Note: this is the beginning of a discussion on the newsgroup aus.religion.christian. I’ll put selected excerpts on to our website, but you can follow the thread in Google if you wish… Rowland.

~~~

This is the post that Rowland requested. It is rather long, but then the case is not insubstantial. 🙂 I won’t be bothering to reply to trite or abusive comments, only apparently genuine responses.

How Are We Meant to Understand Genesis?

Don Batten, Answers in Genesis, Brisbane.

I want to say firstly that I am not anti-science; that would be very strange for someone who worked for 17 years as a research scientist and really enjoyed doing my research. You can find something of my career at http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/d_batten.asp and more of my journey at http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v25/i2/fruit.asp.

I take the Bible as authoritative, so I take seriously the example of the apostle Paul who said, “We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ” (2 Cor 10:5). For the last 200 years or so, perhaps the greatest source of arguments against the knowledge of God has been naturalism; the dogma that nature is all there is. Its corollary, historical naturalism, claims that origins and history can be explained by purely natural processes.

There are elements of the sciences of astronomy, geology and biology that have been developed based on and in turn used to bolster the claims of naturalism: big bang cosmology, historical geology and biological evolution (the origin of the huge spectrum of living organisms). All three, not just the third, stand in opposition to the traditional understanding of the biblical big-picture view of history, which is founded in Genesis 1-11 (not just Genesis 1).

Some reasons why I take Genesis 1-11 as a straight-forward historical account:

1. I am a Christian, a follower of Christ, and so I follow his example in his attitude to the Old Testament scriptures.

Jesus regarded the OT scriptures as God’s word; that is, spoken by God or inspired by the Holy Spirit, although written by the hands of men (Matthew 19:4, 5; 22:31, 32, 43; Mark 12:26; Luke 20:37) and therefore even the smallest letter or stroke was inspired and would “never pass away” (Matt. 5:18; Luke 16:17). Jesus cited nearly every book in the OT as authoritative, thus authenticating the canon as we know it (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2/4306apol_v3n21994.asp). There is no room here for regarding any part of Scripture as deficient in any way due to it supposedly being the product of the minds of ‘illiterate primitives’ (campfire stories of Semitic nomads, ‘primitive goat-herders’ etc.).

Furthermore, I am not at liberty to make any part of it say what I think it ought to say. My hermeneutic involves exegesis, not eisegesis. I read Scripture to find what God is saying, not what I can make it say that I find palatable.

I am not a ‘bibliolater’, a term of derision used by some on this forum for folk such as me. But because I submit myself to the lordship of Christ, I take my lead from him. In many places Jesus said, “It is written” and he said, “Scripture cannot be broken” (John 10:35).

Jesus not only was not jealous of the attention men paid to the Bible, He reviled them for their ignorance of it (Matthew 22:29; Mark 12:24). In fact, Jesus affirmed the historical accuracy of even the Scriptural passages that sceptics most scoff at today — see: http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2004/0406scripture.asp and point 2 below.

‘Inerrancy’ derives logically from Jesus’ view of inspiration, for how can God inspire error? And if Scripture is not without error, then whoever decides which parts are not in error actually becomes the authority and so usurps God’s authority. The ‘Jesus Seminar’ is a logical outcome.

Scripture is not authoritative if it is not inerrant: perhaps “love your enemies” is an error, or “you shall not steal”, or “I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me”?

Some say, “The Bible is authoritative in matters of faith and practice”. This is dangerously deficient: if we cannot trust the Bible in matters of history, for example, how can we trust it in matters of faith and practice (theology)? Luke 16:31 says, “If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.” And Jesus asked Nicodemus: “I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe; how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things?” (John 3:12). So if we can’t trust the Bible about earthly things (such as the timeframe of creation), why should we trust it on heavenly things (e.g. faith and morals)?

I agree with the Chicago statement on inerrancy. See http://www.kulikovskyonline.net/hermeneutics/csbe.htm. Concurring with this statement, I “affirm that what Scripture says, God says. May He be glorified. Amen and Amen.”

Please note that belief in inerrancy does not mean wooden literalism (a common straw-man argument). My hermeneutic is grammatical-historical, which recognizes the various forms of writing such as metaphor, hyperbole, etc. as explained at http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v16/i1/genesis.asp. See also this refutation of some nonsense from a usually cogent scholar, J.P. Moreland, on this issue: http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v17/i3/creationists.asp.

2. Jesus clearly regarded the account of Adam and Eve’s creation as factual, as well as the Flood.

Indeed, Jesus affirmed many people and events of the past that sceptics deny ever existed or happened: Adam and Eve (Matthew 19:3-6; Mark 10:2-9), Abel (Luke 11:51), Noah and the Flood (Matthew 24:37-39; Luke 17:26-27), Abraham (John 8:56-58), Sodom and Gomorrah (Matthew 10:15; 11:23, 24), Jonah and the great sea creature (Matthew 12:39-41). Either Jesus was mistaken, in which case he does not deserve our worship, or the sceptics and their allies are wrong. Jesus also indicated that he did not understand earth history in terms of billions of years with man arriving very recently (e.g., Mark 10:6, Luke 11:50-51; for a defence of this straightforward understanding of Mark 10:6, see http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2004/1101ankerberg_response.asp).

3. Genesis was written as history.

Hebrew uses special grammatical structures for historical narrative and Genesis 1-11 uses those structures. It is the same form as Genesis 12ff and most of Exodus, etc. It is not poetry or allegory. Genesis is peppered with the vav consecutives (and…and…and), which is characteristic of historical writing. The Hebrew verb forms of Genesis 1 have a particular feature that fits exactly what the Hebrews used for recording history; a series of past events. That is, only the first verb is a qatal (perfect), while the verbs that continue the narrative are wayyiqtols (imperfects). In Genesis 1, the first verb ‘bara’ (create) is qatal, while the subsequent verbs that move the narrative forward are wayyiqtols. Parallelisms, a feature of poetry (e.g. many Psalms), are absent, except when someone is quoted.

Hebrew scholars concur that Genesis was written as history. For example, the Oxford Hebrew scholar James Barr wrote: “… probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1-11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that: 1. creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience 2. the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story 3. Noah’s flood was understood to be world-wide and extinguish all human and animal life except for those in the ark.” (In a letter to David C.C. Watson, 23 April 1984). Barr, consistent with his neo-orthodox views, does not *believe* Genesis, but he understood what the Hebrew writer clearly taught. Some sceptics have criticized us for using the Barr quote, because he does not believe in the historicity of Genesis. That is precisely why we use his statement: he is a hostile witness. With no need to try to harmonize Genesis with anything, because he does not see it as carrying any authority, Barr is free to state the intention of the author. This contrasts with some ‘evangelical’ theologians who try to retain some sense of authority without actually believing it says anything about history.

One can take a statistical approach to the same issue, which shows the same thing. See http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-377.htm

4. Hermeneutical principle: Scripture interprets Scripture. The rest of the OT takes it as history.

Exodus 20:11 summarizes the creation week. It eliminates any possibility of an extended time scale by *any* interpretive scheme (framework hypothesis, day-age idea, gap theories, God’s days, etc.), since it is given as the basis for our seven day week with a day of rest (v.10): “For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.” Note Ex. 20:1: “And God spoke all these words, saying,…”. These are the very words of God himself, not the ideas of Moses, or some redactor or even J, E, D or P (long discredited nonsense taught, sadly, at many ‘evangelical’ theological institutions. See http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i4/moses.asp) 1 Chronicles 1 summarizes the genealogical data from Adam onwards in Genesis and many other OT passages affirm the events of Genesis as being historical (real events in time and space).

5. Hermeneutical principle: Scripture interprets Scripture. The NT takes Genesis as history.

There are over 100 quotations from or allusions to Genesis 1-11 in the NT, none of which hint at Genesis being anything but history. Jesus’ genealogy (Luke 3) goes back to Adam. In the lineage, where do the people stop being real and become metaphors? Hebrews 11 lists heroes of the faith which start with Abel, Enoch and Noah, with not the tiniest hint that they are less historical than the others. 2 Peter 3 refers to creation and the flood (Greek: katakluzo, a special word referring to the global cataclysm of Genesis; not just an ordinary flood). The apostle Paul cites the order of creation of Adam and Eve as the basis for teaching on the roles of men and women in the church (1 Tim. 2:13-14). If the first people evolved from a population of apes, then this teaching does not make sense because man would not have preceded woman.

6. The history of Genesis is necessary for an effective and biblical theodicy.

After God had finished creating everything, he pronounced it ‘very good’. But it is not ‘very good’ today (is anyone getting older; do you get winded changing TV channels?). Death pervades God’s creation. But death is an enemy (1 Cor. 15:26); an interloper.

All attempts to marry the Bible with the secular ‘natural history’ accept the story of billions of years. But billions of years of what? These unimaginable eons of time do not float out there on cloud nine, disconnected from reality. The fossil record of multi-cellular organisms supposedly covers some 600 million years in which these creatures were dying and getting preserved as fossils. There are fossil bones with cancerous tumours preserved in them; it’s a record of death and suffering. In this scenario, man appears about a million years ago; one of the latest results of countless experiments involving death of the unfit and survival of the fittest (“nature red in tooth and claw”, as the poet Tennyson put it). And when man appears, effectively standing on a pile of bones kilometres deep, God says, it’s all ‘very good’. No, not the God I worship. What an insult to God!

How can one defend the goodness of God (a theodicy) with any of the compromise scenarios that try to retain belief in these millions of years? All one can do is throw one’s hands in the air, shrug one’s shoulders and give the ground to the sceptics. There is only one view of Genesis that provides for a consistent theodicy: when we take it as straightforward history. Genesis One indicates that the animals and people were originally vegetarian (vv. 29-30). We cannot imagine such a world, but it is consistent with visions of a future paradise in Isaiah 11:6-9; 65:25, for example. Animals whimpering in pain and fear while their throats are torn out by others is not consistent with any vision of a future (even partial) restoration, or recreation, which is always associated with the removal of the Genesis Curse giving rise to an absence of suffering. It is therefore inconceivable to imagine many millions of years of death and suffering as something God calls ‘very good’. See http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2005/0221plant_death.asp

Romans 8:18-25 affirms that the whole creation (not just people) has been “subjected to futility” and is now “groaning” and in “bondage to decay”, waiting for its redemption. Leading commentators on Romans such as F.F. Bruce, C.E.B. Cranfield and James Dunn agree that Paul is referring to the Fall. This is consistent with the real history of Genesis 3, where the creation, not just the people, was cursed because of the man’s sin. For example, the ground was to now bring forth thorns and thistles (Genesis 3:18). There are thorns preserved in the fossil record, supposedly some 300 million years before man came on the scene. If this is really so, the Bible misleads.

We live in a corrupt creation because of man’s sin; it was not created that way. This has been the view of Christians from the beginning. John Milton’s classic poems, Paradise Lost and Paradise Regained, reflect this Christian worldview that was once accepted almost without question.

David Hull (not a Christian), wrote, “Whatever the God implied by evolutionary theory and the data of natural history may be like, He is not the Protestant God of waste not, want not. He is also not a loving God who cares about His productions. He is not even the awful God portrayed in the book of Job. The God of the Galapagos is careless, wasteful, indifferent, almost diabolical. He is certainly not the sort of God to whom anyone would be inclined to pray.” (The God of the Galapagos, Nature 352:486, 1992). I agree, but God did not create a world like that; it became like that because Adam and Eve sinned. The historicity of the Fall is crucial to a effective theodicy, and that means hundreds of millions of years of survival of the fittest did not precede Adam and Eve. Note that ‘progressive creation’ scenarios deny evolution, but still must believe in billions of years of death and suffering as part of God’s drawn-out process of arriving at today’s world.

7. The history of Genesis is foundational to the Gospel.

Romans 5:12-17, with 1 Cor. 15:20-22; 45-49, grounds the meaning of Jesus’ bodily death and resurrection in the real history of Genesis. A real man, Adam, brought bodily death and corruption into God’s ‘very good’ world by his sin. Likewise, a real man, the God-man from heaven, came to undo the work of the first man, the federal head of the human race. As one man brought death to all who are in him; one perfect man brings life to all who are in him. I will show you what happens if you *consistently* apply an evolutionary view of history to the Gospel. Following are excerpts from the ‘Confirmation Notebook’, published by SPCK, the Anglican publisher in the U.K.: “Human beings are the result of evolution, and shaped by natural selection. Self-centredness and aggression were essential at every stage of evolution. Human beings naturally inherit this self-centredness (‘original sin’). . .What the cross is not . . . The Son standing in my place to take the punishment that I ought to have. Such a view is immoral. In any case no one person could suffer the whole world’s punishments.” (Bishop Hugh Montefiore, 1984).

8. The history of Genesis is necessary for a cohesive and coherent biblical Christian worldview.

The Bible tells us of a future where this universe will be purged and there will be a new heavens and earth (2 Peter 3:10-13). Why? If God created the universe basically as we see it today, which any interpretive scheme designed to harmonize the Bible with the ‘deep time’ of ‘scientific’ historical naturalism tacitly accepts, then why would He want to purify it with fire? It does not make sense. But it makes sense if Genesis 3 is real history (reflected in Romans 8, etc.). In other words, attempts to accommodate ‘deep time’ wreck the Bible’s eschatology. Furthermore, denial of the historicity of the global Flood also undoes eschatology. Jesus referred to this (Luke 17:26, 27). If the account of God’s judgment in the Flood is not to be believed, why should we believe the Bible about the judgment to come? Interestingly, the apostle Peter prophesied that scoffers would come in the last days, sceptical of Jesus’ coming again. These scoffers would say that everything will just carry on as they suppose it has since the beginning. Peter says that they have this philosophy because they are ‘wilfully ignorant’ of God’s revelation that God created things by fiat and that He destroyed the world with a flood (2 Peter 3:3-6). That’s a good description of the naturalistic paradigm that pervades academia today, and its effects. Peter also ties the judgment by (global) Flood with the (global) judgment to come by fire (v.7).

9. The church fathers accepted the ‘young earth’ historical time frame and global Flood of Genesis.

Basil, bishop of Caesarea Mazaca, Cappadocia, from AD 370-379, in a series of sermons on the six days of creation argued that that the plain meaning was intended, the days were ordinary days, that animals did not originally eat each other, the sun was created after the earth, etc. He also spoke against evolutionary ideas of humans springing from animals (no, Darwin did not invent evolution; such ideas go back to anti-theistic Greek and Roman philosophers before Christ; it’s been a pagan, anti-God idea from its earliest origins). For more from Basil, see http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v16/i4/basil.asp.

Some have misconstrued the church fathers’ positions because they have not read them carefully. It was usual in the Eastern Orthodox Church (EO) to view the creation week as real, but they often, in parallel, viewed it as typologically pointing to a total earth history of seven thousand years until the end. They most definitely did not regard the days of creation week themselves as long periods of time.

Seraphim Rose, an EO priest, has meticulously documented the views of the church fathers of the EO church, showing that they viewed Genesis as I do. The book is ‘Genesis, Creation and Early Man’, Platina, CA, 2000. For a review see: http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v16/i3/orthodoxy.asp Dr Terry Mortenson, author of this review wrote, “His [Rose’s] primary sources are early ‘Fathers’ who wrote commentaries on Genesis: John Chrysostom (344-407), Ephraim the Syrian (306-372), Basil the Great (329-379) and Ambrose of Milan (339-397). But he also used many other ‘Fathers’ of that and later centuries who wrote on some aspect of Genesis 1-11.” Rose showed how the EO church fathers were unanimous in their view of the historicity of creation week, the Fall and the global Flood. They saw the world before the Fall as fundamentally and profoundly different to that which pertained after the Fall.

Some cite Augustine and Origen to justify the smuggling of ‘deep time’ into the Bible. These two gentlemen, being of the Alexandrian School, tended to allegorize various passages of Scripture. Their allegorization of the days of creation did not arise from within the text, but from outside influences, namely their adherence to neo-Platonic philosophy (whereby they ‘reasoned’ that God would not sully himself with being bound by time constraints, etc.). But, contrary to the positions of those who would use Augustine and Origen to prop up their own ‘deep time’ accommodation, both said that God created everything in an instant, *not* over long periods of time. And they explicitly argued for the biblical time-frame of thousands of years, as well as the global Flood of Noah. See more on Augustine and Origen at: http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2005/0207dembski.asp

10. The Reformers understood it as history.

Calvin said: “The day-night cycle was instituted from Day 1, before the sun was created [commenting on ‘let there be light’]” and “Here the error of those is manifestly refuted, who maintain that the world was made in a moment [almost certainly referring to Augustine and Origen]. For it is too violent a cavil to contend that Moses distributes the work which God perfected at once into six days, for the mere purpose of conveying instruction. Let us rather conclude that God himself took the space of six days, for the purpose of accommodating his works to the capacity of men” and “They will not refrain from guffaws when they are informed that but little more than five thousand years have passed since the creation of the universe” and “And the flood was forty days, &c. Moses copiously insists on this fact, in order to show that the whole world was immersed in the waters.” For sources and more (e.g. that bad things happened because of the Fall), see: http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v22/i4/calvin.asp

Luther wrote even more explicitly of these issues, clearly stating acceptance of the historicity of Genesis. He also dealt with sceptics’ claims of supposed contradictions between Genesis 1 &2. See http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v6/i3/luther.asp .

Of course opponents of the historicity of Genesis love to cite Ronald Numbers’ book, ‘The Creationists’. Numbers is cited as supposedly showing that young-earth creationism was invented by a Seventh Day Adventist, George McCready Price, in the 1920s. This has to be one of the most incredible examples of historical revisionism I have seen; on par with the flat earth myth (totally demolished by Jeffrey Burton Russell at http://id-www.ucsb.edu/fscf/library/RUSSELL/FlatEarth.html). It is as if Numbers, an apostate SDA, knows nothing of history before Price or Ellen White. The above material on the church fathers and reformers is sufficient to show the error of Numbers’ work. But there is much more that refutes it. See the research of the earth science historian Dr Terry Mortenson on the geologists of the early 1800s who defended the biblical age of the earth and the global flood of Genesis: http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/t_mortenson.asp (papers listed under ‘The 19th Century Scriptural Geologists’). For a comprehensive and accurate history of what happened see Dr Mortenson’s definitive book, ‘The Great Turning Point’ (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2004/0828turning_point.asp)

11. Historical naturalism (cosmic, geological and biological) is a tenet of faith for the atheist, which should be sufficient for any informed Christian to realize the foolishness of denying the historicity of Genesis to accommodate it.

The Humanist [atheist] Manifesto specifies belief in the naturalistic origin of the universe and mankind. The latest version, III, it specifies ‘unguided evolution’, but in practice, as far as today’s dominant paradigm is concerned, this is tautology, because evolution is by definition ‘unguided’ (nature creating nature). Likewise, ‘theistic evolution’ is an oxymoron.

Richard Dawkins said, “Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.” (‘The Blind Watchmaker’, Penguin 1991 reprint, p.6)

and many others have said similar things. Atheist Will Provine, biology prof., Cornell, makes the following point: “…belief in modern evolution makes atheists of people. One can have a religious view that is compatible with evolution only if the religious view is indistinguishable from atheism.” (‘No free will’. In Catching up with the Vision, ed. Margaret W Rossiter, Chicago University Press, 1999, p. S123).

Chris Ho-Stuart, an atheist and self-described apostate who is a prolific contributor to this forum (hasn’t he heard of alt.religion,atheism? :-), says at http://sky.fit.qut.edu.au/~hostuart/why.atheism2.html: “We are not designed. Although I frequently say that the theory of evolution does not formally disprove god, I would also add that the theory of evolution has removed perhaps the best reason for supposing that a god exists.” He also says, “I am not trying to convince others…” [about atheism]. However, he spends an inordinate amount of time pushing evolution on this forum as well as on talk.origins and elsewhere. Is an IT specialist that interested in evolutionary biology, etc.? I suggest it is no coincidence; like other atheists, pushing evolution pushes atheism, much as he tries to deny it. To the atheist, proving evolution justifies atheism. All those posts by him have the effect of removing “perhaps the best reason that a god exists”, but he is “not trying to convince others of atheism”. Yeah, right, Chris. And all this stuff is on a Christian forum??!!!

Chris Ho-Stuart also says that science is not anti-Christian (which is certainly true of real operational science, which was largely founded by biblical Christians). However, he equates ‘evolution’ and ‘science’, and since evolution (by his own words) removes “perhaps the best reason for believing a god exists”, then how can his evolutionary ‘science’ not be anti-Christian?? Something is missing in the logic here.

Evolution (cosmic, geological and biological) claims to explain the origin of everything without reference to any deity. So it contradicts the Bible’s teaching that God’s attributes are clearly seen from what He has made so that people will be without excuse at judgment (Romans 1:18ff). Similarly, God holds scoffers accountable for their *wilful* ignorance of the Flood (2 Peter 3).

The evolutionary paradigm is fundamentally a religious idea. Canadian philosopher of science, and anti-creationist campaigner, Michael Ruse, said: “Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion—a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit that in this one complaint—and Mr [sic] Gish is but one of many to make it—the literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.” (Ruse, M., How evolution became a religion: creationists correct? National Post, pp. B1, B3, B7 May 13, 2000). Surely it is the height of foolishness to try to marry the Bible with a religion designed as an explicit substitute for Christianity? We might as well marry it with Baal worship! [Ruse later wrote a book claiming that a Darwinian can be a Christian, but to him a Christian can deny the Resurrection, which shows how pernicious the Darwinian compromise is]

12. Abandoning the historicity of Genesis leads to heresy and apostasy.

I have seen the destruction that abandoning the historicity of Genesis causes—the wrecked individuals, families, churches and nations. I experienced the wreckage in my own life, although it was mild compared to some folk I have met.

Many prominent, vocal atheists testify to the effect of evolution on causing them to abandon the faith of their parents. E.O Wilson comes to mind (http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i4/sand.asp). Look at the reasons for former evangelist Charles Templeton’s departure from faith at http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v22/i3/unbelief.asp.

A youth minister at an Anglican church in Victoria recently shared with us: “I used to beat my head against a wall wondering why we lost all our young people at about age 16. In the last few years I’ve realised that age 16 (year 10) is when they teach evolution in depth in science. Chatting with some of the students I have also discovered that some of the teachers actually identify the Christian students and make a special point of explaining the differences and difficulties in reconciling Genesis and the ‘facts’ of evolution. It’s no wonder we lost them. I come near tears just thinking about it.”

Is it any coincidence that church attendance in the western world has declined dramatically since the teaching of evolution in the schools became widespread and systematic (increasingly so since the 1960s in Australia)? Josef Ton, a Romanian Baptist pastor imprisoned for his faith under the communist regime, said: “I came to the conclusion that there are two factors which destroyed Christianity in Western Europe. One was the theory of evolution, the other, liberal theology …. Liberal theology is just evolution applied to the Bible and our faith.” (New Life, April 15, 1982).

A secular source, F. Sherwood Taylor (Curator of the Museum of the History of Science, Oxford) made a similar point: “… I myself have little doubt that in England it was geology and the theory of evolution that changed us from a Christian to a pagan nation.” (Geology changes the outlook, in Ideas and Beliefs of the Victorians, Sylvan Press Ltd, London, p. 195, 1949; one of a series of talks broadcast on BBC radio).

The Uniting Church in Australia is self-destructing following the erosion of scriptural authority beginning in Genesis. Princeton Seminary is a classic example: The (otherwise) great Presbyterian theologian Charles Hodge admitted that long ages of earth history appeared to be at odds with the straightforward Mosaic narrative, but nevertheless, he bowed to the authority of ‘science’ and so accommodated his understanding of the Bible. Thus, even though he railed against Darwinism as rank atheism, the camel had his nose in the tent. His successor, B.B. Warfield (who was conservative enough to sign the well-known ‘Fundamentals’ document), took this ‘re-adjustment’ of the Scripture to its next logical step, calling himself a Darwinian. The next generation accepted not only Darwinism/millions of years, but questioned biblical authority outright. So conservatives like J. Gresham Machen broke away and founded Westminster Theological Seminary in 1929.

Many who call themselves ‘evangelicals’ teach that we should reinterpret Genesis because ‘science’ has ‘proven’ long ages and evolution. At the same time they rail against liberal theologians. But the liberals are actually more consistent. They reinterpret the accounts of Jesus’ Virginal Conception and Resurrection as unhistorical because ‘science’ has proven that miracles such as these are ‘impossible’. The evangelical compromisers in our Bible colleges have yet to apply their Genesis hermeneutic to the rest of the Bible, but there is no good reason not to do so. Compromise with Genesis unlocks the door to doubting the authority of all Scripture.

13. Disbelieving the history of Genesis disconnects the Bible from the real world, transforming Christian faith into an ‘upper storey’ irrelevance.

I hear many say, “the Bible is not a science textbook”, or “the Bible is about theology, not science”, or “the Bible is about why; science is about how”, etc. The late Pope advocated “two magisterial” (religion and science). However, the Bible is to a great extent a book of history, and theology is rooted in history. Does it matter whether Jesus actually died and rose again? Perhaps all that’s important is what it tells us about loving one another (liberals say this sort of thing). The naturalistic claims of ‘science’ about our origins and the history of the universe are (competing) claims about the very things the Bible tells us about: history.

A theological college student in Sydney told me he was taught that Genesis is a polemic; that it teaches us that God created things and this was a theological statement, not scientific. I pointed out that ‘science’ claims that the universe made itself when nothing exploded in the big bang and that every form of life made itself by natural processes from elements created in the big bang; God is not needed or necessary. So, either science is making theological claims or the Bible is making scientific claims. He hadn’t thought of that. It is not possible to solve the problem by word games, by some artificial segregation of knowledge. Such nonsense in our Bible colleges appals me.

In 1894, the Scottish theologian, James Denney, wrote: “The separation of the religious and the scientific means in the end the separation of the religious and the true; and this means that religion dies among true men.” (‘Studies in Theology’, London, 1894, p.15). That is exactly what has happened apace in the last 40 years.

In a survey, children were asked who they believed, their Sunday school teacher, or their primary school teacher. 80% chose their school teacher. Why? They said that the school teacher taught them facts, whereas the Sunday school teacher only told them stories. The children think this way because that’s how the Bible is taught in many churches: as just ethereal stories, disconnected from the real world.

Many Christians today have divided their thinking into two compartments: reality and faith; that’s perhaps how many Christian academics teach naturalism in their classes and then front up at church on Sunday. I did something like that when I was an undergraduate student.

So Christianity today for many is an existential leap in the dark, taken against reason, or rather aside from reason. It’s about having a nice ‘worship’ experience, or thinking positively, for example. Atheists are quite happy for people to have such a faith, as it makes no truth claims that can be used in converting others or challenging the unbelief or relativistic ethics of the atheist. This is not biblical Christianity; Christian faith is based upon the faithful testimony of those who have seen and heard *things that really happened* (1 John 1:3); it is not a blind, irrational faith. That’s why atheists spend so much effort opposing Christians who defend the truth claims re history in the Bible (creation, fall, flood, exodus, resurrection of Jesus, etc.). See the introduction and articles re apologetics at http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/apologetics.asp and the article ‘Loving God with all your mind: logic and creation’ at http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v12/i2/logic.asp

14. There is only one reason not to take Genesis as straightforward history: the fallible reasoning of fallen mankind, in the guise of historical, or origins, ‘science’.

Dr Pattle Pun, biology professor at Wheaton College (and a believer in long ages of earth history), said what many others, including modern evangelical theologians, have also admitted: “It is apparent that the most straightforward understanding of Genesis, without regard to all the hermeneutical considerations suggested by science, is that God created the heaven and earth in six solar days, that man was created on the sixth day, that death and chaos entered the world after the fall of Adam and Eve, and that all the fossils were the result of the catastrophic universal deluge [note: we would say most, not all] which spared only Noah’s family, and the animals therewith.” (J. Amer. Scientific Affiliation 39:14, 1987).

So, like Augustine, this approach takes its authority from outside the Bible to reinterpret Genesis to mean something other than its clearly intended meaning.

Dr John MacArthur, noted American evangelical theologian and pastor, remarked: “Scripture, not science, is the ultimate test of all truth. And the further evangelicalism gets from that conviction, the less evangelical and more humanistic it becomes.” (‘The Battle for the Beginning’, W. Publishing Group, p. 26, 2001).

There is a fundamental distinction between the ‘science’ that deals with history and the science that deals with the operation of today’s world. With operational science you can do repeatable experiments, but you can’t with historical science, which deals with events that are not repeatable. It does not matter much what your religious beliefs are, water still boils at a given temperature (unless of course you are a postmodernist who thinks that temperature is merely part of the meta-narrative of a western Christian mindset; a mental construct and only ‘true for you’). However, what you believe about spiritual matters profoundly affects what explanations of history / origins you will find acceptable. The atheist geologist / palaeontologist Stephen Jay Gould acknowledged this effect of philosophical bias. And how about this for an open-minded approach: “Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic.” (Scott Todd, Kansas State University immunologist, Nature 410(6752):423, 1999). This whole area is driven by such biases. The ‘facts’ of history do not speak for themselves, as most philosophers today realize; they have to be interpreted; see ‘Where’s the proof?’ at http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v22/i1/creation.asp . It happens at present that the interpretive framework is pure naturalism. In this paradigm, even ‘god’ and morals evolved; nothing is ‘outside the box’, nature (matter, energy) is all there is.

James Conant, former president of Harvard University, said about historical ‘science’: “The sciences dealing with the past stand before the bar of common sense on a different footing. Therefore, a grotesque account of a period some thousands of years ago is taken seriously though it be built by piling special assumptions on special assumptions, ad hoc hypothesis on ad hoc hypothesis, and tearing apart the fabric of science whenever it appears convenient. The result is a fantasia which is neither history nor science.” (Kevin Wirth, Science Education: Only the Best Ad-hoc Will Do. Origins Research 5(2):2, 1982).

There is actually nothing in experimental science, which is the science that has given us so many modern benefits, that conflicts with the Bible. It is only the conjectures of historical science (“ad hoc hypothesis on ad hoc hypothesis”) where conflict occurs. As God said to Job, “Were you there when I laid the foundations of the earth?” (Job 38:4). No palaeontologist or geologist was there; they have scraps and bits and pieces in the present, from which they try to construct a story about what happened in the past. But only stories that fit the naturalistic paradigm are permitted.

Whether you believe in revelation or not has a profound effect. I believe in revelation: God was there at creation and no one else was. He has revealed how long He took to do the work and what order He did it in. He also revealed to us that it was Paradise; we can only know this by revelation. But it was spoiled by the blight of sin. But I look forward to a coming Saviour, the last Adam, who will restore Paradise (Rev. 21&22).

Louis Berkhoff, the respected systematic theologian, summed up the priority of Scripture when it comes to these matters: “Originally God revealed Himself in creation, but through the blight of sin that original revelation was obscured. Moreover, it was entirely insufficient in the condition of things that obtained after the fall. Only God’s self-revelation in the Bible can now be considered adequate. It only conveys a knowledge of God that is pure, that is, free from error and superstition, and that answers to the spiritual needs of fallen man…. Some are inclined to speak of God’s general revelation as a second source; but this is hardly correct in view of the fact that nature can come into consideration here only as interpreted in the light of Scripture.” (‘Introductory volume to Systematic Theology’, p. 96).

For much, much more on the problems with compromise with ‘scientific’ historical naturalism, see Dr Jonathan Sarfati’s meticulously thorough treatment in ‘Refuting Compromise’ (Master Books)

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/rc/intro.asp.

BTW, I often hear the charge, “But it’s divisive”. See http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2005/0101aus_newsletter.asp for what the Bible says about who it is that divides the church.

Atheist Daniel Dennett described Darwinism in his book ‘Darwin’s Dangerous Idea’ as a “universal acid; it eats through just about every traditional concept and leaves in its wake a revolutionized world-view.” We only have to look at who and what has been inspired by Darwinian ideas to see the truth of this statement: Marx, Stalin, Mao, Ceausescu, Kim Il-sung, Pol Pot, Hitler and the eugenics movement (founded by Galton, Darwin’s first cousin). And we could mention the likes of Australian Peter Singer (who sometimes passes for a ‘bioethicist’), with his ideas of murdering children and the elderly whose lives are deemed to be not worthwhile, while also condoning bestiality. Atheists hate these connections being pointed out, but they are very real (see documentation by European historian Richard Weikart in his book ‘From Darwin to Hitler’ http://www.csustan.edu/History/Faculty/Weikart/FromDarwintoHitler.htm ). See also the articles at the Q&A on Communism, Nazism and eugenics at http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/communism.asp Of course this does not prove evolutionary dogma wrong; but if the universe is as the evolutionists claim, then these views and their effects are logical outcomes. “By their fruit you shall know them.” Jesus was speaking of people, but ideas bear fruit too.

I want nothing of this world view that brings so much death and misery; a world-view that is an explicit substitute for Christianity, that is anti-Christ. I don’t want it to destroy my children, or my friends, or anyone. I will get my world-view from what the Creator of all has revealed. So, here I stand on the authority of God’s Word from Genesis 1:1ff; any other authority results in a world running away from its Creator and wrecked lives.

I have not touched on the scientific issues; deliberately. ‘Theology is the queen of sciences.’ We must begin with what God has said. If we cannot agree that God has indeed spoken, that the Bible is indeed His Word, then we cannot even get started in this discussion. Once we agree that God has spoken and agree upon what He has said, then we can begin to interpret the ‘facts’ of history accordingly. But, on the matters of historical science, there is a mass of material on the Answers in Genesis website at various levels of technical detail, from children’s material to peer-reviewed academic papers. Check out the Q&A section at http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/qa.asp.

Some on this forum are enamoured with talk.origins. I can only appeal to readers to check out what we actually say, not just what the opposition says about us. Wouldn’t that be fair? But then I guess in an evolutionary world I should not expect fairness; it’s about survival of the fittest, isn’t it? 🙂 Fairness is a biblical concept, based on the history in Genesis that we are all descendants of Adam and Eve, made in the image of God, all equal under God.