Genesis 1 thru 11—Mythical or Historical? by Bert Thompson, Ph.D.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=11&article=451

Genesis 1 thru 11—Mythical or Historical?

by	Bert Thompson, Ph.D.

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).

From Jim McGuiggan... Twiddling our thumbs & clicking our heels

Twiddling our thumbs & clicking our heels

In the movie Good Will Hunting, Will Hunting is a mathematical genius with potential beyond imagining. His best friend Chuckie would lie down in front of an oncoming train for him. Chuckie believes Will is burying himself when he should be soaring. On the building site during a break they talk of Will’s future. Will says he’s going to live his life right there in the neighbourhood, get married and raise kids. Chuckie says, “Look, you’re my best friend so don’t take this the wrong way. In twenty years if you’re still livin’ here, comin’ over to my house, watchin’ the Patriot games and workin’ in construction—I’ll kill ya.”

Will protests and Chuckie goes on, “You’ve got somethin’ none of us—“

Before he can go further the irritated Will butts in, “Come on, why’s it always this, ‘I owe it to myself to do this or that’; what if I don’t want—”

Now Chuckie butts in. “No, no, you don’t owe it to yourself, you owe it to me. Cos tomorrow I’m gonna wake up and I’ll be fifty, and I’ll still be doin’ this…stuff. You’re sittin’ on a winnin’ lottery ticket and too much of a [jerk] to do somethin’ about it. I’d do anything to have what you’ve got…It’d be an insult to us if you’re still here in twenty years. Hanging around here is a waste of your time.”

The genius snaps back, “You don’t know that!” and they verbally spar for a moment.

“I don’t know that?”

“You don’t know that!”

“Oh…I don’t know that. Let me tell you what I do know. D’you know what the best part of my day is? It’s for about ten seconds, from when I pull up to the kerb and get up to your door and knock on it. Cos I think, maybe I’ll get up to your door and knock on it and you won’t be there. No good-bye, no see you later, no nothin’…you just left. I know that!”

Even Chuckie knew that great gifts and potential shouldn’t be squandered and that it's a glorious thing to see someone live life to the full. God has equipped his children, equipped them to be men and women against the darkness, equipped them to live in and beat the wilderness because they have known and know the grace of God (Leviticus 26:11-13). Many who don’t know God have dropped out of the pursuit of noble living and couldn’t care less; some even pride themselves in it. But there are those who listen to us and can’t help wondering why we’re as tasteless as egg-whites and as flat as a day old glass of Coke.

(I have slightly adapted this piece from a little book I wrote called “Celebrating the Wrath of God,” pages 182-184. Permission granted from Waterbrook Press, Colorado, a division of Random House.)

©2004 Jim McGuiggan. All materials are free to be copied and used as long as money is not being made.

Many thanks to brother Ed Healy, for allowing me to post from his website, theabidingword.com.

From Gary... On a personal note...

Today, I am feeling unhappy with myself.  I look at this picture and think- Groucho is "dead on".  The political situation has become so bad in this country that I find it very difficult to respect ANYONE holding political office.  While I am sure that there are many fine men and women who are genuinely trying to serve our country, yet all I can seem to think about is how corrupt our rulers have become. Today, please be kind enough to say a prayer for me, as I need to get over this improper attitude; for I know the Scripture that says...

Romans, Chapter 13

 Let every soul be in subjection to the higher authorities, for there is no authority except from God, and those who exist are ordained by God.  2 Therefore he who resists the authority, withstands the ordinance of God; and those who withstand will receive to themselves judgment.  3 For rulers are not a terror to the good work, but to the evil. Do you desire to have no fear of the authority? Do that which is good, and you will have praise from the same,  4 for he is a servant of God to you for good. But if you do that which is evil, be afraid, for he doesn’t bear the sword in vain; for he is a servant of God, an avenger for wrath to him who does evil.  5 Therefore you need to be in subjection, not only because of the wrath, but also for conscience’ sake.  6 For this reason you also pay taxes, for they are servants of God’s service, attending continually on this very thing.  7 Give therefore to everyone what you owe: taxes to whom taxes are due; customs to whom customs; respect to whom respect; honor to whom honor.  8 Owe no one anything, except to love one another; for he who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law.

Thank you- and don't forget to pray for this great land!!! It is worth it!!!!  God will listen if we will pray!!!!

From Gary... Bible Reading January 6

Bible Reading   

January 6

The World English Bible

Jan. 6

Genesis 6

Gen 6:1 It happened, when men began to multiply on the surface of the ground, and daughters were born to them,

Gen 6:2 that God's sons saw that men's daughters were beautiful, and they took for themselves wives of all that they chose.

Gen 6:3 Yahweh said, "My Spirit will not strive with man forever, because he also is flesh; yet will his days be one hundred twenty years."

Gen 6:4 The Nephilim were in the earth in those days, and also after that, when God's sons came in to men's daughters. They bore children to them. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown.

Gen 6:5 Yahweh saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

Gen 6:6 Yahweh was sorry that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him in his heart.

Gen 6:7 Yahweh said, "I will destroy man whom I have created from the surface of the ground; man, along with animals, creeping things, and birds of the sky; for I am sorry that I have made them."

Gen 6:8 But Noah found favor in Yahweh's eyes.

Gen 6:9 This is the history of the generations of Noah. Noah was a righteous man, blameless among the people of his time. Noah walked with God.

Gen 6:10 Noah became the father of three sons: Shem, Ham, and Japheth.

Gen 6:11 The earth was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence.

Gen 6:12 God saw the earth, and saw that it was corrupt, for all flesh had corrupted their way on the earth.

Gen 6:13 God said to Noah, "The end of all flesh has come before me, for the earth is filled with violence through them. Behold, I will destroy them with the earth.

Gen 6:14 Make a ship of gopher wood. You shall make rooms in the ship, and shall seal it inside and outside with pitch.

Gen 6:15 This is how you shall make it. The length of the ship will be three hundred cubits, its breadth fifty cubits, and its height thirty cubits.

Gen 6:16 You shall make a roof in the ship, and you shall finish it to a cubit upward. You shall set the door of the ship in its side. You shall make it with lower, second, and third levels.

Gen 6:17 I, even I, do bring the flood of waters on this earth, to destroy all flesh having the breath of life from under the sky. Everything that is in the earth will die.

Gen 6:18 But I will establish my covenant with you. You shall come into the ship, you, your sons, your wife, and your sons' wives with you.

Gen 6:19 Of every living thing of all flesh, you shall bring two of every sort into the ship, to keep them alive with you. They shall be male and female.

Gen 6:20 Of the birds after their kind, of the livestock after their kind, of every creeping thing of the ground after its kind, two of every sort shall come to you, to keep them alive.

Gen 6:21 Take with you of all food that is eaten, and gather it to yourself; and it will be for food for you, and for them."

Gen 6:22 Thus Noah did. According to all that God commanded him, so he did.

From Mark Copeland... Cursing And Cleansing (Mark 11:12-19)

                          "THE GOSPEL OF MARK"

                    Cursing And Cleansing (11:12-19)

INTRODUCTION

1. In our previous study, we saw where Jesus and His disciples arrived
   in Jerusalem...
   a. Together with a large crowd coming to observe the Passover week
   b. With the first day of their visit (Sunday) beginning with the
      triumphal entry and ending with a quick visit to the temple - Mk 11:1-11

2. On the next day (Monday), two things occur which may seem out of
   character for Jesus...
   a. The cursing of the fig tree - Mk 11:12-14
   b. The cleansing of the temple - Mk 11:15-19

[The two may be related, so let’s consider them together beginning
with...]

I. THE CURSING OF THE FIG TREE

   A. THE NARRATIVE...
      1. Having spent the night in Bethany, Jesus and His disciples make
         their way back toward Jerusalem - Mk 11:11-12
      2. Hungry, Jesus sees a fig tree with leaves from a distance and
         approaches to see if there is anything on it - Mk 11:12-13
      3. There is nothing but leaves, Mark noting that it was not the
         season for figs - Mark 11:13
      4. In response, Jesus says to the tree, "Let no one eat fruit from
         you ever again" - Mk 11:14
      5. Mark commented that it was heard by His disciples - Mk 11:14

   B. SOME OBSERVATIONS...
      1. In Palestine fig trees produced crops of small edible buds in
         March followed by the appearance of large green leaves in early
         April. - Bible Knowledge Commentary
         a. This early green "fruit" (buds) was common food for local
            peasants - ibid.
         b. An absence of these buds despite the tree’s green foliage
            promising their presence indicated it would bear no fruit
            that year - ibid.
         c. Thus this fig tree gave the appearance of offering edible
            food, but did not
      2. The way in which Mark organizes his material in these verses
         (fig tree/cleansing of temple/fig tree) suggests a connection
         between the cleansing of the temple and the cursing of the fig
         tree - ESV Study Bible
      4. The incident of the fig tree both interprets the cleansing of
         the temple and is interpreted by the latter incident - New
         International Biblical Commentary (NIBC)
         a. Jesus’ disappointment with the fig tree is like his
            disappointment with Israel and the temple, her chief shrine
            - ibid.
         b. His judgment pronounced upon the tree is like the threat of
            God’s judgment soon to fall upon the city of Jerusalem,
            which Jesus’ words and actions in Mk 11:15-19 prefigure
            - ibid.
      5. The cursing of the tree (v. 14) is known as a prophetic
         sign-act, familiar to readers of the OT, an action in which a
         prophet demonstrates symbolically his message (e.g., Isa 20:1-6;
         Jer 13:1-11; 19:1-13; Ezek 4:1-15) - NIBC
      6. The act is not to be taken simply as a rash act of anger, but
         as a solemn prophetic word pronounced for the benefit of the
         disciples (and for the readers) - ibid.

[Seeing that the two events (the cursing of the fig tree and the
cleansing of the temple) appear related, let’s now look more closely
at...]

II. THE CLEANSING OF THE TEMPLE

   A. THE NARRATIVE...
      1. Jesus returns to Jerusalem and enters the temple - Mk 11:15-16
         a. Driving out those who bought and sold in the temple
         b. Overturning the tables of the money changers, the seats of
            those who sold doves
         c. Not allowing any to carry wares through the temple
      2. He teaches in the temple - Mk 11:17-18
         a. "Is it not written, ‘My house shall be called a house of
            prayer for all nations’ ? But you have made it a ‘den of
            thieves.’" - cf. 1Ki 8:41-43; Isa 56:7
         b. The scribes and chief priests heard this and wanted to kill
            Him
         c. They feared Him, for all the people were astonished at His
            teaching
      3. At evening, He left the city, spending the night on Mt. Olivet
         - cf. Lk 21:37

   B. SOME OBSERVATIONS...
      1. The "temple" was the court of the Gentiles, an outer court
         where non-Jews were permitted
         a. Tables were set up to enable pilgrims to change their
            respective currencies into coins for the annual temple tax,
            as well as to purchase pigeons, lambs, oil, salt, etc., for
            various sin and thanksgiving sacrifices - ESV Study Bible
         b. The business activity turns the house of prayer into a den
            of robbers (Jer 7:11); Gentiles in particular were hindered
            by the temple commerce in the outer court - ibid.
      2. This may have been the second time Jesus cleansed the temple
         a. John records a similar incident at the beginning of Jesus’
            ministry - Jn 2:13-17
         b. Many commentators think it happened only once; but with
            Jesus’ zeal for His Father’s house, there is good reason to
            believe He did it twice
         c. The cleansing of the temple may have been to fulfill
            prophecy - Mal 3:1-3
      3. Was the act of cleansing the temple "out of character" for
         Jesus?  No!
         a. Jesus had been angry before, and would be again soon - cf.
            Mk 3:5; Mt 23:13-36
         b. Jesus was filled with righteous indignation, consistent with
            the qualities of deity - cf. Ro 2:4-6; 2Th 1:7-9
      4. It may helpful to remember...
         a. When it came to personal affront, Jesus bore it meekly - cf.
            Isa 53:7; 1Pe 2:23
         b. But when God or His temple were maligned, especially by
            hardhearted and self-righteous religious leaders, then
            Jesus acted with righteous indignation in defense of God’s
            honor
         c. We tend to defend selves rather than God, displaying
            self-righteous indignation

CONCLUSION

1. The moral and religious depravity of the religious leaders prompted
   Jesus’ actions

2. Both the cursing of the fig tree and the cleansing of the temple were
   prophetic sign acts that foretold the impending judgment upon the
   nation of Israel that would occur with the destruction of Jerusalem
   (fulfilled in 70 AD) - cf. Mk 13:1-2

Executable Outlines, Copyright © Mark A. Copeland, 2011

Do Natural Disasters Negate Divine Benevolence? by Bert Thompson, Ph.D.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=11&article=1102

Do Natural Disasters Negate Divine Benevolence?

by	Bert Thompson, Ph.D.

Q.

The Earth is plagued with all kinds of natural disasters (tornadoes, hurricanes, floods, etc.). How can these tragedies be reconciled with a supposedly good, benevolent God?
A.
September 21, 1989—Hurricane Hugo strikes the southeastern coast of the United States. Over 25 people are killed, and over $10 billion worth of damage results. One month later—October 17, 1989—an earthquake registering 7.1 on the Richter scale strikes the San Francisco Bay area in California. At least 62 people are killed, and damage estimates are placed at well over $1 billion. August 24, 1992—Hurricane Andrew hits three counties in southern Florida. More than a dozen people lose their lives, and damage estimates are set at over $20 billion. A year later, on September 11, 1992, Hurricane Iniki devastates the Hawaiian islands. At least four people die, and damage is set at over $1 billion. In June 1993, huge portions of numerous states along the Mississippi River and its tributaries experienced the worst flooding in their history. Entire cities were covered with water measured not in inches, but in feet. At least 47 people died, and more than 25,000 were evacuated from their homes.
Do these types of natural disasters represent merely isolated, infrequent events? Hardly. Throughout history, man has recorded many such tragedies. In 526, an earthquake hit the country now known as Turkey and left 250,000 dead. A similar earthquake in China in 1556 killed over 830,000 people. Another quake in India in 1737 annihilated 300,000, and quakes in Central China in 1920, 1927, and 1932 killed 200,000, 200,000, and 70,000 people respectively. In 1889, the famous “Johnstown Flood” occurred in Pennsylvania. The dam of the South Fork Reservoir, twelve miles east of the city, burst during heavy rains. Over 2,000 people were killed, and property damage was estimated to be over $10 million. In 1969, Hurricane Camille killed more than 250 people in seven states from Louisiana to Virginia, leaving behind over $1.5 billion in damage. In 1983, Hurricane Alicia struck near Galveston, killing 21 and causing over $2 billion in damage.
It is rare indeed, it seems, for a single generation in a given locale to be spared at least some kind of natural disaster. Without warning, tornadoes sweep down from the afternoon sky and destroy in a moment’s fury what took decades or centuries to build. Floods cover “old home places,” and remove forever any vestige of what were once storehouses of hallowed memories. In a matter of seconds, earthquakes irreparably alter once-familiar landscapes. Hurricanes come from the sea, demolish practically everything in their paths, and then dissipate as if they never had existed. Each time humanity suffers. And each time there are those who ask “Why?”

THE “WHY?” QUESTION

In the face of disasters such as those described above, there is hardly any question likely to be asked more routinely than “why?” But the question is not always asked in the same way, or with the same intent. Some stand on the charred remains of what was once their home and ask, “why me?”—and mean exactly that. Why them and why now? All they want is to understand the physical events that have changed their lives, and to learn what they can do to correct the situation and avoid a repeat of it. They are not looking to assign blame; they merely want an explanation of the prevailing circumstances.
Others view the destruction around them and ask “why?,” but their inquiry is brief and their response immediate. They correctly view the Earth as a once-perfect-but-now-flawed home for mankind. Rather than their faith in God being diminished by the ravages of ongoing natural phenomena, it is strengthened because they: (a) know that there are rational biblical and scientific explanations for such events; (b) understand that after all is said and done, “the Judge of all the Earth will do that which is right” (Genesis 18:25); and (c) put their faith into action as they work to help themselves, or those around them whose lives have been affected by a disaster.
Still others view natural disasters and ask “why?,” when what they really mean is: “If a benevolent God exists, why did He allow these things to happen?” The implication of their statement is clear. Since these things did happen, God must not exist.

THE BIBLICAL RESPONSE TO THE “WHY” QUESTION

It is not my purpose here to address the “why me, why now?” question that seeks a physical explanation as to what kind of swirling wind current spawns a tornado, or what kind of geological phenomena may be responsible for an earthquake. Much has been written on these topics that can provide adequate answers for those willing to research the problem. Instead, I would like to answer the more pressing philosophical questions of why the Earth experiences natural disasters in the first place, and why such disasters are not incompatible with a benevolent God.

Our Once-Perfect-But-Now-Flawed Planet

At the end of His six days of creation (Genesis 1:31), God surveyed all that He had made, and proclaimed it “very good”—Hebrew terminology representing that which was both complete and perfect. Rivers were running, fish were swimming, and birds were flying. Pestilence, disease, and human death were unknown. Man existed in an idyllic paradise of happiness and beauty where he shared such an intimate and blissful covenant relationship with his Maker that God came to the garden “in the cool of the day” to commune with its human inhabitants (Genesis 3:8). Additionally, Genesis 3:22 records that man had continual access to the tree of life that stood in the garden, the fruit of which would allow him to live forever.
The peacefulness and tranquillity of the first days of humanity were not to prevail, however. In Genesis 3—in fewer words than an average sportswriter would use to discuss a Friday night high school football game—Moses, through inspiration, discussed the breaking of the covenant relationship between man and God, the entrance of sin into the world, and the curse(s) that resulted therefrom. When our original parents revolted against their Creator, evil entered the world. Moses informs us that as a direct consequence of human sin, the Earth was “cursed” (Genesis 3:17). Paul, in Romans 8:19-20, declared that the entire creation was subjected to “vanity” and the “bondage of corruption” as a result of the sinful events that took place in Eden on that occasion. Things apparently deteriorated rapidly. Just three chapters later, Moses wrote:

And Jehovah saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And it repented Jehovah that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart. And Jehovah said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man and beast, and creeping things, and birds of the heavens (Genesis 6:5-7).

Genesis 6-8 records the global destruction resulting from the Great Flood sent by God as His instrument of judgment. The text indicates that the waters which caused the Flood derived from two sources: (a) “the fountains of the great deep”; and (b) “the windows of heaven” (Genesis 7:11). Water fell for forty days and nights (Genesis 7:12,17), and eventually covered “all the high mountains that were under the whole heaven” (Genesis 7:19). We may only surmise the changes that the Flood wrought upon the Earth. Local floods can cause tremendous damage in very brief periods. Imagine, then, the damage that water covering every mountain fifteen cubits (Genesis 7:20; approximately 22½ feet) must have caused. As one writer has suggested:

The destructive power of flood-waters is evident from what flood waters in recent years have done. They moved blocks of granite weighing 350 tons more than a hundred yards. Boulders weighing 75 to 210 tons have been moved by flood waters only 15 to 20 feet deep.... What vast devastation must have been created when all those forces of the earth worked together; rain gushing down from the canopy above the firmament, earthquakes shaking the earth, many volcanoes erupting and exploding at one time, continents shifting, mountains lifting up, tornados, hurricanes and wild windstorms raging, gigantic tidal waves with crosscurrents and whirlpools raising havoc.... Truly, the Flood was the greatest and most violent catastrophe in the history of the world, with total destruction of all forms of life and of the entire surface of the earth (Sippert, 1989, pp. 78-79).

What were conditions like on the Earth prior to the Great Flood? Numerous biblical scholars have suggested that conditions were radically different than those we see today, and that the Earth was devoid of the many natural disasters that it presently experiences (see Rehwinkel, 1951; Whitcomb and Morris, 1961; Dillow, 1981). Whitcomb and Morris have stated, for example:

This is inferred from the fact that the “breaking-up of the fountains of the great deep” (Genesis 7:11), which implies this sort of activity, was one of the immediate causes of the Deluge; therefore it must have been restrained previously.... Thus the Biblical record implies that the age between the fall of man and the resultant Deluge was one of comparative quiescence geologically. The waters both above and below the firmament were in large measure restrained, temperatures were equably warm, there were no heavy rains nor winds and probably no earthquakes nor volcanic emissions (1961, pp. 242,243).

It is not unreasonable to suggest, knowing the changes caused by local floods, that the global Flood of Genesis 6-8 not only radically altered the face of the Earth, but simultaneously produced circumstances that are responsible for many natural disasters experienced since that time. New, higher mountains and lower valleys were produced by God after the Flood (Psalm 104:6-10). Approximately 71.9% of the Earth’s surface remained covered with water. Temperature changes occurred, producing seasonal variations unlike any before. No doubt other factors were involved as well.
What causes natural disasters on the Earth today? One cause is the vastly different geological and meteorological phenomena now present. Tall mountains and deep valleys may be conducive to localized extremes in weather. The drastically changed components of the Earth’s crust (e.g., fault lines, etc.) give rise to earthquakes. Vast bodies of water, and large global climatic variations, spawn hurricanes and tropical storms.
Taken at face value, then, the wickedness of mankind in Noah’s day (which precipitated the Flood) is responsible ultimately for the changes that now produce various natural disasters. As Brad Bromling has observed:

While we may never know with precision what conditions prevailed between the Edenic period and the Flood, it seems that the weather systems with which we are familiar were largely absent at that time. The fossil record bespeaks a period when the entire Earth enjoyed a temperate climate. This storm-free era most certainly predates the Flood. Since that event, man has been imperiled by tornadoes, blizzards, monsoons, and hurricanes.... Upon whom should we heap blame for the suffering resultant from such weather? Is it fair to accuse God, when He created man’s home free from such things (Genesis 1:31)? In all honesty, the answer is no. Sin robbed us of our original garden paradise, and sin was responsible for the global deluge (Genesis 3:24; 6:7) [1992, p. 17].

One writer concluded: “[T]he cause of all that is wrong with the earth is not godliness but rather ungodliness” (Porter, 1974, p. 467, emp. in orig.). The matter of man’s personal volition has much to do with this. The Scriptures speak to the fact that since God is love, and since love allows freedom of choice, God allows freedom of choice (cf. Joshua 24:15; John 5:39-40). God did not create mankind as robots without any free moral agency. Mankind now reaps the consequences of the misuse of freedom of choice (i.e., the sin) of previous generations. Surely one of the lessons here is that it does not pay to disobey the Creator. In his second epistle, Peter made a clear reference to “the world that then was,” and its destruction by the Flood (3:6). That world no longer exists. Today we inhabit a once-perfect-but-now-flawed Earth. Man—not God—bears the blame.

Natural Disasters and a Benevolent God

The Bible teaches that God is both all-powerful and loving; thus He is benevolent, as love demands. How, then, can He allow natural disasters to occur? Do not natural disasters negate the benevolence of God, and strike at His very existence? In addition to the reasons listed in the section above, I would like to suggest the following reasons why they do not.
First, God created a world ruled by natural laws established at the Creation. If a man steps off the roof of a five-story building, gravity will pull him to the pavement beneath. If a boy steps in front of a moving freight train, since two objects cannot occupy the same space at the same time, the train will strike the child and likely kill him. The same laws that govern gravity, matter in motion, or similar phenomena also govern weather patterns, water movement, and other geological/meteorological conditions. All of nature is regulated by these laws, not just the parts that we find convenient.
Second, some disasters may be the by-product of something that itself is good. In addressing this point, Norman Geisler has noted:

In a physical world where there is water for boating and swimming, some will drown. If there are mountains to climb, there must also be valleys into which one may fall. If there are cars to drive, collisions can also occur. It may be said that tornadoes, lightning, hurricanes, and other natural disasters are likewise by-products of a good physical world. For instance, the purpose of rain is not to flood or drown, but the result of rain may include these disasters. Likewise, hot and cold air are an essential and purposeful part of the physical world, but under certain conditions they may combine to form tornadoes (1978, p. 72, emp. in orig.).

The natural laws that God created allow man to produce fire. But the same laws that enable him to cook his food also allow him to destroy entire forests. Laws that make it possible to have things constructive to human life also introduce the possibility that things destructive to human life may occur. How can it be otherwise? A car is matter in motion, and takes us where we wish to go. But if someone steps in front of that car, the same natural laws that operate to our benefit will operate in a similar fashion to our detriment.
Third, natural laws are both inviolate and non-selective. Everyone must obey them or suffer the consequences. In Luke 13:2-5, Jesus told the story of eighteen men who perished when the tower of Siloam collapsed. Had these men perished because of their sin? No, they were no worse sinners than their peers. They died because a natural law was in force. Fortunately, natural laws work continually so that we can understand and benefit from them. We are not left to sort out some kind of haphazard system that works one day, but not the next.
Those who rail against God because of natural disasters often are overheard to ask, “But why can’t God ‘selectively intervene’ to prevent disasters?” Bruce Reichenbach has addressed this question:

Thus, in a world which operates according to divine miraculous intervention, there would be no necessary relation between phenomena, and in particular between cause and effect. In some instances one event would follow from a certain set of conditions, another time a different event, and so on, such that ultimately an uncountable variety of events would follow a given set of conditions. There would be no regularity of consequence, no natural production of effects.... Hence, we could not know or even suppose what course of action to take to accomplish a certain rationally conceived goal. Thus, we could neither propose action nor act ourselves (1976, p. 187).

If God suspended natural laws every time His creatures were in a dangerous situation, chaos would corrupt the cosmos, arguing more for a world of atheism than a world of theism! Further, as Geisler has remarked:

First, evil men do not really want God to intercept every evil act or thought. No one wants to get a headache every time he thinks against God. One does not want God to fill his mouth with cotton when he speaks evil of God, nor does he really desire God to explode his pen as he writes against God or destroy his books before they come off the press. At best, people really want God to intercept some evil actions.... Second, continual interference would disrupt the regularity of natural law and make life impossible. Everyday living depends on physical laws such as inertia or gravity. Regular interruption of these would make everyday life impossible and a human being extremely edgy! Third, it is probable that chaos would result from continued miraculous intervention. Imagine children throwing knives at parents because they know they will be turned to rubber, and parents driving through stop signs, knowing God will create crash-protection air shields to avert any ensuing collisions. The necessary intervention would finally grow in proportions that would effectively remove human freedom and responsibility (1978, p. 75, emp. in orig.).

How, then, exactly, would the unbeliever suggest that an understandable, dependable world be created, and operated, other than the way ours presently is? How could natural disasters be prevented, while maintaining natural laws and human freedom?

CONCLUSION

Those who suggest that the existence of a benevolent God is impossible as a result of “natural evil” often call for a better world than this one. But they cannot describe the details necessary for its creation and maintenance. When—in an attempt to “improve” it—they begin to “tinker” with the actual world around them, they invariably find themselves worse off.
Instead of blaming God when tragedies such as natural disasters strike, we need to turn to Him for strength, and let tragedies, of whatever nature, remind us that this world was never intended to be a final home (Hebrews 11:13-16). Our time here is temporary (James 4:14), and with God’s help we are able to overcome whatever comes our way (Romans 8:35-39; Psalm 46:1-3). In the end, the most important question is not, “Why did this happen to me?,” but instead, “How can I understand what has happened, and how am I going to react to it?” With Peter, the faithful Christian can echo the sentiment that God, “ who called you unto his eternal glory in Christ, after that ye have suffered a little while, shall himself perfect, establish, strengthen you. To him be the dominion for ever and ever” (1 Peter 5:10).

REFERENCES

Bromling, Brad T. (1992), “Who Sent the Hurricane?,” Reasoning from Revelation, 4:17, Semptember.
Dillow, Joseph C. (1982), The Waters Above (Chicago, IL: Moody).
Geisler, Norman L. (1978), The Roots of Evil (Grand Rapids MI: Zondervan).
Porter, Walter L. (1974), “Why Do the Innocent Suffer?,” Firm Foundation, 91[30]: 467,475, July 23.
Rehwinkel, A.M. (1951), The Flood (St. Louis, MO: Concordia).
Reichenbach, Bruce (1976), “Natural Evils and Natural Laws,” International Philosophical Quarterly, Vol. 16.
Sippert, Albert (1989), From Eternity to Eternity (North Mankato, MN: Sippert Publishing).
Whitcomb, John C. and Henry M. Morris (1961), The Genesis Flood (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).

From Jim McGuiggan... Truth, Mistakes & Integrity

Truth, Mistakes & Integrity

To falsify truth by mistake is not a good thing though it could lead to something good; a writer/speaker could learn some humility as a result.

But “mistake” need not always mean precisely the same thing though it will always mean the same thing. To falsify truth “by mistake” means there is no conscious intent to falsify and, while the mistake may still be as injurious as if it had been intentional misleading, we won’t accuse the one in error of sinister motivation. That would be a distortion of the truth.

Still, while we might not accuse him of deliberate deceit we might accuse him of laziness, of shoddy work, of insulting his readers/hearers by thinking they are as little concerned about truth and accuracy as he is.

Not all “mistakes” are completely innocent. Arrogance can lead a person to presume that he knows more than he knows and to rely on his own “giftedness” to the exclusion of careful study.

Sometimes we have vested interests, a personal agenda that has such a hold on us that we work hard to find support for it but understate or avoid or give little attention to what opposes our interests. I’m not suggesting a deliberate understating or ignoring but I am saying that what we prefer to believe or practice (or not practice) can mean so much to us that subconsciously we don’t want to find contrary truth and that’s what we don’t find, contrary truth.

In such cases the lack of innocence I mentioned has to do with the spirit of the research that can well affect our results. I would suppose that our working for a pharmaceutical industry that wants to prove that its drug X is a good thing might undermine our objectivity. Illustrations are easy to come by. In John 5 :44 Jesus said that some church leaders couldn’t find truth because they sold themselves to gaining the praise of men—not because they were intellectually disabled or that the facts weren’t evident.

Still, mistakes can arise because we’re weary or because we have too many irons in the fire at once. Mistakes can arise because we’re working in an area in which we’re not experienced or even adequate for the job. There are times when we have to venture into areas that are beyond our expertise and for all our care and good intentions we misunderstand or overlook material that is plain and well known to others. It makes sense—especially if the matter at issue is very important—to do or check our work when we are not weary or when we are free from numerous jobs that divide our attention. If we must work in an unfamiliar area it makes sense to move with extra care, acknowledging our real limitations and asking for help where we can get it. All this makes sense but in the pressure of life good sense is often pushed into the corner.

Mistakes always matter but while they always matter and need to be corrected, they’re not all of equal importance; that’s a truth too obvious to need developed. Grant that the mistake is one “worth bothering about” (and that will mean different things in different areas—history, science, medicine, grammar and so forth) it needs to be corrected without malice even though it was unintentional. To dismiss lower level misrepresentations of truth as of no account shouldn’t be practiced or encouraged. It’s not for people of integrity to pick and choose which truths they will submit themselves to.

To ignore truth when it is misrepresented by mistake as if it didn't matter is less than truth deserves. If we willingly give truth less than it deserves by choosing to ignore mistakes or by refusing to own up to them or to dismiss them with a wave of the hand—if we do that we weaken its claim on us and that opens the door to deliberate abuse of truth.

Speaking as a Christian I’d say we aren’t to worship “Truth” but we are to worship the one true God who has revealed himself in and as Jesus Christ. The distinction is real and vital but we’re not to sever love of truth from being a lover and follower of him who said, “I am Truth!”

I know scientists are sinners and capable of being jealous, devious, overly-ambitious, arrogant and tailoring the facts to suit their vested interests—in short, just like the rest of us. When they get it wrong, when drugs prove to be dangerous or theories prove to be unfounded we expect them to own up. When the evidence is against them we expect them to swallow their pride and subject themselves to that truth though they don’t always do that. What Christian people expect from others they should come up with themselves. If the majority of scientists had been as shoddy in their approach and their research as a mass of Christian communicators are I don’t see how we would ever have got out of the Stone Age.

It’s a real lift to the heart to hear of scientists and researchers who swim against the current to correct mistakes, expose lies and bring truth to light and it’s make the heart surge to read biblical and theological work that opens our eyes to a richer gospel and a more grounded hope.

So here’s to all those who teach us to be careful and courageous lovers of truth.

©2004 Jim McGuiggan. All materials are free to be copied and used as long as money is not being made.

Many thanks to brother Ed Healy, for allowing me to post from his website, theabidingword.com.

From Ed Healy.... My Journey With a Friend

My Journey With a Friend

Each day is part of a journey I travel.
I know where I have been,
I wonder what is around the bend.

In the midst of my journey I look for the journey's end.

As I journey, I wonder when will my journey end?

There is a friend who has joined me on my journey.

A friend who will see me to the journey's end.

He gives me strength and helps me on my journey.
That I might enjoy my journey and the journey's end.

Rom 5:1-5
5:1 Therefore, since we have been justified through faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, 2 through whom we have gained access by faith into this grace in which we now stand. And we rejoice in the hope of the glory of God. 3 Not only so, but we also rejoice in our sufferings, because we know that suffering produces perseverance; 4 perseverance, character; and character, hope. 5 And hope does not disappoint us, because God has poured out his love into our hearts by the Holy Spirit, whom he has given us.
NIV

Eph 1:13-14
13 And you also were included in Christ when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation. Having believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit, 14 who is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance until the redemption of those who are God's possession-to the praise of his glory.
NIV

2 Tim 1:13-14
13 What you heard from me, keep as the pattern of sound teaching, with faith and love in Christ Jesus. 14 Guard the good deposit that was entrusted to you-guard it with the help of the Holy Spirit who lives in us.
NIV

Many thanks to brother Ed Healy, for allowing me to post from his website, theabidingword.com.