The
Bible is unique among all books. Not only is it different in its form,
structure, and history, but it takes the position of supernatural superiority
to all other communication. It insists on total accuracy for its content
and absolute obedience to its commands. No other book is so demanding.
Historical
Accuracy
The
Bible has proven to be more historically and archaeologically accurate
than any other ancient book. It has been subjected to the minutest scientific
textual analysis possible to humanity and has been proven to be authentic
in every way.
The
most controversial book of the Bible is Genesis, especially the first
eleven chapters. Those chapters speak of the creation of the universe,
the fall of man into sin, the world-wide flood of Noah, and the language-altering
event at Babel . There is much evidence that these events are historically
accurate.
The
core of religious, historical, and scientific debate centers on the first
eleven chapters of the book of Genesis. Contrary to many academicproclamations,
there is much evidence for the factual accuracy of those pre-history chapters.
Although some would suggest that the biblical account of creation is either
allegorical or analogous to the evolutionary story, the text itself does
not permit such an application.
The
language of Genesis chapters 1 and 2 are technically precise and linguistically
clear. Any reader would understand that the author of those pages intended
to convey a normal six-day creation, involving God's supernatural intervention
both to create (something from nothing) and
to make and shape
(something basic into something more complex). Three
days (Day 1, Day 5, and Day 6) involve creation. Three days (Day 2, Day
3, and Day 4) involve the organization, integration, and structuring of
the material created on Day 1.
Life
was created on Day 5,
a life in which
all animals and man share. A special image of God was created on Day 6
that only man has. The movement from “simple to complex” may appear to
follow evolution's theory, but the specific order (water > land >
plants > stellar and planetary bodies > birds and fish > land
animals > man) most emphatically does not.
The
Hebrew word for day (yom) is used some 3,000
times in the Hebrew Bible, and is almost always used to mean an ordinary
24-hour day-night cycle. On the few occasions where it is used to mean
an indeterminate period of time, it is always clear from the context that
it means something other than a 24-hour day (day of trouble, day of the
Lord, day of battle, etc). Whenever it is used with an ordinal (1, 2,
1st, 2nd, etc.), it always means a specific day, an ordinary24-hour day.
The
language of Genesis 1 appears to have been crafted so that no reader would
mistake the word use for anything other than an ordinary 24-hour day.
The light portion is named “day,” and the dark portion is named “night.”
Then the “evening and the morning” is Day 1, Day 2, etc. The linguistic
formula is repeated for each of the six days, a strange emphasis if the
words were to be taken as allegorical or analogous to something other
than a day-night cycle.
When
God wrote the Ten Commandments with His own finger (certainly the most
emphatic action every taken by God on behalf of His revealed Word), God
specifically designated a seventh day to be a “Sabbath” day (rest day)
in memory and in honor of the work-six-days, rest-one-day activity of
God during the creation week (Exodus
20:11). In that context, spoken and written by God Himself, the creation
week can mean only a regular week of seven days, one of which is set aside
as holy.
In the Creator's design, plants were made for food and animals were living
evidence of the Creator's wonder and diversity.
There
is no hint, of course, in the Genesis account that God equated the replicating
systems of earth with the living creatures later created on Days 5 and
6. Much has been written to justify this equation, but neither the Scriptures
nor science supports it. There is a vast difference between the most complex
plant and the simplest living organism. If one uses the biblical distinction
(blood, Leviticus 17:11)
as the wall between plant and animal, the differences are even greater.
There
is no question that God created the various categories of grass, herbs,
and fruit-bearing plants. The gulf between “dirt” and “plants” is huge!
No naturalistic scheme can adequately account for such wonder. But according
to God's words, they do not have “life.” Plants do replicate within their
kind, but so do certain crystals and some chemicals. They replicate within
kind, but they are nowhere said to possess chay
(life) or nephesh (soul), the Hebrew words
for living things. Job
14:8-10is cited as evidence that plants die like people die,
but that passage most certainly does not use the words for life. The supposed
comparison is really a contrast between plant and man.
The
food created by God as a “good” product and part of the process to maintain
life cannot be equated with the awful sentence of death pronounced by
the Creator on His creation. Animals and man have life. Plants do not.
The biblical record is very precise: Adam's sin introduced death into
the world (Genesis 3:17;
Romans 5:12),
with death being the “last enemy” (1
Corinthians 15:26). Naturalistic interpretations must have death as
a good mechanism to produce the “most fit.”
A
major platform of those who hold to the long ages of formative biology
is that death is a normal part of the original creation. The position
is that the fossil remains are a record of eons of natural development
rather than the awful debris of a worldwide, year-long sentence of destruction
executed by an angry Creator.
The
Bible insists, however, that death is an enemy (1
Corinthians 15:26), a curse ( Genesis
3:14-17) pronounced on all creation, including living creatures. That
awful judgment was because of Adam's rebellion (Genesis 3:17;
1 Timothy 2:14),
and is not a part of God's good creation.
Death
by the design of God is so foreign to the revealed nature of God, one
is at a loss to understand why anyone would want to suggest that God “authored”
death in His creation, a creation that was designed to tell us of His
invisible nature and Godhead. The whole message of Scripture turns on
Genesis 3. All of the “good” of the environment was withdrawn with God's
sentence. The “groaning and travailing” (Romans
8:22) began at that moment, or the words of God Himself are void!
If
there were eons of pain, suffering, and death before the rebellion of
Adam brought death into the world, then a whole sweep of biblical teaching
is thrown into the black hole of allegory. Hundreds of Bible passages
are twisted from a warning and a bad consequence to a “normal” event.
In the Bible, physical death is specifically identified as absolutely
necessary to accomplish the atonement for sins.
There
is no question that the Bible teaches that it was necessary for Jesus
Christ to die physically in order to accomplish the payment for our sins
(Hebrews 2:14-18).
If death is normal and/or good, even if it is merely relegated to a “spiritual”
effect, then the physical death of Jesus Christ becomes unnecessary and
meaningless.
The language of Genesis 6-9 demands that the great flood of Noah be understood
as a planet-covering, geologically destructive, year-long water cataclysm.
That global flooding left enormous evidence of the event.
There
is a great divide between two major systems of belief on the biblical
Flood in the days of Noah. There are those who say it is either a purely
mythological event or else possibly a local or regional flood. Then there
are those who accept the biblical record of the Flood as a literal record
of a tremendous cataclysm involving not only a worldwide deluge, but also
great tectonic upheavals and volcanic outpourings that completely changed
the crust of the earth and its topography in the days of Noah.
Here
are a few of the many biblical reasons for believing in the global Flood:
Jesus
Christ believed the Old Testament record of the worldwide Flood. Speaking
of the antediluvian population, He said: "The flood came, and took
them all away" (Matthew
24:39). Evolutionary anthropologists are all convinced that people
had spread over the entire earth by the time assigned to Noah in biblical
chronology, so an anthropologically universal Flood would clearly have
required a geographically worldwide Flood.
The
apostle Peter believed in a worldwide hydraulic cataclysm. "Whereby
the world [Greek, kosmos ] that then was,
being overflowed [Greek, katakluzo] with water,
perished" (2 Peter
3:6). The world was defined in the previous verse as "the heavens
. . . and the earth." Peter also said that "God…spared not the
old world, but saved Noah…bringing in the flood [Greek, kataklusmos]
upon the world of the ungodly" (2
Peter 2:5).
The
Old Testament record of the Flood, which both Christ and Peter accepted
as real history, clearly teaches a global Flood. For example, the record
emphasizes that "all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven…and
the mountains were covered" (Genesis
7:19-20) with the waters of the Flood.
Since
"all flesh died that moved upon the earth…all that was in the dry
land" (Genesis
7:21-22), Noah and his sons had to build a huge Ark to preserve animal
life for the post-diluvian world, an Ark that can easily be shown to have
had more than ample capacity to carry at least two of every known species
of land animal (marine animals were not involved, of course). Such an
Ark
was absurdly unnecessary for anything but a global Flood.
God
promised that never "shall there any more be a flood to destroy the
earth" (Genesis 9:11),
and He has kept His word for over 4,000 years, if the Flood indeed was
global. Those Christians who say it was a local flood, however, are in
effect accusing God of lying, for there are many devastating local floods
every year.
Historical
evidence routinely includes ancient literature, business records, and
government documents, analyzed in conjunction with linguistics, geography,
and archaeological analysis of physical objects (pottery, coins, remains
of buildings, etc.), using forensic science techniques.
After
many millions of man-hours of research and evidence analysis, archaeology
has repeatedly confirmed the reliability of the Bible. The Bible has been
proven geographically and re-proven historically accurate, in the most
exacting detail, by external evidences.
The
Bible has become a significant source book for secular archaeology, helping
to identify such ancient figures as Sargon (Isaiah
20:1); Sennacherib (Isaiah
37:37); Horam of Gazer (Joshua
10:33); Hazar (Joshua
15:27); and the nation of the Hittites (Genesis
15:20). The biblical record, unlike other “scriptures,” is historically
set, opening itself up for testing and verification.
Two
of the greatest 20th-century archaeologists, William F. Albright and Nelson
Glueck, both lauded the Bible (even though they were non-Christian and
secular in their training and personal beliefs) as being the single most
accurate source document from history. Over and over again, the Bible
has been found to be accurate in its places, dates, and records of events.
No other “religious” document comes even close.
The
19th-century critics used to deny the historicity of the Hittites, the
Horites, the Edomites, and various other peoples, nations, and cities
mentioned in the Bible. Those critics have long been silenced by the archaeologist's
spade, and few critics dare to question the geographical and ethnological
reliability of the Bible.
The
names of over 40 different kings of various countries mentioned in the
Bible have all been found in contemporary documents and inscriptions outside
of the Old Testament, and are always consistent with the times and places
associated with them in the Bible. Nothing exists in ancient literature
that has been even remotely as well-confirmed in accuracy as has the Bible.