Comments

Is Genesis History Or Not? Decide on Evidence — 27 Comments

1. If you don't have time to watch the full video at once, take a look at this Youtube channel which shows snippets from the full documentary plus a few more videos: Is Genesis History?

   (14)

   Reply ↓

2. Hi sister Inge, thank you for posting the link to this documentary. It's been awhile since I watched it, but I remember how much I enjoyed it. Very compelling!

   (5)

   Reply ↓

3. I enjoyed this video and thank you for posting it Inge. I've not seen this before, and actually, don't usually view videos on this topic since I am already "decided" on the issue.

   I thought the topic was approached very well in this video and noticed in the description there is(was?) a sequel in the works as well. True science is a wonderful study and always finds harmony with God's Word.

   (7)

   Reply ↓

   • I believe I should add that we are able to see in our world the evidence of God's Truth given in the Genesis account. We measure creation by Inspiration, and not the other way around. Such reverse "logic" is what has led to so many being deceived by another version of origins.

     If we know God(John 17:3) through a personal relation in response to His gracious invitation, we will have no doubts concerning those things that offer no empirical evidence. Only Noah could tell us of the great changes left behind by the flood, since all following generations only have the word-of-mouth and scriptural account to go by. Yet Noah was shut up in the ark and did not witness the great power at work that changed this earth so drastically, and when he did see it again, the changes must have been dramatic. I'm also confident that Noah did not travel around the world, so he never saw the Grand Canyon, or the buried remains of all those creatures that were not preserved on the ark which we now discover.

     The real question is: do we trust God or not? It would seem that many do not, trusting rather in the "science" of finite beings who seem to feel confident regarding their observations.

     If we believe the Story-teller(Matt 24:37-39, 2 Tim 3:16), we will believe the story.

     (12)

     Reply ↓

     • Robert, this video and others like it, as well as books published on the subject, are not intended to "prove" creation. That is not possible. You suggest

       The real question is: do we trust God or not? It would seem that many do not, trusting rather in the "science" of finite beings who seem to feel confident regarding their observations.

       That's all very well to say to believers. But what about those who are confused by all the "evidence" that appears to favor evolution? If you had been near Eve at the tree, would you have said to yourself, "I trust God, and have nothing to say to Eve?" Or would you have reminded her of what God said and the reasons to believe His word?

       Some of us believe that God called us at this time to provide people with reasons to believe in our Creator God from all areas of life - our personal witness and the evidence in the natural sciences. The first angel's message calls the inhabitants of this world back to Creator worship, and giving people reasons to believe in a Creator is one way of doing this.

       At the same time, we need to realize that we cannot "prove" creation any more than we can prove that God exists. But we can make it easier for them to have faith in God as both Creator and Redeemer. And I believe He wants us to do that.

       (4)

       Reply ↓

   • Is it the official Adventist view that only our solar system was created on the first day? This seems problematic when stars are mentioned on day four.

     (1)

     Reply ↓

     • Hi Tim. I've never heard that before either and will stick with the Bible account which states unequivocally that God ...made the stars also (Genesis 1:16 KJV), and separately from the only star in our solar system.

       God made trees with fruit already on them and is perfectly able to make stars and their light at the same time.

       Remember that time and distance don't exist for an eternal God so that "light years" (whether applied to time or distance) isn't applicable to God.

       (3)

       Reply ↓

       • The Word of the LORD also tells us God said:
         Lift up your eyes and look to the heavens: Who created all these? He who brings out the starry host one by one and calls forth each of them by name. Because of his great power and mighty strength, not one of them is missing. Isa 40:26

         (5)

         Reply ↓

     • Hi Tim,
       Fundamental Belief #6 is brief and doesn't go into scientific details:

       God has revealed in Scripture the authentic and historical account of His creative activity. He created the universe, and in a recent six-day creation the Lord made “the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them” and rested on the seventh day. Thus He established the Sabbath as a perpetual memorial of the work He performed and completed during six literal days that, together with the Sabbath, constituted the same unit of time that we call a week today. The first man and woman were made in the image of God as the crowning work of Creation, given dominion over the world, and charged with responsibility to care for it. When the world was finished it was “very good,” declaring the glory of God. (Gen. 1-2;5; 11; Exod. 20:8-11; Ps. 19:1–6; 33:6, 9; 104; Isa. 45:12, 18; Acts 17:24; Col. 1:16; Heb. 1:2; 11:3; Rev. 10:6; 14:7.) (Gen. 1; 2; Ex. 20:8-11; Ps. 19:1-6; 33:6, 9; 104; Heb. 11:3.) (From “Humanity: Creation at Adventist.org)

       (3)

       Reply ↓

     • The "official position" leaves us free to do more of our own thinking, and I see that what I thought to be the majority position is not fully supported by our readers. So here are the reasons for believing that the Genesis account does not indicate that the stars were all made on Day 4:

       The text says that God made the sun and the moon to rule the day and the night, and it goes on to say that He made "the stars also." This says clearly that He made the stars, but it doesn't say clearly that He created them that very day. (This is the only incident of the word "also" in the creation account.)

       Further evidence is in reasoning from Adam being created as a "son of God" and other sons of God were present at creation (see Job 38:1-7 The "morning stars" would be angels). Satan presented himself at the heavenly council as one of the "sons of God" after Adam yielded the earth to him by obeying him, rather than God.

       The existence of other worlds is corroborated by Ellen White's many references to "other worlds" in her writings. Here's one:

       The whole universe had been witness to the scenes at Sinai. In the working out of the two administrations was seen the contrast between the government of God and that of Satan. Again the sinless inhabitants of other worlds beheld the results of Satan's apostasy, and the kind of government he would have established in heaven had he been permitted to bear sway. (from Patriarchs and Prophets, p. 335)

       This indicates other worlds already in existence when this world was created, and they would need a sun like ours for light and life. That would mean that other stars existed before this planet was prepared for life.

       Many of our evangelical creationist friends believe that the Genesis account tells of the creation of the universe, but we cannot agree because of the points mentioned above. That belief also creates more problems of harmonizing the scientific evidence with Scripture.

       Since the existence of other worlds before the Genesis account also implies the existence of stars before the Genesis account, the most straightforward understanding of the Day 4 account is that "the stars also" is an aside to assure us that God is also the Creator of all the other stars.

       I hope that helps. (I'm sorry that I don't have time right now to point you to further Adventist resources on this position. But if you search for them, you can find them.)

       (7)

       Reply ↓

       • Yes, that was my very thought when I read Genesis 1:16, before I read your reply. The stars were created by God also but a long long time before our earth was created. Logical thinking would also put it that way as you stated, the stars are light years away. Yes I believe the stars were created long before the earth matter was created into a livable planet. It would go along with my belief that there were other worlds that the devil tried to get to go against God before we were even created, they did not sin. Now in Revelation it says: and after the war in heaven(which was before this world was created)Satan and his angels were cast down to the earth. Revelation 12:9. The war in heaven, Satan and his angels being cast out of Heaven were also created before this earth. Just more evidence that stars were created before this earth was formed into a living world.

         (4)

         Reply ↓

     • Don't you also find "recent six-day creation" to be problematic? This quite obviously does not include the stars, and not even the material rocks of our world, whick are far older than "recent".

       The FB#6 is a compromise with conservatives who insist on 6,000 years theory, but "recent" tells us nothing.

       (0)

       Reply ↓

       • You suggest that the Genesis creation "quite obviously does not include the stars, and not even the material rocks of our world, whick are far older than "recent"."

         What you write is generally accepted by most, if not all, Adventist scholars and Bible students. As I believe I have mentioned before, there are passages in Job that make clear that the earth was prepared for life and filled with life when other created beings were already in existence, such as Job 38:7, where the "stars" are seen as angels (cf Rev. 1:16,10; Rev. 2:1; Rev. 3:1; Rev. 12:4) and the "sons of God" were representatives of other created worlds, just as Adam would have been a son of God (cf Luke 3:8) representing this earth.

         A "recent six-day creation" is problematic if you do not believe in an all-powerful Creator God who can speak material things into existence (Ps 33:9) and create living creatures including humans. It takes faith to believe in a Creator God.

         On the other hand, the evolutionary story of origins also requires faith - a lot of faith:

         • It asks me to believe that life spontaneously arose from non-life, when I thought the theory of spontaneous generation had been disproved long ago.
         • It asks me to believe that complexity arises from simplicity - when all observed scientific data demonstrate that complex systems break down if left alone. (Think entropy.)
         • It asks me to believe that not only did a living cell with its marvelous complexity - far more complex than a 296 GTB Ferrari - but even a complete human being with an even more complex brain developed on its own over eons of time without intelligent input.

         As you probably realize I could go on and on and on with the list of things naturalistic science asks me to believe without evidence.

         The bottom line is that the origin of life cannot be "proven" by anyone. The evidence we see on this planet can be hung on an evolutionary framework or on a young-earth creation framework. Both sides have a bunch of unanswered questions that demand more explanation/research. I think that ongoing research favors the creation side of the argument, but you may not agree. 😉 In the end you have to decide where to place your faith.

         Science is not (supposed to be) in the business of "proving" anything at all. At its best, "Science is continually refining and expanding our knowledge of the universe, and as it does, it leads to new questions for future investigation. Science will never be "finished." ("Understanding Science: How Science Really Works.") Genuine science is a worthy endeavor and will not conflict with truth revealed in the Bible. When it appears to conflict, it is an opportunity to formulate new questions and find new answers.

         The so-called science of origins is in a different class than the kinds of science that examine and test current phenomena. It is essentially philosophy driven, and in its current paradigm it allows for no input from outside naturalistic processes. That means that divine actions are excluded by definition.

         I don't usually agree with Richard Dawkins on much, but I agree wholeheartedly when he says that "there really s a deep incompatibility between evolution and Christianity." (from a Youtube interview )

         (3)

         Reply ↓

         • As a believer in God,the God of 'love'(1 John 4:8), who, motivated by love to create this world 6000~ years ago, for Adam & Eve and their descendants, to hold communion with. Thus enriching His love of His creation.
           Hebrews 13:8 states that Jesus is the same(unchanging), yesterday, today, and forever. I believe this statement is true of all three in the Godhead; Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
           I by faith, accept the Bible teaching(doctrine) that God is without beginning and without end, self existent.
           How would a doctrine of God creating the entire physical universe 6000~ years ago reflect on the character of God and the revelations from His word?

           (0)

           Reply ↓

4. Wonderful resource!! I am going to watch the whole film and make notes this weekend!

   (3)

   Reply ↓

5. Thank you Sis. Anderson for posting this and for the explanation regarding the stars! I am an 8th grade science teacher in public school and I like receiving evidence and facts to share with colleagues when conversations come up.

   This video/series is new to me.

   (3)

   Reply ↓

   • See my further explanation regarding the stars in my comment above.

     While we're at it, I might as well explain that the Genesis account does not necessitate insisting that God made the material of this planet on Day 1. The first view we get of this planet is it being "without form and void" - an amorphous mass floating in space. He may have created it earlier, meaning that the rocks under the surface of the earth are much older than life on this planet. Or He could have created it on Day 1. The record is not clear, and there's nothing gained by insisting on one or the other.

     (2)

     Reply ↓

6. Genesis does not reflect the scientific truth about the cosmos, but is Israel's collective memory of its origins, reflecting the cosmology and ideas that passed through the sieve of monotheism.

   So much confusion has arisen because modern interpreters want to see the Bible as a scientific treatise.In this book, there is no planet Earth. The world is earth-centered, with stars and sun located in the heaven. Readers should try to think like ancient Israelites, not like modern astronomers.

   (0)

   Reply ↓

   • On what basis do you say that "Genesis does not reflect the scientific truth about the cosmos"?

     On what basis do you say that "modern interpreters want to see the Bible as a scientific treatise"? I ask this because I certainly have not met that claim despite my extensive experience with "modern interpreters" including scientists who see Genesis as history. Seeing Genesis as history is a far cry from seeing the Bible as a "scientific treatise."

     You say the Bible is earth-centered, and that is certainly true, because the Bible focuses on this planet where the relative merits of God's government versus Satan's government are being tested. Not only that, but it is also Hebrew-centered, because that is the lineage through whom the Messiah was prophesied to come. No mention is made of the vast areas covered by northern Europe, Russia, China, Africa (other than the Queen of Sheba), North America, South America, Australia, etc.

     The Bible does not claim to be a complete history of the world, but insofar that it does speak of historical events that we have not personally witnessed, we expect it to be accurate because God inspired the people who wrote it.

     In the same vein, the Bible does not claim to be a complete treatise of scientific knowledge, but insofar as it touches on the realm of physical science, we expect it to be accurate because God inspired the people who wrote it.

     (4)

     Reply ↓

7. Appearances can be deceiving. At the start of this video, the scene is shown of the vast ash deposits at Mt St Helens, cut through by flood waters in rapid time, and comparison is made to the Grand Canon. Is the comparison valid? Ash deposits are very soft, perhaps the softest of all. Signs were posted on the remaining trails at MSH warning visitors to beware of this. The Grand Canton does not contain any ash deposits, but layers from many different kinds of sources, including limestone, shale, and different sandstones, all of which have different depositional any erosional rates, and vary in hardness. None are anywhere near the softness of the ash layers at MSH. You dont find the same signs at GC. In addition, the various layers to the GC contain fossils of very different types and ages, something that never occurs at MSH, where all the buried trees and animal fossils show very recent ages. The comparison is not valid, as has been shown by many books and videos debunking the claims made in this video.

   Christian geologists have shown the many errors in this video. I recommend that readers here read a book like "The Grand Canyon, Monument to an Ancient Earth: Can Noah's Flood Explain the Grand Canyon?" by Carol Hill (ed) and Greg Davidson before making up their mind.

   (2)

   Reply ↓

   • Thank you for your comment, Jordan.

     Yes, indeed, "appearances can be deceiving," and that is why the same data can be interpreted in so many different ways.

     You contrast the Mt St. Helens deposits with those of the Grand Canyon and object that the Mt St. Helens deposits are "very soft" whereas those of the Grand Canyon are quite hard.

     But how do you know that the Grand Canyon was not eroded when the deposits were still relatively soft (a realistic possibility in view of the Deluge)?

     Mt St Helens deposits were the result of a very local event - the eruption of a local volcano followed by the breaking of a local natural dam at Spirit Lake. To expect layers of fossils would be unrealistic, to say the least. However, the layering of deposits at Mt St Helens do make one very valid point - that such layering can happen very rapidly and form into rock, and that such layers can be rapidly eroded. By extension, this validates the interpretation of the geologic column by creationist scientists as most layers having been deposited rapidly and rapidly eroded.

     The fossil layers fit into the evolutionary interpretation if we regard each layer as an "age" of some sort, though the question of how so many creatures were so perfectly preserved as fossils while being buried remains unanswered. (Such large-scale fossilization has never been observed to happen by gradual processes. Animals generally decay or are eaten by scavengers, rather than being fossilized. In the evolutionary scenario, we are asked to believe that many of the creatures remained perfectly whole while being buried over the span of millions of years - something requiring faith to believe in spite of observable evidence.)

     The fossil layers fit into the creation interpretation if we regard each layer as representative of an ecosystem that was buried by sequences of turbidity currents, as one might expect in a huge flood scenario. The creatures living in lower-lying areas would be buried first, followed by those who lived higher up and could not move fast enough to stay ahead of the rising waters. Last to be buried would be the larger animals that lived higher up and could move fast enough to stay ahead of the rising waters or could swim for a while. (Some water-dwelling creatures would be asphyxiated by the mud-laden currents.)

     An interesting thing about fossils is that there are few really "simple" fossils. Even the trilobites found in the lowest layers of the fossil record are complex creatures. That fits the creation record much better than the evolutionary interpretation.

     The Grand Canyon presents a whole other set of problems. If we are to believe that the canyon was formed by processed currently in place, we are asked to believe that the little bit of water in the Colorado river eroded this immense canyon. There are many other problems with the Grand Canyon geology that cannot easily be explained by natural processes currently in place. But it would take a book to deal with it, and this is not the place for it.

     The bottom line is where you choose to place your faith, because the available evidence can be interpreted to fit the evolutionary framework or the creation framework.

     Where do you put your faith?

     (4)

     Reply ↓

     • I put my faith in a God who reveals himself through scripture, and through the natural world. The problem with the view you espouse is that it places these two sources of revelation in constant conflict. But not for millions of Christians like me, who accept that God reveals himself as creator of the world in Scripture, but reveals what, how and when the creation began though science.

       There is no conflict between theistic evolution and the God of the Bible. The Bible tells the story of creation in language well understood in ancient times, but not in scientific language understood by modern people.

       As for the Grand Canyon, I urge you to read any review critique by other Christian geologists of the creationist view. Most of the arguments and claims made in the movie have been debunked. See, for example, "The Grand Canyon, Monument to an Ancient Earth: Can Noah's Flood Explain the Grand Canyon?" a book by Christian scientists.

       https://www.amazon.com/Grand-Canyon-Monument-Ancient-Earth/dp/0825444217

       (0)

       Reply ↓

       • Thank you for making your philosophical stance clear. Since there are variations of theistic evolution, please be so kind as to share your view of just how God created in a way that is true to science, as you see it, and true to Scripture, as you see it.

         A link to someone else's description will not do. Please give a summary in your own words.

         Thank you.

         (2)

         Reply ↓

8. I believe . . . the history of this planet and life on it is, by principle, discoverable by scientific investigation. For the material, the picture that emerges is that of varying material and chemical processes gradually changing the surface of the earth and atmosphere.

   Biological change, from evidence left by the fossil record, reveals not one but perhaps five devastating ecological events in the planet's history, each measured in millions of years ago. Each time, life experienced a resurgence of new life forms.

   Theistic evolution is a way of acknowledging the Creator for this amazing display of creativity and intelligence. In general, it offers two or three major forms, including "natural law" theology which affirms that God works primarily through natural laws, and Intelligent Design which affirms that God works primarily by providing solutions to problems in the development of new species. Both accept the outline of the scientific account of the history of life, and differ in where they see God operative, and in their political activity. I am more comfortable with the natural law version.

   If you are asking about my view of scripture, I hold an accommodationist view of inspiration, and assert that divine revelation works by inspiring accounts that are intelligible for the readers who first heard them, and are couched in the thought forms of those people. Genesis contains two monotheistic but compatible creation accounts, each a theological response to the cultural pressures of Mesopotamian and Egyptian mythologies. (The Hebrew Bible also contains snippets of several other creation stories.)

   Many modern readers attempt to read Genesis through the eyes of the modern scientific worldview--for example, "earth" meaning a planet spinning within the solar system--rather through the eyes and ears of the first readers, for whom "earth" simply meant the ground.

   I hope this summary is helpful.

   (0)

   Reply ↓

9. This was excellent! I shared it with my whole church and with some friends. Thank you for sharing it Inge.

   (1)

   Reply ↓

10. 6 day creation is not easily explained...however, when we discuss Daniel and other prophecies, don't we teach that a biblical day = a year? Could a similar principle be applied for creation...also, the creation story, and much of the Old Testament, is written with the knowledge of man at a point in time. OT writers believed that God placed the stars in a heaven that was dome-like or canopy-like over the Earth...we know differently now. Also, galaxies are expanding and some are collapsing. Thus, creation did not rest, it continues to expand and contract. Stars are born, and stars are extinguished with regularity. We cannot ignore science. We cannot ignore provable, repeatable truths...

    (1)

    Reply ↓

11. If we believe that the Bible to be THE undisputed authority on all things God, then letting God's word prove His creatorship is the thing to do.

    True. Isa. 40:26 provides supportive evidence. All created works, themselves, if studied, declare of the Creator's might, power and authenticity.

    John, too, sheds true light through the well-known passage of John 1:1-5:
    "1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4 In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome[a] it."

    I see little or no contradiction in the Solar system and the stars being created on the different days, as the Bible, research and school Science suggest that the Solar System is ".. the gravitationally bound system
    of the sun and the objects that orbit it - [giant gas & ice, and as commonly reviewed, planets of all sizes]." Mentioned with the Solar System, is ONE star: Our sun is described as the centre of our infinitesimal solar system.

    So vast and so wide is Our Creator's universe!
    So unsurpassed is the force of His word!
    So reassuring is His amandla, macht, puissance, xoog, poder, moc, energia, kraft and power to save!
    Praise Him!

    (0)

    Reply ↓

HTML tags allowed in your comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>