(All scripture quotations are from the NIV unless otherwise indicated.)

The word "genesis" means "beginning." The Book of Genesis is the beginning of God's revelation given to us in the Bible. Its pages reveal the foundation of all that follows. All biblical truth rests upon the simple assertion in Genesis 1:1, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."

There is a renewed debate in our day, both in the world and within the church concerning Genesis, particularly chapters 1-11. Is it history? Or do these pages contain mere religious myths and legends, nice moral stories, but ones that certainly cannot be considered historically true in a modern world?

What about the claims of modern science? Have not scientists proven that the world and the universe are billions of years old and therefore that the Bible is not true -- or at least that its account of beginnings cannot be taken at face value? It would be fair to say that this is the prevailing opinion in the world today -- yet there is a growing challenge.

But on what basis can modern science reasonably be challenged? Is this challenge simply a "hide-your-head-in-the-sand-and-refuse-to- face-reality" effort on the part of a few religious fanatics desperate to defend their blind faith in the midst of a post-Christian world? Or--as some contend--is this whole issue merely a diversion from our real business--preaching the gospel? In other words, do these questions make any difference? Isn't it enough to simply believe that God created everything?

I hope with the Lord's help to tackle these issues head-on. As a minister of God's Word I am called to preach the whole counsel of God. The Bible does not begin with Genesis 12 and Abraham but with God's account of the creation and fall and also the flood of Noah's day. I refer often in both preaching and writing to these accounts and I believe it is important that they be understood not simply as Sunday school stories but as real history involving real people. My convictions were not always quite so clear cut.

In the last couple of centuries or so there has been an unprecedented attack against the Bible and Christian truth. In our day this assault is often very frontal and bold but in the beginning it was a much more subtle attack, focused on Genesis, the book of beginnings. Satan is well aware that if the foundation of truth is destroyed the rest will crumble in time. After all, if Genesis isn't true, then what else in the Bible isn't true? In fact, why believe any of the Bible?

And so unbelieving scientists began to contend that the earth was not a few thousand years old as a straightforward reading of the Bible would lead you to believe but was rather much older. At first the claims were on the order of many thousands, but thousands grew into hundreds of thousands and hundreds of thousands grew into millions, and so forth. But few Christians saw any real problems with this growing belief. A side issue, they said: let's just preach the gospel. And so, most compromised, trying in various ways to fit these new-found millions of years into God's Word.

The religious environment in which I grew up was a product of that compromise. My father was a minister, a man of simple and genuine faith who faithfully preached God's Word as he was enabled to understand it. However, given the prevailing compromises regarding the creation account, I don't remember my father, or anyone else for that matter, raising any serious objections to "millions of years." I will say, however, that it was my father who years later pushed me to take another look at the issue so it is likely that he had privately questioned the compromises all along.

Still, I have vivid memories of my fascination with dinosaurs as a boy, a fascination that is, no doubt, shared by most boys! Picture books, stories, and miniature dinosaur figures fed my active imagination with images of wonderful and mysterious ages gone by.

Of course, everything I heard in school helped to reinforce the now-standard "old-earth" view of things. I certainly knew enough to see through and resist the doctrine of evolution but I did not have the means nor did I even see the need to question the age of the earth as it was everywhere taught. And so I believed that God had created everything, that the Garden of Eden was a real place, and that dinosaurs had become extinct 65 million years ago. Conflict? What conflict?

Then I went to college. Had I gone to a typical secular college there is no question as to what I would have been taught. But I didn't. I attended a major Christian college, a very conservative institution with a strong view of biblical inspiration. How did they deal with this issue?

It didn't take long to find out. One of my first courses was Old Testament Survey. The Old Testament begins, of course, with Genesis so on the very first day of classes we were launched into a discussion of the creation account! Along with an acknowledgment of what the text actually said we were presented with a sort of "menu" of various ways to harmonize the Genesis creation account with the (seemingly) well-established scientific facts regarding the age of the earth. All of these options were presented as legitimate scriptural views and it was sort of up to us to pick the one we liked the best!

I'm sure that somewhere during my college days it was acknowledged that there were those who took the Genesis account literally and believed that the earth was about 6000 years old but I don't remember ever encountering someone who actually believed that and I even heard the idea ridiculed. Surely no one could reasonably cling to such a view in the modern world! And what a needless hindrance it would be to evangelism if converts were expected to commit intellectual suicide and embrace such a ridiculous and outmoded idea!

I seem to remember three main views being presented (at least those are the ones that stand out as I think back). One of them was called the "Age-Day" theory. The days weren't really 24-hour days but rather long ages. Of course it was noted that order of what happened on the six days has little correspondence with the apparent order in which things happened from a scientific point of view. However, that difficulty was dismissed by the oft-repeated saying that the Bible was not written as a scientific textbook and that the creation account could be understood as a logical--or perhaps theological--account of things. In other words, it was designed to convey spiritual truth and it wasn't, therefore, a problem that the days were seemingly out of order.

As I look at the subject today it seems to me that what is currently called the "Progressive Creation" view is either the same as, or at least overlaps the Age-Day view as it was presented to us then. This view counters Evolution by contending that God--over long ages--gradually introduced the various "kinds" of animals into the world as special acts of creation.

Another view was the "Gap Theory." This view, popularized by the Scofield Bible, contends that there is a gap between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2. In this view there was another world that was created and then ruined during that "gap" and that the creation we now know is more a re-creation than a creation. This allows those who hold this theory to account for millions of years and ancient fossils and the like while still holding that the creation of Genesis took place about 6000 years ago.

Yet another view was "Theistic Evolution." How such opposite views can reasonably be integrated into one theory is a mystery to me! It's like saying, "Up Down," or "Black White." In any case Theistic Evolution contends that God used evolution to create and never intended the Genesis account to be taken literally.

I suppose I came nearer to an "Age-Day" view than the others but mostly I sort of filed the whole issue away as "secondary" and "not that important" and went on. All of this took place in the 1960s and many years went by before I began to really examine the question again. If you had asked me, say, 15 years ago how I understood and reconciled the Genesis account of creation with science I would have answered--with some condescension, I'm afraid--that it wasn't important. "I know God created everything and I don't care how He did it. It's a secondary issue. We need to concentrate on preaching the gospel and getting people ready for the Lord's coming."

In other words, I still believed that God had created everything, that the Garden of Eden was a real place, and that dinosaurs had become extinct 65 million years ago. Why was that a problem? You see, in the providence of God, my faith was strong enough that I didn't need such questions answered. Unfortunately these issues are a real stumbling block to many people and there is no reason to duck them.

Then sometime in the 1990s my Dad introduced me to a series of audio tapes that presented a different view. For the first time that I recall I heard actual highly qualified scientists who not only believed--as I did--that evolution was wrong, but who also believed that the earth was a few thousand years old and that Genesis should be taken as literal history. And they did not seem to see any conflict in science. In fact they actually presented the idea that science is much more friendly to the biblical view than it is to the evolutionary one! And, more than that, some had actually begun their science careers as evolutionists!

Now this was interesting--and intriguing! I thoroughly enjoyed the various presentations that showed how preposterous atheistic evolution is but the evidence for a young earth kind of set my wheels in motion. I began to consider the heretofore unthinkable idea that maybe, just maybe, the earth really was young after all. I didn't jump on the "band wagon" about it but it did stir up my curiosity and I began occasionally to visit various websites that presented that viewpoint to see what they had to say. Mostly, however, I just filed it away as "interesting" but not exactly all that important.

One website I visited was that of the Institute for Creation Research (www.icr.org). About three years ago or so as I write this several brethren and I were at a convention where who should one of the exhibitors be but ICR! My interest had been piqued to the point that I devoured everything they would let me have and as I read, suddenly I "got it." I realized that this was not merely an intellectual debate about some secondary issue but that it really mattered and that Christians could and should confront it with confidence in God's Word.

The following year the convention was held in Anaheim, California so I suggested to the brethren that we go a day early and take a side trip down to the San Diego area to visit ICR. This we did and were graciously received and shown virtually everything down to the broom closets by none other than the president, Dr. John Morris. We had the privilege of spending around 15 minutes sitting down with his father, Dr. Henry Morris, who passed away sometime the following year. What a privilege! It was his book, "The Genesis Flood," written together with Dr. John Whitcomb and published in 1961, that had laid the foundation for a return to a more biblical view of creation and the flood. Would that I had known of it in college.

We also met geologist, Dr. Steve Austin, who stepped out of his lab for a few minutes to visit with us. Dr. Austin, once an evolutionist, was one of the speakers on the audio tapes I had heard years before. His research has actually affected the entire field of geology and even secular geologists have had to acknowledge his findings in several areas of study.

Since then my interest has steadily grown and I have read many things, listened to videos, attended seminars, visited websites, and met others whose ministry focuses on this area of truth--men such as Ken Ham of Answers in Genesis (www.answersingenesis.org). These men have a unique and important calling. It is not my calling but, as I said earlier, Genesis 1-11 is not only a part of God's Word but it is also foundational to the rest.

First of all I want to very briefly summarize the two principal world-views that are in conflict in our society today. A "world-view" is a basic way of looking at and explaining the world we live in. One world-view is naturalistic evolution--basically atheism--and the other is a biblical one.

In the evolutionary world-view there is no God, or at least not one who is involved in the natural world. Everything is the product of time and chance. Around 13 billion years ago or so everything in our universe including space itself existed in a "singularity," an infinitely dense, infinitely small "point" that suddenly expanded. (Where would such a point come from?!) From this "big bang" stars, galaxies, and planets gradually formed, including earth in a primitive form. Somewhere in the dim distant past--by pure chance--just the right combination of chemicals and energy combined and became living, reproducing cells. Over immense amounts of time, guided only by the hand of "Chance," small changes in living things occurred. Good changes were kept and bad changes were lost and, to make a long story short, here we all are! As some have put it, this is the "goo to you by way of the zoo" theory. To put it another way, we are all simply slime plus time.

In such a world there is really no logically defensible answer as to where we come from (just a nice story), no meaning to life, no logical basis for right and wrong, and no rational hope for the future. Why, for example, in a meaningless world of chance would it be wrong to walk up to someone and shoot them? By what rational standard based on such a world-view would that be either right or wrong? On top of that, the evolutionary world-view actually values "survival of the fittest" (the one with the gun!?) in which the strong triumph over the weak. The rapid spread of this world-view explains a lot that we see in our daily news.

The biblical world-view is radically different. A good and loving God created a perfect world, a paradise in which he pronounced everything "very good." There was no suffering, no pain, no death. He put this paradise under the charge of the first man, Adam, and his wife, Eve. Only one thing was forbidden: fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Partaking of that fruit would be an act of rebellion leading to death. Nevertheless they were tempted and seduced into that act by a rebellious former servant of God and thus death entered the heretofore perfect creation.

It only took one generation for the first murder to occur. Over the next centuries the trend of humanity was downward into sin and darkness. Only a few remained faithful until finally it was only Noah and so God determined to destroy the corrupted race with a global flood. Noah and his family were saved along with representatives of the animal kinds so life could begin again.

After the flood, Noah and his family landed in a radically altered world and, after God forced men to separate by confusing their languages, the roots of all of our nations and peoples of today were laid as men spread across the earth.

Spiritual darkness quickly reasserted itself and God began unfolding His great plan of salvation ultimately brought about by His Son, the very instrument of our creation, coming to earth to live as a man and to die that we might live. And scripture not only tells us our history and the "why" of our world but shows us our destiny. The world is destined for fire but there is a new creation brought about through the resurrection from the dead of Jesus Christ. And those who lay down their arms of rebellion, turn their back on the world, and put their trust in Christ and what He did for them on the cross have a share in the new creation--forever!

How can two such radically world-views be mixed? Yet that is what so many Christians seem to feel they must do--what I once did.

The real rationale behind atheism with its belief in an old universe is the desire to be rid of God. Many leading atheists have not been shy about this. One example is Aldous Huxley who said, "I had motives for not wanting the world to have a meaning; consequently assumed that it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption. The philosopher who finds no meaning in the world is not concerned exclusively with a problem in pure metaphysics, he is also concerned to prove that there is no valid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to do.... For myself, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation, sexual and political." (Notice the word "assumption"!)

After all, an all-powerful Creator would be Someone to Whom we must answer and men don't want any interference in their efforts to live as they please, gratifying their lusts. And trying to contend that there is no God AND that the earth is only a few thousand years old would go far beyond intellectual suicide. It would merit a one-way trip to an insane asylum! But add vast amounts of time and--magically--anything seems possible! Any problem, any scientific difficulty can be overcome if only we add enough time. It is not difficult to understand how influential thinkers can so stubbornly insist upon millions and billions of years: they simply must. It is a matter of will, a will that refuses to acknowledge its Creator. Peter tells us in 2 Peter 3:5 of those who "deliberately forget" the facts of creation and the flood.

I believe that any reasonable person would have to admit that the idea of millions of years would never occur to anyone based on the biblical record alone. It is an idea that has come entirely from outside the Bible. More than that it is an idea rooted in atheism and naturalism. Why in the world do Christians feel it is necessary to interpret scripture in the "higher light" of atheistic ideas?! Why not, for example, reinterpret the Bible to accommodate the ideas of modern psychology or psychiatry? Why, then, is evolutionary science allowed to sit in judgment of God's Word?

No doubt a major problem concerns the image of science and scientists that so many have. We tend to think of scientists as very smart men in lab coats devoted to an unbiased pursuit of truth. We frequently hear the claim that science deals with facts whereas religion deals with beliefs. And yet Darwinism--a belief--is rarely allowed to be challenged, even on purely scientific grounds, in our public institutions today. One could easily assemble an extensive chronicle detailing the intimidation and brainwashing that occurs daily in our society over evolutionary theory. Unbiased? Hardly!

Mano Singham, a university science professor writes about the trust placed by students in their highly-educated professors: "And I use that trust to effectively brainwash them. We who teach introductory physics have to acknowledge, if we are honest with ourselves, that our teaching methods are primarily those of propaganda. We appeal--without demonstration--to evidence that supports our position. We only introduce arguments or evidence that support the currently accepted theories, and omit or gloss over any evidence to the contrary." Singham may not have been so much advocating such methods as he was stating a fact, but the context of his words makes it evident that he believes himself to be doing right, acting in the best interests of his students.

In such a climate it is no wonder that many Christians have simply "thrown in the towel" and tried to fit the pronouncements of modern science into the Bible. After all, very smart, and seemingly unbiased men have "proven" all these things. Who are we to say differently? And what difference does it make anyway?

As we said earlier, in a biblical view of history, God created everything in six days and pronounced it all "very good." Genesis 1:4, 10, 12, 18, 21, 25. Genesis 1:31 sums it all up: "God saw all that he had made, and it was very good." There was no suffering or death. Animals ate plants and not each other. Such corruptions only entered creation as a direct consequence of Adam's disobedience. His sin brought the curse of sin and death upon us all. Rom. 5:12 says, "Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned...." 1 Corinthians 15:21 & 22 tells us that "death came through a man," and, "in Adam all die." Our world today lies under that curse. It is only in the new creation that there will be no more death, no more pain. These things will have passed away. Rom. 8:19-21 says, "The creation waits in eager expectation for the sons of God to be revealed. For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God." See also Revelation 21:1-5. Revelation 22:3, in describing what is to come says simply, "No longer will there be any curse." There is an unbroken thread of truth beginning in Genesis 1:1 that runs all the way through Revelation 22:21.

The principal issue that turned the light on for me was the simple fact that EVERY attempt to fit millions of years into the Bible means that there was death before Adam--LONG BEFORE! And such a belief seriously undermines the whole message of the Bible.

Simply put: if there was death before Adam then death is just a part of the created order of things. In other words, God meant it to be that way! He meant for animals to kill and eat each other and for others to die of horrible diseases. He meant for there to be pain and suffering in His creation--and called it all "very good"!

Try to picture the God of the Bible looking down from heaven upon hundreds of millions of years of animals suffering and dying. Perhaps He looked down one day and said, "You there, T-rex, you're not doing your job! I don't see enough blood. I want to hear more screaming as your prey dies." As Mr. T-rex raises his level of violence the Lord says, "That's much better! That's just what I intended. I'm so pleased! What a joy it is to watch my creatures scream in terror and die. Just think how many millions of years more I get to enjoy all this!"

Do you see anything wrong with this picture? Could the God of the Bible have pronounced such a creation "very good" and found pleasure in it? Are any of God's revealed purposes consistent with, not thousands, not millions, not tens of millions, but (at least) hundreds of millions of years of pain, disease and death of morally innocent animals? Think about it! How could a God Who has no pleasure in even the death of the wicked find pleasure in the suffering and death of the innocent? Ezekiel 33:11. How could anyone imagine that a holy, righteous and loving God would establish such an order of things? Animals don't sin. The only possible reason for such an order would be that God desired it to be that way.

What happened to the God who feeds the birds of the air (Matthew 6:26)? or the God who spoke of a time when, "The wolf will live with the lamb, the leopard will lie down with the goat, the calf and the lion and the yearling together; and a little child will lead them. The cow will feed with the bear, their young will lie down together, and the lion will eat straw like the ox. The infant will play near the hole of the cobra, and the young child put his hand into the viper's nest. They will neither harm nor destroy on all my holy mountain, for the earth will be full of the knowledge of the LORD as the waters cover the sea"? Isaiah 11:6-9.

The idea that God would create a world of suffering and death is nothing short of a satanic attack upon God's character as revealed in His Word. It is one thing for His righteous wrath to be poured out on sin; it is something else again to create a suffering world where no sin exists (at least before Adam). Try to explain the suffering and tragedies of this world to your kids while holding to this compromise. You are left with no rational explanation except that God meant it to be this way. Then try to convince them of His love and His worthiness of their trust.

Even evolutionists recognize that evolution and the Bible don't fit together! Tom McIver, an anti-creationist writer wrote about the "day-age" and "gap theory": "Each...involves critical compromises with the plainest, most literal reading of the Bible to force Scripture into concordance with scientific evidence regarding the age of the earth."

Jacques Monod said, "The struggle for life and elimination of the weakest is a horrible process, against which our whole modern ethics revolts. An ideal society is a non-selective society, is one where the weak is protected; which is exactly the reverse of the so-called natural law. I am surprised that a Christian would defend the idea that this is the process which God more or less set up in order to have evolution." Indeed, particularly in view of Paul's instruction to Christians to "help the weak." 1 Thessalonians 5:14.

In a biblical view man was placed over all of the works of God's hands. In a compromised view he is a very late-comer to a world already corrupted and out-of-control. In a biblical view, the corruption in the world is a result of the willful disobedience of the one that God put in charge. In a compromised view corruption is simply a "design feature" of creation. In such a world, exactly what is it that God is going to "restore"? Acts 3:21. If suffering and death have always been with us then what is there in creation's past that can serve as a model for the promised corruption-free new creation? Corruption ultimately comes from Satan's rebellion, not God's loving design.

This issue of Adam's place in the created order and of the consequence of his sin and rebellion is not a minor secondary issue. If the Genesis account is not true then the rest of the Bible has no meaning. That is what is at stake.

Listen to what Genesis 1:26-31says: "Then God said, 'Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.' So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. God blessed them and said to them, 'Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground.' Then God said, 'I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the ground -- everything that has the breath of life in it -- I give every green plant for food.' And it was so. God saw all that he had made, and it was very good."

In God's order, man is a unique creation with a special place. David wrote: "When I consider your heavens, the work of your fingers, the moon and the stars, which you have set in place, what is man that you are mindful of him, the son of man that you care for him? You made him a little lower than the heavenly beings and crowned him with glory and honor. You made him ruler over the works of your hands; you put everything under his feet: all flocks and herds, and the beasts of the field, the birds of the air, and the fish of the sea, all that swim the paths of the seas." Psalm 8:3-8.

But Adam sinned and fathered a race of sinners who needed a Redeemer. The whole meaning of Christ's death is tied to Adam's sin. Both Romans 5 and 1 Corinthians 15 make it plain that Christ came as the "last Adam," born into Adam's race in order that in Him might be brought forth a new race, redeemed from sin and fitted for a brand new creation. Turn Adam into a myth, a nice religious story, and Christ's death becomes pointless.

Some compromisers attempt to escape this conclusion by contending that Adam's death was "spiritual," that he would have died physically anyway since death was part of the created order. But listen to God's pronouncement to Adam following his disobedience: "Cursed is the ground because of you; through painful toil you will eat of it all the days of your life. It will produce thorns and thistles for you, and you will eat the plants of the field. By the sweat of your brow you will eat your food until you return to the ground, since from it you were taken; for dust you are and to dust you will return." Genesis 3:17-19.

Notice that the ground was cursed "because of you." The natural world was affected by his disobedience. And especially notice the final part of the curse: "for dust you are and to dust you will return." That sounds like physical death to me. If he only had to be redeemed from "spiritual" death then why did Jesus die a horrible physical death to make salvation possible? When Adam and Eve sinned, the process of physical death began even as they were immediately separated from God spiritually. Christ suffered an agonizing separation from His Father AND also died physically. He also rose physically, and reigns at the Father's right hand until His promised return to finally and forever destroy the last enemy, death. 1 Corinthians 15:26.

If death is so regarded by God as an enemy, how is it that so many teach that his "very good" creation was designed to be "red in tooth and claw"? Once again, atheists understand this. That is why their efforts to undermine Genesis have been so relentless.

Atheist G. Richard Bozarth wrote, "Christianity has fought, still fights, and will continue to fight science to the desperate end over evolution, because evolution destroys utterly and finally the very reason Jesus' earthly life was supposedly made necessary. Destroy Adam and Eve and the original sin, and in the rubble you will find the sorry remains of the Son of God. If Jesus was not the redeemer who died for our sins, and this is what evolution means, then Christianity is nothing."

In attacking Genesis, Satan avoided a direct assault upon the cross. Such an attack would have resulted in a vigorous defense from Christians. Rather he cleverly attacked the record of the creation and fall, the historical foundation upon which the very need for the cross rests and his attack was, for the most part, ignored. Modern evolutionary science is nothing less than atheism with a lab coat for respectability.

Another very foundational issue is that of the reliability of God's Word. If we cannot trust the record of our beginnings then why trust any of the Bible?

Clearly there are portions of the Bible that are not to be taken "literally" in the strictest sense. In the scriptures we find poetry: Psalm 114:4 says, "the hills skipped like rams, and the hills like lambs." Wouldn't that be a sight! We find prophecy with symbolic language: Rev. 13:1 says, "...And I saw a beast coming out of the sea. He had ten horns and seven heads...." We find parables: Matthew 13:3 says, "Then he told them many things in parables, saying: 'A farmer went out to sow his seed.'"

Sometimes spiritual lessons are drawn from historical events: in Galatians 4:22-24, Paul makes note that Abraham had two sons, one by the slave woman and one by the free woman. In verse 24 he tells us that "these things may be taken figuratively...." Paul certainly didn't mean, as some claim, that the history didn't happen, only that he saw a spiritual lesson in those historical events!

There are, of course, many other doctrinal passages, but the very backbone of the Bible is its history. It is set forth as a chronicle, in fact, of the redemptive history of mankind from the garden and the fall through the cross and the beginnings of the church. Those passages meant to be understood as poetry, prophecy, parable, allegory drawn from history, etc., are self-evident from the context in which they occur.

Genesis 1-11 is clearly set forth as history. Any honest reader, considering only the text itself, would have to admit that it was written and meant to be understood that way. It is only the challenges of modern science that have caused people to back-pedal in their search for a way to harmonize the two. The style is a straightforward narrative, a recounting of events that actually happened. The style is no different from the narratives of the life of Moses, or David, or Jesus himself. Genesis may indeed not be a "science textbook" but it clearly is meant to be seen as simple history.

I am no Hebrew scholar--not at all--but those who are have demonstrated that the very construction of the creation account indicates a narrative. If I were to say to you, "Such and such happened and then this other thing happened and then something else happened and then another thing happened," you would rightly understand that I was recounting events that had actually happened in the order in which they happened. The words, "and then," make that clear. The Hebrew of the creation account has a similar construction.

And there is no need to reinterpret words like "was" and "day," as some do, in order to bow down before the sacred cows of atheistic science. Those who do are elevating the ever-changing and unproven theories of science above the Word of God. Doing so has disastrous consequences. Some--I was one--may not turn away from truth over these issues but teach the compromises, wait a generation or two and see what happens. You'll wonder why so many of your young people grow up, go off to college, and leave their "faith" behind. We cannot and must not compromise the Word of God, nor can we simply tell them to "shut up, believe, and don't ask questions."

Moses clearly believed that Genesis 1-11 was history. He was the one who, inspired by God, wrote it! He was the one who went up on the mountain to receive the Ten Commandments on stone tablets. One thing written on those tablets concerned the Sabbath and is recorded in Exodus 20:11. There we read, "For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day." Now think for a moment just Who it was Who wrote that! It was written in stone with "the finger of God." Exodus 31:18, Deut. 9:10. God Himself wrote it. He says He did it all in six days. Say different if you want to but I believe He is a reliable witness!

Earlier we quoted what David said in Psalm 8 about creation. There are many other Psalms in which God is clearly regarded as Creator in such a way that it is evident he saw the creation account as history. See Psalm 19:1, 74:16, 104:24, 136:9, 147:4, just to list a very few such references.

Beginning in Job 38 we find God addressing Job in no uncertain terms. And even though the language itself is poetic the underlying truth of creation shines through. He begins with a question in verse 4: "Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth?" This passage goes on and on describing God's hand in the created order.

Was Adam a real person? He is everywhere treated as such in the Bible. Besides the account of his life in Genesis he appears in the genealogies of mankind in 1 Chronicles 1:1 and Luke 3:38. Paul refers to him by name in Romans 5:14, 1 Corinthians 15:22 and 45, and also 1 Timothy 2:13-14. He also refers to Eve in the 1 Timothy scripture and in 2 Corinthians 11:3. Jude refers both to Adam and also to Enoch, the seventh from Adam, in Jude 1:14. Enoch is also mentioned in Hebrews 11:5. In every case Adam and the others are treated as real people.

Abel is referred to in Matthew 23:35 and Luke 11:51 (by Jesus), Hebrews 11:4, and Hebrews 12:24. Cain, who murdered his brother, Abel, is mentioned by name in Hebrews 11:4, 1 John 3:12, and Jude 1:11.

And then there is Noah. It is fashionable in our day to ridicule a simple historical understanding of the account of Noah and the flood. The evident fact that there are many flood stories in various parts of the world makes it difficult to deny that there was indeed a flood of some sort in man's history but most regard the Genesis account as just one legend among many.

One of the casualties of the compromise belief in millions of years to account for the fossil record is a corresponding denial that the flood of Noah's day was universal. The flood tends to be treated as a "local" or "regional" event that perhaps killed wicked men but certainly did not inundate the entire globe. This belief results from the recognition that a flood of worldwide proportions as described in Genesis would have destroyed the fossil record they so carefully wish to preserve as evidence of long ages prior to the flood. Those who hold such a view understand that a universal flood is an alternative explanation of the fossil record and is totally incompatible with an "old earth" belief.

But what saith the scripture? Hear God's pronouncement in Genesis 6:7: "I will wipe mankind, whom I have created, from the face of the earth -- men and animals, and creatures that move along the ground, and birds of the air -- for I am grieved that I have made them." That sounds pretty universal to me!

In verse 13 the Lord tells Noah, "I am going to put an end to all people, for the earth is filled with violence because of them. I am going to destroy both them and the earth." Note: God promised to "destroy both them and the earth." The flood was not only meant to kill wicked men but also involved major changes to the earth itself.

See verse 17: "I am going to bring floodwaters on the earth to destroy all life under the heavens, every creature that has the breath of life in it. Everything on earth will perish." Genesis 7:4 says, "...I will wipe from the face of the earth every living creature I have made."

Genesis 7:11-12 says, "In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, on the seventeenth day of the second month -- on that day all the springs of the great deep burst forth, and the floodgates of the heavens were opened. And rain fell on the earth forty days and forty nights." Note: it wasn't just a lot of rain but the "springs of the great deep" bursting forth. All of the water on the planet was suddenly brought to bear upon every land-dwelling, air-breathing creature God had made.

We saw, in December 2004, just a little glimpse of what an underwater earthquake and the resulting tsunami can do. Can you imagine that happening everywhere all at once, and for an extended time?! Not only would nothing on land survive but untold billions of sea creatures would be washed over the land masses and suddenly buried in great layers of sediment, hundreds and even thousands of square miles in size. By the way, that's exactly what you find in the fossil record!

In Genesis 7:19-23 we find that the waters, "rose greatly on the earth, and all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered. The waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more than twenty feet. Every living thing that moved on the earth perished -- birds, livestock, wild animals, all the creatures that swarm over the earth, and all mankind. Everything on dry land that had the breath of life in its nostrils died. Every living thing on the face of the earth was wiped out; men and animals and the creatures that move along the ground and the birds of the air were wiped from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those with him in the ark."

After the flood, Noah and the animals came out of the ark and the Lord made a covenant with Noah in part of which He promised never again to destroy "all living creatures" as He had done (Genesis 8:21). I am aware that all of this raises many science questions and many books have been written on these subjects but for the present my purpose is simply to establish what the Bible clearly says.

I don't know how anyone can read these scriptures and still attempt to contend that this was a local flood! If it truly was local or regional then language means nothing. The language is utterly clear as to what happened. The only possible reason for trying to make such clear language mean something other than what it says is the seeming "need" to compromise with evolutionary science. Now let's look at how the rest of the Bible treats Noah and the flood.

In Isaiah 54:9 God gave a comforting word to His people: "To me this is like the days of Noah, when I swore that the waters of Noah would never again cover the earth. So now I have sworn not to be angry with you, never to rebuke you again." In Ezekiel 14:14 and also 20 we find Noah referred to by name. Hebrews 11:7 says, "By faith Noah, when warned about things not yet seen, in holy fear built an ark to save his family. By his faith he condemned the world and became heir of the righteousness that comes by faith."

In 1 Peter 3:20 we read that "...God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water...."

In 2 Peter 2:5 we see that God, "did not spare the ancient world when he brought the flood on its ungodly people, but protected Noah, a preacher of righteousness, and seven others...."

In Luke 17:26-27 Jesus said, "Just as it was in the days of Noah, so also will it be in the days of the Son of Man. People were eating, drinking, marrying and being given in marriage up to the day Noah entered the ark. Then the flood came and destroyed them all."

In each of these cases Noah is referred to by name but there are other references to the flood and its consequences.

Psalm 104:5-9 says, "He established the earth upon its foundations, So that it will not totter forever and ever. You covered it with the deep as with a garment; The waters were standing above the mountains. At Your rebuke they fled, At the sound of Your thunder they hurried away. The mountains rose; the valleys sank down To the place which You established for them. You set a boundary that they may not pass over, So that they will not return to cover the earth." NASU. The language is poetic but the underlying historical reference is clear.

Listen to Peter's words of warning in 2 Peter 3:3-7: "First of all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires. They will say, 'Where is this "coming" he promised? Ever since our fathers died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation.' But they deliberately forget that long ago by God's word the heavens existed and the earth was formed out of water and by water. By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed. By the same word the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire, being kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men."

Very straightforward language indeed! There is no hint in any of these scriptures, including the words of Jesus Himself, that the account of Noah and the flood was understood to be anything but a simple historical account, something that really happened.

There are many references that make it obvious that the human authors of the Bible understood the fact of divine creation. Among them: Psalm 33:6, 96:5, 100:3, Matthew 13:35, 25:34, John 17:24, Romans 1:20, Ephesians 1:4, Hebrews 4:13, 1 Peter 1:20, just to name a very few. But when did this creation take place?

In Mark 10:6-8 Jesus replied to a question about divorce by saying, "...at the beginning of creation God 'made them male and female.' 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.'" That is pretty plain language! Jesus didn't say, "Billions of years after the beginning...." He directly quotes Genesis 1:27 and 2:24, recorded in the creation account. Clearly the institution of marriage occurred during creation week, called by Jesus, "the beginning."

When Jesus quoted scripture He didn't take it lightly. He plainly believed that all scripture was the Word of God. In John 10:35 Jesus said, "...the scripture cannot be broken...." Matthew 5:18 says, "I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished."

After His resurrection Jesus told the two on the road to Emmaus, "This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms." Luke 24:44. In Jewish reckoning the law of Moses included Genesis. In fact the first prophecy of the gospel was in Genesis 3:15 where God spoke to the serpent and said, "And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will crush your head, and you will strike his heel." And so it was at the cross: Christ crushed the serpent's head!

Let's consider for a moment just who Jesus was. Was He, as "modernists" contend, simply a child of His time, ignorant of all of our advanced knowledge? Anyone who believes that might as well throw out the whole Bible and quit any pretense of following Christ. Jesus had, in fact, a most particular position of authority when it came to creation.

The Bible plainly sets forth the fact that while the Father was the "architect" of creation, His Son was the "project engineer." Hebrews begins, "In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe." Hebrews 1:1-2.

Hebrews 1:10 says of the Son, "In the beginning, O Lord, you laid the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands." This is a quote from Psalm 102.

Paul says of Him in Colossians 1:16-17, "For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together." Notice that not only did our Lord create all things but He presently holds everything together!

John 1:3 says, "Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made." Verse 10 says, "He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him."

That kind of makes Jesus an authority on creation! Not only was He there, He was the Creator! It was out of His mouth that the Words flowed that flung galaxies across unimaginable distances. And according to Paul, He is the One Who still holds everything together. The Mighty Creator stooped to become a man that you and I might become sons and daughters of God! What a dimension that simple fact adds to the great plan of salvation!

And think about this: when Jesus quoted from Genesis regarding the institution of marriage, He was not only quoting scripture; He was quoting His own words! He was the One Who uttered those words in the first place! Do you suppose He knew what He was talking about? I do!

The Bible is clear and consistent, Genesis is written as a simple narrative, real history, and treated as such everywhere else in scripture. To contend otherwise is to set the pronouncements of science and the intellects of men above the Word of God.

And so, not only is the Bible's central message at stake--redemption from the sin of Adam that has passed down to all his children--but also the authority and trustworthiness of God's Word, not to mention the very character of God. These are not secondary issues! If we sacrifice such a foundational passage of scripture on the altar of modern science where will it stop? It is a slippery slope that leads to full-blown unbelief. The floodwaters of the modernism that has turned countless people away from genuine faith spring from these very issues.

Not only we, but our children also, are bombarded with evolutionary dogma. A day doesn't go by without references being made in the media to evolution and millions of years, etc. It is part of the flood out of the serpent's mouth aimed at sweeping away the church (Revelation 12:15). I wouldn't go so far as to say that everyone who believes in millions of years is necessarily lost--not at all--but such a belief did not come from God's Word!

Those God would call through the gospel will respect us far more if we take our stand on the Word of God and give a reason for the hope that is in us than if we compromise to maintain "respectability" in the eyes of unbelievers. God is not a beggar who bows down to men's ideas to avoid offending them. The gospel is a loving ultimatum delivered to those He would turn from the road to hell. It offers men the only hope they have of sharing in His original purpose in creation.

Of course, all of this begs the question: but what about science? What do we do with its claims?

Continued in Part Two

---

What About Genesis? Part Two
Return to Message Archives
Return to the Midnight Cry Messenger
Return to Questions

---