In The Beginning

In The Beginning

Genesis 1:1

!yhil¿a> ar;B; tyviareB]

he subject of origins continues to fascinate both scientists and non-scientists.  During the past two decades, science, and in particular the science of astrophysics, has undergone what can only be described as a revolution.  For generations the prevailing view of the universe had been what was described as the Steady State Theory.  This view presented the concept that is that the universe has always been and will ever be; it is ungenerated and indestructible.  The Steady State view was blatantly materialistic and atheistic, having no place for a Creator.  In recent years, however, this view has been forced into retirement by the theory that the universe actually had an instance of creation.  In this new view, the universe came into existence fifteen or twenty billion years ago in a gigantic fireball explosion that sent suns and planets tumbling outward from this centre into the form we now observe.  Furthermore, in this more recent view, the components of the universe are still moving outward.  This new theory is called the Big Bang Theory in reference to the instance of creation.

The change in scientific thinking has roots in a discovery reported in 1913.  In that year Vesto Melvin Slipher, an astronomer at the Lowell Observatory in Flagstaff, Arizona, reported stars appeared to be receding from the earth at tremendous speeds—up to two million miles per hour.  The foundation for this report was the result of study of the shifting light spectrum of distant stars in galaxies far removed from our own.  Six years later, in 1919, another American astronomer, Edwin Hubble, used Slipher's findings to formulate a law for an expanding universe. Hubble’s law pointed to a moment of creation.  In the meantime, Albert Einstein's theories of relativity were shaking Newtonian physics.  Simultaneously, two Bell Telephone Laboratory scientists, Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson, were using new and sophisticated electronic equipment to pick up background radiation from all parts of the universe, which they now identified as the leftover "noise" of that first great explosion.  Growing out of this view is the knowledge that if there was an instance of creation there may well have been a Creator.

Robert Jastrow, Director of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's Goddard Institute in the United States, states the issue quite strongly.  He is recognised for his authorship of two popular books: Red Giants and White Dwarfs and Until the Sun Dies.  In recent years, in another book, God and the Astronomers, he wrote of the dismay of scientists who are brought by their own method back to a point beyond which they cannot go.

There is a kind of religion in science; it is the religion of a person who believes there is order and harmony in the Universe.  Every event can be explained in a rational way as the product of some previous event…  This religious faith of the scientists is violated by the discovery that the world had a beginning under conditions in which the known laws of physics are not valid, and as a product of forces or circumstances we cannot discover…  At this moment it seems as though science will never be able to raise the curtain on the mystery of creation.  For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream.  He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a bank of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.

Certainly there are still many problems with this currently popular view of origins.  Current scientific opinion puts the origin of the universe at a point approaching twenty billion years before the present, which Bible-believing Christians tend to find unacceptable.  Also, the Big Bang Theory tells us nothing concerning the event or of the One who caused the explosion.  Neither does this speculation throw light on why the universe has such astonishing complexity and order, just as it fails to enlighten us concerning life’s origin or of many other aspects of our existence.  The conceptualisation is nevertheless exciting to Christians because it does appear that scientists are finally moving toward what the theologian has always known.

What does the Bible say concerning our origins?  Ultimately when speaking of origins we are constrained to rely upon either of two views.  One attempts to extrapolate backwards based on a hypothesis of uniformatarianism – a view which states that nothing changes and everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation.  The other view depends upon an observer, the Creator, who related what occurred at the creation.  We who are Christians rely upon the latter because God has told us in His Word what happened in the beginning.

Christian Roots — Thus we initiate our study of the seed plot of the Faith, Genesis, the first book of the Bible.  We will no doubt learn much in study of this exciting book, discovering in the process why the book should be of such great value to believers and why it should be such a battleground in our contending against the forces of infidelity.  We will learn of our roots in the Book and such a study will prove of inestimable value to each Christian.

R. C. Sproul, founder of the Ligonier Valley Study Center in Pennsylvania, has analysed the value of a study of our roots in terms of secularism, which means "living within the bounds of this age" (from the Latin saeculum, meaning age).  Secularism is to live with our outlook confined to this period alone – without a past, without a future, above all without God.  The existentialist tells us that our roots are in nothingness, that our future is in nothingness, and so he asks, "Think, man, if your origins are in nothing and your destiny is in nothing, how can you possibly have any dignity now?"

If our past history tells us that we are only grown-up germs, what difference can it possibly make whether we are black germs or white germs, whether we are free germs or enslaved germs?  Who cares?  We can sing of the dignity of man, but unless that dignity is rooted substantially in that which has intrinsic value, all our songs of human rights and dignity are so much whistling in the dark.  They are naïve, simplistic and credulous.  And the existentialist understands that.  He says, “You're playing games when you call yourselves creatures of dignity.  If all you have is the present, there is no dignity, only nothingness.”

Genesis tells us of the origin of the universe; describes the beginning of order and complexity; relates the initiation of life, man, marriage and family.  If man would ever hope to understand something of biology, of anthropology, or of family relationships, he is forced to study the first book of the Bible.  In Genesis we find described the origin of language, of culture, of government, of nations and of religion.  In any study of the social sciences man is ultimately compelled to deal with the biblical account if he has any hope of understanding the issues.

The Christian Faith is compelled to acknowledge Genesis as foundational for the great doctrines espoused from multiplied pulpits throughout the centuries.  Theology proper, the doctrine of God Who has neither beginning nor end, is found at the beginning.  In Genesis is a complete revelation of God's character.  His eternal nature, His goodness, His verity and His veracity, His omnipotence, His omniscience, His immutability, and His sovereignty, are each alike described first in Genesis.  Every other revelation of His Person in the remainder of the Word are but an expansion of what is already given in the first book.

Anthropology, the doctrine of man, finds its roots in Genesis.  There is no understanding of man and his place in the universe if the book is discarded or disregarded.  Hamartiology, the doctrine of sin, of evil, is absolutely dependent upon the Genesis account of the transgression of our first parents.  Without the accurate account of man's Fall there is no need of the doctrine of soteriology, the teaching concerning God's salvation, the redemption of fallen man and the justification extended man through grace.  The consummation of all things, the eschatological study of last things, of God's divine judgement, whether to reward those who love Him or to call into account those who will live their lives without reference to Him, is first delineated in this foundational book.  Bibliology, the study of the Word, the confidence we have in the accuracy and reliability of the Word, the inerrancy and the infallibility of the Word, are utterly dependent upon the Genesis account.  The whole of the Faith stands or falls with this one book.

Christian Confidence — Genesis is foundational for all we believe and hold to be true.  We might well ask whether our confidence is well placed.  Is Genesis to be understood as recounting actual events?  Or is it something like inspired poetry in which "spiritual," but not "historical" truths is taught?

As we progress through upcoming messages I shall endeavour to provide scientific evidence for the accuracy of the account we are provided in Genesis.  But whether or not sufficient facts are provided, the child of God will possess a desire to believe the book.  This longing to believe was first pointed out to me by a young man I led to faith in Christ.  Richard Kitchens was a research assistant in the Department of Internal Medicine at the Southwestern Medical School.  It was a joyful day when Lynda and I were permitted by our God to be the human instruments chosen to deliver Richard and his wife Mary Ann into life.  Before His new birth Richard had continually thrown up the objection that evolution disproved the Bible and thus Genesis was a myth.  Each time we spoke in my laboratory, Richard objected that the mythological accounts of Genesis kept him from believing the accounts of Jesus.  After all, if the Bible erred in the first book and confused fiction with fact, then how was he to know it spoke accurately in the second instance when it spoke of God's provision of salvation?

It was only a couple of days after Richard and Mary Ann had knelt in our living room, praying that God would forgive them their sin and save them as they trusted Christ's Word, that Richard again entered my laboratory.  We spoke briefly of the importance of study of the Word for growth in grace, and he casually mentioned that he was reading Genesis.

"How are you finding the book?" I inquired.

"You know, Mike," he offered, "a strange thing is happening.  I am not saying I am as yet convinced that the book is true, but I find myself wanting to believe it is true."

His strange discovery was but an affirmation of the repeated statements of the Word.  Think of the message found in the Hebrews letter.  Without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to Him must believe that He exists and that He rewards those who earnestly seek Him [Hebrews 11:6].  Think of Jesus' challenge to anyone wishing to know Him and to know His will. If anyone chooses to do God's will, he will find out whether my teaching comes from God or whether I speak on My own [John 7:17].  Consider this rich offer.  Come now, let us reason together [Isaiah 1:18].  Without hesitation the Christian affirms that God invites man’s scrutiny and question.  God does not fear honest questions and careful examination of His Word.

The starting point for exploring whether Genesis is accurate or errant is the assertion that Genesis is a part of Holy Scripture given us by God.  As the Word of God, Genesis speaks with divine authority.  This is the pointed affirmation of the Apostle to the Gentiles when he writes: All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work [2 Timothy 3:16].  The Scripture to which Paul referred were the Old Testament writings, possibly James and the Gospel of Mark, and certainly those letters which he had penned.  Included among those Scriptures which are God-breathed [qeovpneusto"] is the Book of Genesis.  God’s account of creation is God-breathed; it is to be accepted as the Word of God who cannot lie.  The Christian must either accept or reject Paul's simple statement, applying it even to his view of Genesis.

A second point for exploration is that the whole of Scripture assumes that Genesis is historical.  As a case in point, consider the 136th PSALM which praises God for His enduring love. The Psalm begins with a doxology, but then passes quickly to the recitation of reasons why we should praise God.  The first of these reasons is His work of creation [Psalm 136:5-9].  Without any break and certainly without any indication that he is now beginning to write in a historical rather than in a poetical or less than literal vein, the Psalmist goes on to list a second reason to praise God, which is His work of delivering Israel from Egypt [Psalm 136:10-12].  The psalm continues recounting historical events, listing the names of kings defeated, finally concluding with the blessings of God to Israel in what was then the present time [Psalm 136:23-25].

What is involved in this Psalm is nothing less than a view of history and of God's specific acts in history, according to which there is natural continuity between the acts of God in creation and the events of that present day.  This means that the Genesis account is to be taken as history according to this Psalm.  Assuredly we can multiply examples of Scripture which assume that the creation account and subsequent history are to be viewed as a continuum.

A special aspect of the attitude of Scripture toward the historicity of Genesis is dependent upon the teaching of Jesus.  For Christians this issue carries great weight.  Did Jesus consider the accounts of Genesis historical?  Challenged by the Pharisees with a question concerning divorce, Jesus replied with specific reference to Genesis 1:27 and 2:24.  He carefully probed their hearts, asking, Haven't you read that at the beginning the Creator “made them male and female,” and said, “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh?”  Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate [Matthew 19:4-6].  In Mark 13:19 Jesus spoke of the beginning, when God created the world.  In John 5:45,46 He states that to disbelieve what Moses wrote is to disbelieve His words.  I conclude that it is impossible to be a Christian, adhering to Jesus' words, while rejecting Genesis.

A fourth point for our consideration as we explore the reliability of the Genesis account arises through review of ancient cosmologies.  Cosmologies are creation accounts and all ancient civilisations had cosmologies to account for the world about them.  There are fascinating similarities among the cosmologies of the various races of the world, and these cosmologies sometimes show similarities to the Genesis account.  Because of these points of correspondence, some have supposed that Jesus adapted His views to that ancient day in which He lived (though He Himself knew better, being God).  Is such a position fair or accurate?

The opinion of William F. Albright, the recognised dean of archaeologists, is helpful in addressing this point.  Albright was not an evangelical, though he became increasingly conservative as his studies progressed.  He spoke openly of the lack of similarity between Genesis and the other ancient accounts.  He argued that the Babylonian Epic does have certain superficial resemblance to the Genesis account.  At some points the language is similar; but beyond that, hardly anything is the same.  The Hebrew account is monotheistic; its language is terse.  The Babylonian account is polytheistic, verbose and crassly mythological.

At the beginning, according to the Enuma Elis (the Babylonian creation epic) there were two monsters, represented as dragons.  Apsu was the fresh-water subterranean ocean, and his consort Tiamat was the salt-water ocean which surrounds the earth.  From these two monsters spring a generation of deities, the last of which become so powerful that Apsu and Tiamat plot to destroy them.  The result is a titanic struggle in which Tiamat is slain by Marduk, one of her offspring.  Her body is split in two, the upper half being formed into the heavens and the lower half into the earth.  Men and women are made from the blood of Qingu, Tiamat's chief minister.  The text reads as follows, Punishment they imposed on him, his blood vessels they cut open, with his blood they created mankind.  Albright maintains, and surely reasonable men must agree with him, that nearly anyone can see the vast gulf separating this obviously mythological account from the serious, historical account in Genesis.

But don't scholars still argue that the Genesis account is myth?  Some do, but I am reminded of a remark made by C. S. Lewis.  He stated that when some learned scholar tells him that portions of the biblical narrative are myth, he does not want to know what his credentials are in the area of his biblical scholarship but rather how many myths the scholar has read.  Myths were Lewis' business, and it was his testimony that the biblical accounts were not among them.  Myths are fantastic stories which attempt to explain what can otherwise never be explained.  Biblical accounts of the creation are statements presented as fact by the One who called all things into being.

Some will no doubt still argue that we are missing the point, that whether the language is mythical or not it is still inadequate for giving a truly factual account of origins.  Think this through.  The account of creation might have been written in one of three ways: in scientific language; in straightforward historical prose; or in poetry.  Poetry is out for the reason that it does not go far enough.  It does not tell us what we most want to know.  Thus we are left with scientific or historical prose.

What would it take for the account of creation to be written in scientific language?  Frederick A. Filby, a professor of chemistry in England for many years, has registered his convictions in Creation Revealed.

The sciences which probe most deeply into the ultimate facts of matter and life are probably astro- and nuclear physics and biochemistry.  But these sciences are written, not so much in language as in symbols.  It takes many pages of symbols to discuss the nature of a single atom of hydrogen.  It has been estimated that to give a complete account of the position of the groups and bonds in a single virus of 'molecular weight 300 million' would take a 200-page book.

If the scientific description of a single hydrogen atom, or of a virus too small to be seen without a microscope, takes a book, what hope is there of ever giving a scientific account of the creation of man and the universe?  Yet Genesis 1 in its original form uses only 76 different root words.  If Genesis 1 were written in absolute scientific language to give an account of creation, there is no man alive, nor ever has there been, who could understand it.  If it were written in any kind of scientific language, only the favoured few could comprehend it.  It would have to be rewritten every generation to conform to the new views and the terms of science.  It would not be written in our mid-twentieth century scientific language, for no earlier generation could have grasped its meaning, and to our children it would be out-of-date.  The scientific description of the 'how' of the universe is beyond the understanding of any human brain, but Genesis 1 was written for all readers, not for none…

What then would be the best method for the Creator to use for (1) making a beginning to his book and (2) establishing that the God of the Bible is also the God of creation - in language simple enough for all men in all time?

The answer is … Genesis 1 … the most amazing composition in all the world's literature, using only 76 different word-forms fundamental to all mankind, arranged in a wonderful poetical pattern yet free from any highly coloured figures of speech.  It provides the perfect opening to God's book and establishes all that men really need to know of the facts of creation.  No man could have invented it: it is as great a marvel as a plant or a bird.  It is God's handiwork, sufficient for Hebrew children or Greek thinkers or Latin Christians; for medieval knights or modern scientists or little children; for cottage dwellers or cattle ranchers or deep sea fishermen; for Laplanders or Ethiopians, East or West, rich or poor, old or young, simple or learned … sufficient for all!  Only God could write such a chapter … and He did.

With this compelling statement we may only concur.  It is to the point, for the most fundamental of all issues is whether or not God has spoken in Scripture as the Bible claims He has.  Genesis deals with origins and beginnings.  But Genesis serves another purpose as well, forcing us back to origins in the matter of our own thought values.  Has God spoken?  Has He spoken here?  Answer that in the negative, and all is chaos.  Answer in the affirmative, and all that follows becomes clearer, ever clearer.  Indeed, Genesis is written in historical prose.  Reading the book, we are confident that it is factual for it was related by Him who was present In The Beginning.  Amen.

1st Quote

Robert Jastrow, Director of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's Goddard Institute in the United States, puts the issue even more strongly.  He is known for two very popular books – Red Giants and White Dwarfs and Until the Sun Dies.  Recently, in God and the Astronomers he wrote of the dismay of scientists who are brought by their own method back to a point beyond which they cannot go.

There is a kind of religion in science; it is the religion of a person who believes there is order and harmony in the Universe.  Every event can be explained in a rational way as the product of some previous event…  This religion faith of the scientists is violated by the discovery that the world had a beginning under conditions in which the known laws of physics are not valid, and as a product of forces or circumstances we cannot discover…  At this moment it seems as though science will never be able to raise the curtain on the mystery of creation.  For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream.  He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a bank of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.

2nd Quote

R. C. Sproul, founder of the Ligonier Valley Study Center in Pennsylvania, has analysed the value of a study of roots in terms of secularism, which means "living within the bounds of this age" (from the Latin saeculum, meaning age).  Secularism is to live with our outlook confined to this period alone - without a past, without a future, above all without God.  The existentialist tells us that our roots are in nothingness, that our future is in nothingness, and he asks, "Think, man, if your origins are in nothing and your destiny is in nothing, how can you possibly have any dignity now?”  …

"If our past history tells us that we are only grown-up germs, what difference can it possible make whether we are black germs or white germs, whether we are free germs or enslaved germs?  Who cares?  We can sing of the dignity of man, but unless that dignity is rooted substantially in that which has intrinsic value, all our songs of human rights and dignity are so much whistling in the dark.  They are naïve, simplistic and credulous.  And the existentialist understands that.  He says, 'You're playing games when you call yourselves creatures of dignity.  If all you have is the present, there is no dignity, only nothingness.'"

3rd Quote

The opinion of the recognised dean of archaeologists, William F. Albright, is helpful at this point.  Albright was not an evangelical, though he became increasingly conservative with the progress of his studies.  He spoke openly of the lack of similarity between Genesis and the other ancient accounts.  He argued that the Babylonian Epic does have certain superficial resemblance to the Genesis account.  At some points the language is similar; but beyond that, hardly anything is the same.  The Hebrew account is monotheistic.  Its language is terse.  The Babylonian account is polytheistic, verbose and crassly mythological.

At the beginning there are two monsters, represented as dragons: Apsu, the fresh-water subterranean ocean, and his consort Tiamat, the salt-water ocean that surrounds the earth.  From these two spring a generation of deities, the last of which become so powerful that Apsu and Tiamat plot to destroy them.  The result is a titanic struggle in which Tiamat is slain.  Her body is split in two.  The upper half is formed into the heavens.  The lower half is formed into the earth.  Men and women are made from the blood of Qingu, Tiamat's chief minister.  The text says, "Punishment they imposed on him, his blood-vessels they cut open, with his blood they created mankind."  Albright maintains, and surely reasonable men must agree with him, that nearly anyone can see the vast gulf separating this obviously mythological account from the serious, historical account in Genesis.

4th Quote

What would it take for the account of creation to be written in scientific language?  Frederick A. Filby, a professor of chemistry in England for many years, has registered his convictions in Creation Revealed.

The sciences which probe most deeply into the ultimate facts of matter and life are probably astro- and nuclear physics and biochemistry.  But these sciences are written, not so much in language as in symbols.  It takes many pages of symbols to discuss the nature of a single atom of hydrogen.  It has been estimated that to give a complete account of the position of the groups and bonds in a single virus of 'molecular weight 300 million' would take a 200-page book.

If the scientific description of a single hydrogen atom, or of a virus too small to be seen without a microscope, takes a book, what hope is there of ever giving a scientific account of the creation of man and the universe?  Yet Genesis 1 in its original form uses only 76 different root words.  If Genesis 1 were written in absolute scientific language to give an account of creation, there is no man alive, nor ever has there been, who could understand it.  If it were written in any kind of scientific language, only the favoured few could comprehend it.  It would have to be rewritten every generation to conform to the new views and the terms of science.  It would not be written in our mid-twentieth century scientific language, for no earlier generation could have grasped its meaning, and to our children it would be out-of-date.  The scientific description of the 'how' of the universe is beyond the understanding of any human brain, but Genesis 1 was written for all readers, not for none…

What then would be the best method for the Creator to use for (1) making a beginning to his book and (2) establishing that the God of the Bible is also the God of creation - in language simple enough for all men in all time?

The answer is …Genesis 1 … the most amazing composition in all the world's literature, using only 76 different word-forms fundamental to all mankind, arranged in a wonderful poetical pattern yet free from any highly coloured figures of speech.  It provides the perfect opening to God's book and establishes all that men really need to know of the facts of creation.  No man could have invented it: it is as great a marvel as a plant or a bird.  It is God's handiwork, sufficient for Hebrew children or Greek thinkers or Latin Christians; for medieval knights or modern scientists or little children; for cottage dwellers or cattle ranchers or deep sea fishermen; for Laplanders or Ethiopians, East or West, rich or poor, old or young, simple or learned …sufficient for all!  Only God could write such a chapter …and He did.