“A student in my Bible
class says he believes that the Genesis account of the creation may be a
‘myth,’ or at least just ‘symbolism.’ How do I respond to him?”
There are several lines
of evidence which may be employed to show that the Genesis record of the
creation is not a myth, nor is it symbolic.
First, though, we must
emphasize that in approaching this matter, one must recognize that the
student will have to possess sufficiently developed study skills to be
able to evaluate evidence. Many of our nation’s youngsters today readily
believe anything they hear—whether at school, or via television.
Frequently they array this sort of public propaganda against the Bible
school teacher, whom they feel is a nice person, and well-meaning, but
not nearly as informed as the “experts.” We must train them to think, to
analyze, to logically scrutinize, and then to draw sound conclusions.
Consider, then, the
following:
The language in the
opening portion of Genesis is in the same literary style as the balance
of the book. It is historical prose. For example, it considers Adam and
Eve to be actual people—just as Abraham and Sarah were. Eden was a real
as Ur of the Chaldees. There is no change in style as the narrative
progresses. One must have a valid reason, therefore, for dismissing
Genesis 1 as
“myth.” A mere assertion by some TV personality will not accomplish
that.
There is a vast contrast
in the dignity and tone of
Genesis 1, versus
the creation “myths” that are common to the ancient world. For example,
the Babylonian creation account (called
Enuma
elish) is fraught
with ridiculous absurdities that are light-years removed from the
stately manner of the Genesis account. In that story, Enuma elish has
two “gods” at war; one kills the other and cuts her body into two
pieces. From one of these the earth is fashioned, and from the other the
heavens are formed.
Dr. George Barton, who
served as professor of Semitic languages at the University of
Pennsylvania, has written: “[T]here is no better measure of the
inspiration of the Biblical account [of creation] than to put it side by
side with the Babylonian [record of creation]” (Archaeology
And The Bible,
Philadelphia: American Sunday School Union, 1946, pp. 297-298).
Elsewhere, we have discussed this in greater detail (see “The Uniqueness
of the Biblical Creation Record”).
There is no basis for
suggesting that
Genesis 1 is
“symbolic.” Some liberal critics have argued that the “days” of the
creation week are mere figures of speech, representing millions of
years. Others contend that the “days” are simply poetic devices that
outline the author’s main theological points.
These baseless theories
clearly contradict
Exodus
20:11, which views
the creation “days” in the same literal sense as the “Sabbath.” The only
rationale for this novel interpretative approach is an attempt to
harmonize Genesis with the chronology required by the evolutionary
scheme of history—which is without scientific substance anyhow (see “The
Age of the Earth”).
Though penned many
centuries ago, the Mosaic narrative is still brilliantly relevant. There
is not a factual “scientific” error to be found within it. In fact,
famed archaeologist W.F. Albright once said that “modern scientific
cosmogonies show such a disconcerting tendency to be short-lived that it
may be seriously doubted whether science has yet caught up with the
Biblical story” (“The Old Testament And Archaeology,”
Old
Testament Commentary,
H.C. Alleman & Elmer Flack, Eds., Philadelphia: Muhlenberg Press, 1948,
p. 135).
Jesus Christ accepted the
literal historicity of the Genesis account. He affirmed that the first
human beings: (a) were made by God; (b) were made male and female; and,
(c) had a history extending back to the “beginning of the creation”
(Mt.
19:4; Mk. 10:6).
The only response to this
is to charge that Jesus was either ignorant or dishonest relative to
these facts. In either case, Christ would be indicted as an
impostor—because he claimed to have been at the creation
(Jn.
8:58), and the New
Testament attributes to him the role of Creator
(Jn.
1:1; Heb. 1:2).
Even skeptics are loath
to so castigate Jesus. Steve Allen said that Christ approached “the
ideal of perfection more closely than anyone else who has ever lived” (Steve
Allen on the Bible, Religion & Morality,
Buffalo: Prometheus, 1990, p. 229), and atheist Charles Templeton
described the Lord as “the greatest human being who has ever lived . . .
a moral genius” (quoted by Lee Strobel,
The
Case For Faith,
Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2000, p. 21). One cannot consistently
characterize Jesus Christ in this fashion and ignore what he said about
the creation account.
The conclusion,
therefore, must be this. Genesis 1 is not myth; it is not symbolic or
poetic; it is straight-forward, literal history. That is the fact of the
situation.
Other
Articles by Wayne Jackson
Aid or Addition -- What is the Difference?
Tradition Versus Scripture
The Last Will and
Testament of Jesus Christ
