Genesis narrative is to be accepted as literal and historical because:
Denying the historical accuracy of the Bible in the account of creation leads to a doctrinal position known as modernism.
If men evolved from the beast, the sin nature is an inherited animal
characteristic and cannot be due to the fall of man through
disobedience. This denies the need of a Redeemer, and thus the atonement
of Christ is neglected or denied (Davidheiser, 1969, pp. 168-169, emp.
in orig.).
Or, as Culp stated:
One who doubts the Genesis account will not be the same man he once
was, for his attitude toward Holy Scripture has been eroded by false
teaching. Genesis is repeatedly referred to in the New Testament, and it
cannot be separated from the total Christian message (1975, pp.
160-161).
For many Bible believers today, the rebuke offered by the Lord to the
two on the road to Emmaus is applicable: “O fools and slow of heart to
believe all that the prophets have spoken” (Luke 24:25). Jesus accused
some of His day of erring because “ye know not the Scriptures, nor the
power of God” (Mark 12:24). Thomas Whitelaw summarized the issue well.
If we are to listen to many expositors of no mean authority, we must
believe that what seems so clearly defined in Genesis—as if very great
pains had been taken that there should be no possibility of mistake—is
not the meaning of the text at all.... A person who is not a Hebrew
scholar can only stand aside and admire the marvelous flexibility of a
language which admits of such diverse interpretations (n.d., 1:4).
If we are unwilling to accept Genesis 1-11 as historical, how, then, will we be able to accept: (a)
any
biblical concept of man’s origin; (b) the unifying concept of both Old
and New Testaments (i.e., the need for a coming Redeemer, which is based
on information found in Genesis 3); (c) God’s personally designed plan
of salvation; (d) the Sonship of Christ (since Jesus so often testified
to the accuracy of the Genesis account); (e) the truthfulness of the Old
and New Testament writers; and (f) the overall authority of the
Scriptures as the inspired Word of God?
REFERENCES
Andrews, E.H. (1986),
Christ and the Cosmos (Welwyn, England: Evangelical Press).
Armstrong, Karen (1996),
In the Beginning: A New Interpretation of Genesis (New York: Ballantine).
Barlow, Nora, ed. (1959),
The Autobiography of Charles Darwin 1809-1882 with Original Omissions Restored (New York: Harcourt, Brace, and World).
Berry, R.J. (1975),
Adam and the Ape: A Christian Approach to the Theory of Evolution (London: Falcon).
Brantley, Garry K. (1993), “Pagan Mythology and the Bible,”
Reason & Revelation, 13:49-53, July.
Brantley, Garry K. (1995),
Digging for Answers (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press).
Buffaloe, Neal and N. Patrick Murray (1981),
Creationism and Evolution (Little Rock, AR: The Bookmark).
Bultmann, Rudolf (1969),
Primitive Christianity (New York: World Publishing).
Cassel, J. Frank (1960), “Species, Concepts, and Definitions,”
Journal of the American Scientific Affiliation, 12:2.
Clayton, John N. (1976), “ ‘Flat Earth’ Bible Study Techniques,”
Does God Exist?, 3[10]:2-7, October.
Clayton, John N. (1977), “The ‘Non-World View’ of Genesis,”
Does God Exist?, 4[6]:6-8, June.
Clayton, John N. (1980), A
Response to “Evolutionary Creationism” (taped lecture).
Clayton, John N. (1979a), “Letter to the Editor,”
Rocky Mountain Christian, 7[4]:3, March.
Culp, G. Richard (1975),
Remember Thy Creator (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).
Davidheiser, Bolton (1969),
Evolution and Christian Faith (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).
England, Donald (1972),
A Christian View of Origins (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).
Gabel, John B., Charles B. Wheeler, and Anthony D. York (1996),
The Bible As Literature (New York: Oxford University Press).
Hartshorne, M.H. (1958),
The Promise of Science and the Power of Faith (Philadelphia, PA: Westminster).
Hayward, Alan (1985),
Creation and Evolution: The Facts and the Fallacies (London: Triangle Books).
Hedegard, David (1964),
Ecumenism and the Bible (London: The Banner of Truth Trust).
Horne, Thomas H. (1970 reprint),
An Introduction to the Critical Study and Knowledge of the Holy Scriptures (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).
Howe, George (1964),
Creation Research Society Annual (Ann Arbor, MI: Creation Research Society).
Jackson, Wayne (no date),
Evolution and Science (Stockton, CA: Courier Publications), a tract.
Jackson, Wayne (1974),
Fortify Your Faith in an Age of Doubt (Stockton, CA: Courier Publications).
Jackson, Wayne and Bert Thompson (1979),
Evolutionary Creationism: A Review of the Teachings of John N. Clayton (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press).
Keen, William W. (1923),
I Believe in God and in Evolution (Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott).
McKenzie, John L. (1959), “Myth and the Old Testament,”
The Catholic Biblical Quarterly, 21:281.
Morris, Henry M. (1966),
Studies in the Bible and Science (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).
Morris, Henry M. (1976),
The Genesis Record (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).
Morris, Henry M. (1984),
The Biblical Basis for Modern Science (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).
Ramm, Bernard (1954),
The Christian View of Science and Scripture (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).
Rendle-Short, John (1984),
Man: Ape or Image—The Christian’s Dilemma (San Diego, CA: Master Books).
Sheler, Jeffery L. (1999),
Is the Bible True? (San Francisco, CA: HarperCollins).
Surburg, Raymond (1969),
Bible-Science Newsletter, p. 2, April 15.
Wells, Albert (no date),
The Christian Message in a Scientific Age (Richmond, VA: John Knox Press).
Westminster Dictionary of the Bible (1944), (Philadelphia, PA: Westminster).
Wharton, Edward C. (no date),
Genesis Historical...Or Mythological? (West Monroe, LA: Howard), a tract.
Whitcomb, John C. (1972),
The Early Earth (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).
Whitelaw, Thomas (no date), “Genesis,”
Pulpit Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).
Young, Davis A. (1987), “Scripture in the Hands of Geologists, Part II,”
Westminster Theological Journal, 49:303.
Young, Davis A. (1990), “Was the Earth Created a Few Thousand Years Ago?,”
The Genesis Debate, ed. Ronald F. Youngblood (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker). [Young answers in the negative.]
Young, Edward J. (1964),
Studies in Genesis One (Nutley, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed).
Zimmerman, Paul A. (1968), “Can We Accept Theistic Evolution?,”
A Symposium on Creation, ed. Henry M. Morris (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker), 1:55-78. [Zimmerman answers in the negative.]
Zimmerman, Paul A. (1972), “The Word of God Today,”
Creation,
Evolution,
and God’s Word, ed. P.A. Zimmerman (St. Louis, MO: Concordia).
