Clough Genesis Lesson 3
Is the Bible a textbook for science - Genesis 1:1-2
We are reviewing where we’ve come from so in the text we’ll be prepared for a film we’re going to see on a certain aspect of it. Genesis 1:1 we said was the title; we said that Genesis 1:1 was an all encompassing title, so that if we diagram the text it would look something like this: Genesis 1:1, all encompassing title; Genesis 1:2, the conditions prior to the action of verse 3. Our control for this kind of interpretation is found in the very structure of the book of Genesis. The book of Genesis was compiled by Moses from various sources and we believe the title to those sources is still there in the text, the toledots.
So when you turn, for example, to Genesis 2:4 you see there the same kind of three-fold form. We’re showing you this to justify our interpretation of Genesis 1:1-3. We said it has a three-fold form, a title, the antecedent condition, action. In Genesis 2:4, “These are the toledots of the heavens and the earth when they were created in the day the Lord God made the earth and the heavens.” So verse 4 is the title, “These are the toledots,” or “These are the generations of the heavens and the earth.” But then in the last part of verse 4 it shows you and assures you that the title includes the generation of that described in the title. The title describes the heavens and the earth; the generations of the heavens and the earth include two things: the heavens and the earth, and that which comes forth from the heavens and the earth. So what we want to prove is the title improves the origin of both the heavens and the earth and that which comes forth from the heavens and the earth, so we refer you to the end of verse 4 to show you that the end of verse 4 gives you confidence that the title was meant to include the origination of the heaven and the earth as well as what came forth. Then verses 5-6 depict the state of affairs prior to the work of God in verse 7, so the three-fold element: the title in verse 1; condition, verses 5-6; action, verse 7.
Turn Genesis 5:1, here again we have another section in Genesis and again it begins with the same title, the toledot. “This is the book of the generations of Adam.” Again the title describes two things; (1) it describes Adam and his creation, and (2) it describes that which comes forth from Adam, namely his children, Seth and those following. So the title again is all encompassing, the rest of verse 1 gives us confidence the title is meant to include both the generation of Adam and his offspring. And then finally in verse 3 the action, “Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and he begat a son in his own likeness.” So he begins to produce out from himself.
Going back to Genesis 1:1, making sure we understand how this works. In Genesis 1:1 we have the title; the title of Genesis 1:1 includes everything, including the bringing into existence of verse 2 all the way to Genesis 2;3; the title encompasses everything, the generation of everything including the generation of the water in verse 2 on down to the seventh day when the whole thing ends in Genesis 3:2.
Genesis 1:2 depicts the watery chaos, and we spent considerable time explaining that the watery chaos in verse 2 is meant to show that in mortal history, this side of eternity, the universe has within itself the means of its own destruction, that God has built into the system self-destruct mechanisms and the reason He’s done this is because mortal history is a time of probation, it is a time when men are free to accept or reject, or in the Garden of Eden, phrased another way, man was free to choose for or against God as God was known at that point. So probationary history, or mortal history or corruptible history, whatever you choose to say, has been going on since the time of Genesis 1:1, on down until we have the generation of the new heavens and the new earth at the end of the millennium in Revelation 21:22.
We said that in verse 2 we’ve got watery chaos because this is the source from which God began to work. It’s like we said last time, the tinker toy illustration; the child pours out all the tinker toy parts on the living room floor and then he starts putting them together to make something. What you’ve got in verse 2 is the pile of tinker toy parts. And then in the subsequent days you have him building from the tinker toy parts whatever he’s building and that is the way we explain why in future passages of Scripture it looks like evil happens, every time you get conditions like verse 2, that would be like the older brother walking into the living room and smashing the thing the boy built with is tinker toys; he again would wind up with a pile of tinker toy parts on the living room rug, but now it represents judgment, originally not so. Chaos doesn’t necessarily represent judgment against sin; after the fall it does but before the fall it could just be a preliminary stage in construction.
Turning to Revelation we want to go on to describe something about this water. In Revelation 21 we have the new heavens and the new earth; this is the resurrected universe, the universe that goes on forever. And in this universe, “I saw a new heaven and a new earth,” John says, “for the first heaven and the first earth,” or the first universe, “were passed completely away and there was no more sea,” … there was no more sea. In other words, the watery chaos is an absent feature in the eternal universe. Why is it an absent feature? Because we said that the watery chaos could be an instrument for self-destruction but in the eternal state there is no need for an instrument of self-destruction. We don’t have to have that kind of a thing for the reason that men, those who get in the new heavens and new earth are saved people, in resurrected bodies; there is not a need, in other words, to allow for evil again, there is not going to be a second fall with a second redemption. Once and for all there was a fall; once and for all there was redemption.
So the new heavens and the new earth are sound and stable, never to be changed. Just like the lake of fire, never to be changed; those in the lake of fire are in the lake of fire forever and ever and ever; those in the new heavens and the new earth are in the new heavens and new earth forever and ever and ever and ever. Ethically, the universe has hardened into good and evil permanently, so there’s no change any more, so therefore, in some way the sea is no longer a characteristic of that future eternal state. But that is not to say water is missing; that is not to say water is missing!
And here’s something very interesting about the Bible; the very thing that becomes a symbol for evil, chaotic water, is also the symbol of eternal life. Turn to Revelation 22:1, water has an ambiguous role. “He showed me a pure river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding out of the throne of God and of the Lamb. [2] In the midst of the street of it, and on either side of the river, there was a tree of life,” the description is that water comes forth from God’s throne to sustain the new heavens and the new earth. That is concrete evidence that the new heavens and the new earth are still creatures, still dependent upon the Creator. The new heavens and the new earth weren’t autonomous, existing in and of themselves; the new heavens and the new earth are sustained and the life in the new heavens and the new earth, even in the resurrection body, has to be sustained, so there’s water, because water is the picture of sustenance for life.
So now look at this: on the one hand we have the water of Genesis 1:2, fierce, uncontrolled chaos in the beginning. And then in Revelation we have no more sea but still a river of water, showing man’s dependency upon God. So water shows man’s dependency upon God, the physical universe is so structured that our physical life can’t exist without water, and yet it’s also structured so that water can do away with life under certain forces. We covered last time in the book of Daniel all the tremendous symbolism of water as a picture of humanity and the state of chaos without the Word of God.
Today we’re going to have a film on water because as part of my purpose in this Genesis series is to acquaint many of you who have studied the Bible a long time in your Christian life, and maybe you’ve grown a little too specialized in thinking of God’s Word only in terms of this; this is called, theologically, special revelation. But it’s only part of God’s revelation; the other part of God’s revelation is the world around us, general revelation. And to be a fully orbed balanced Christian you ought to be able to go out into the world around you and see God in the creation; that is, you ought to be able to read properly general revelation. So in my attempt to make this come clear we’re going to have, from time to time in the Genesis series, films on aspects of general revelation, so when you read your special revelation you put the two together and come up with something really good. Can we have the film now please.
Turn to Genesis 1; the film has given us some appreciation for water, I hope, and now observe in the Genesis text something you might not have observed before had you not seen the film. Observe how many times water is mentioned in the next few acts of creation. First of all, in Genesis 1:2, “Upon the watery chaos,” it says, “The Spirit of God,” the Holy Spirit “kept moving,” it’s a participle, “kept moving upon the face of the waters.” After the first day in verse 6 God said, “Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters,” or an expanse, “and let it divide the waters from the waters. [7] And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the expanse: and it was so. [8] And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day. [9] And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so. [10] And God called the dry land earth; and the gathering together of the waters He called Seas: and God saw that it was good.”
Isn’t it interesting that apart from the light of verse 4 there’s no mention of something being good until the waters have their place, and only after the waters have their place does God begin to create life; in the very next verses the plant life and then the animal life and so the importance of water.
Before we can go any further in an exegesis of Genesis verse by verse there is one question that has to be answered because if we don’t answer this question then it’s foolish to go on discussing Genesis 1. This is a question that men have raised again and again and again: Is Genesis, or in a more general way, is the Bible a textbook of science, for if the Bible is not a textbook of science then all of our discussions about creation and evolution are beside the point; the Bible has no relevance whatever to science or anything. But if the Bible, in fact, does pertain to science, then as thinking Christians who believe the Bible we have to study the question. We have to read Genesis 1 right.
To prove to you that this question is
raised again and again and again, I could tell you this but no one will believe
me so I’m going to let you hear a section of a debate between Dr. Gish of the
Institute for Creation Research, and Dr. Sam Kirkwood who is professor of
biochemistry at the
“Now let me also observe that however important we think science is, most of us think that there are other things that are even more important, and we have models and documents connected with these things. But these things, as I refer to them, are not scientific models and they are not scientific documents, and they should not be treated as such. Let me give you an example: the quality of mercy is not strained; it follows as the general rain from heaven. It is a very famous statement in the English language. What would happen if I submitted that statement to an uncultured scientist, i.e. I am going to have this scientist judge the thing purely from the viewpoint of science, and ask him the question, what does he think of that as a scientific definition of mercy. His reply to me would be that it was ridiculous. Now does this mean that mercy is ridiculous and does this mean with this statement is ridiculous and does this mean that we don’t understand what we mean when we say ‘mercy.’ Very far from it; this particular statement in fifteen words says more about mercy than any scientist could write in fifteen books because the concept of mercy lies totally outside the range of science and the only thing that is made to look silly by this comparison is the statement by the scientists, who obviously did not know what he was talking about. As another example let me consider the Iliad, and submit it to the same scientist and ask him what he thought of this as a scientific document. He would reply again that it is ridiculous but this doesn’t mean that it is ridiculous; it just means that that particular statement by the scientist was ridiculous. Now I come to the New and the Old Testaments, I will also tell you that I consider religion to be an extremely important matter and I will add further that I am very upset by anybody, any group of people or any single person who presents the Old and the New Testament as scientific documents, and I hope I have made the reason plain. Now the creationist research society has the statement in its statement of beliefs, and I have lifted it out of context: ‘We believe that the Bible is scientifically true,’ and I am simply informing you that I absolutely cannot agree with this position, nor can I agree with it being taught in the school.”
There’s an example of this issue, is the
Bible a textbook of science. It will
always come up any time the creation/evolution controversy is discussed; if it
hasn’t come up once it has come up a thousand times and Christians ought to
answer this particularly as the fight between both of our sides increases in
intensity as the years go by. Sidney
Hook, who for many years was a very famous philosophy professor at
“It would be completely unwarranted in this connection to charge that educators and scientists, who insisted that biological truths are neither Christian nor Jew, nor Moslem, nor Hindu, nor Confucian, nor Shintoistic, were themselves espousing another religious biology, for they are simply asserting that if biological assertions of any kind are valid they are valid for everyone, the religious, the irreligious and the nonreligious alike,” (end quote)
In other words, here’s what’s happening; these men are saying look, isn’t it true that the sun rises for both the Christian and non-Christian. Yes. Isn’t it true that if there’s a volcano, an earthquake or a storm it’s true for Christian and non-Christian? Right. Well then, why do you Christians insist that volcanoes, earthquakes, storms and the sun rising have to be treated differently? Does the Bible have anything to say about the theory of sun rising, volcanoes, earthquakes tectonic. The Bible isn’t therefore, they say, a textbook of science and it’s foolish to bring it in. All right; let’s ask the question: suppose the Bible records that at one point in history the sun did not rise? Isn’t this a piece of data from real history of a real event that actually was observed? And if the Bible records a day in which the sun did not rise, or a day in which the sun stood still, doesn’t that become part of the data of history, and therefore part of the data that has to be studied. So therefore, now aren’t we back to the question, is the Bible a textbook of science? In a way, yes, in the sense that the Bible gives us observational data of history.
Let’s look at a few passages to show how
insistent that the Bible is that it gives us observational data of
history. Turn to Deuteronomy 4:32; keep
in mind Professor Kirkwood’s accusation that it is absolutely wrong to bring
the Bible up for scientific discussion.
What does Moses say to
Let’s go to the New Testament because some will say of course, you’re talking about miracles, science can’t discuss miracles. Then let’s look at non-miraculous observational data. Luke 1:1-4; in Luke we have Luke describing the method he used in deriving the documents from which he wrote the Gospel of Luke. Luke did not get in a flying saucer and have the life of Christ tape recorded. Luke did a historical investigation of the facts of history, and he says in verses 1-2, “Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us, [2] Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word,” etc. etc. etc. “Eyewitnesses?” In other words, isn’t this data observational data that Luke is investigating, most of which, we add, is non-miraculous? Luke is recording what, in fact, actually happened. And we could go on and on to other verses in the Bible to show you numerous cases where observational data is given.
Now let’s look at this. There’s one verse in the Bible that shows you the emphasis on observational data and why we have to respect it: John 3, the words of Jesus Christ to Nicodemus. In discussion the new birth with Nicodemus what did Jesus say? John 3:12, “If I have told you earthly things and you don’t believe, how shall you ever believe if I tell you heavenly things. Now what’s the point? If Jesus Christ has told us about certain data that exists inside where you can check it, where I can check it—example, the resurrection. If we had access to the documents of the first century outside of Christian circles we could have proved that the resurrection took place. In 1 Corinthians 15 Paul challenges his skeptics to talk to any of the some 500 people that were still living at that time who personally witnessed the resurrection. He says if you don’t buy what I’m telling you go check it out.
In other words, this is bona fide data, go check it for yourself if you don’t believe what I’m telling you and that’s what Jesus says; if you people are the kind of people that can’t say, can’t buy that I’m telling you the truth when I’m telling you something down here that you can check, how in the name of heaven are you going to believe me when I tell you what’s going on up in heaven? You’re certainly never going to be taking a space ship to the throne room of God and pull out your file to see whether your sins are forgiven. You can’t check that statement. How do you know that your sins are forgiven? There’s only one way—trust the Word. So there’s no way to check that. That’s a heavenly piece of data and you haven’t got access to check it yourself so you’re going to have to take it on the face of the observer, Christ. Now He says if you don’t trust me in the area where you can check me out you’re fooling yourself to say you believe your sins are forgiven.
Therefore, we have to say as Bible-believing Christ-honoring Christians, we have to disagree with Dr. Kirkwood and have to say that the Bible does provide observational data, and in that sense the Bible is a textbook of science. We’re going to answer that question, is the Bible a textbook of science, two ways. Yes in the sense that it provides observational data. The Bible tells us certain things happened, it tells us there was a global flood that actually happened. It tells us that God created the sun and the moon after He created light. It tells us that He created man from dust as a bisexual being which was then subsequently bifurcated sexually and Eve came out of Adam’s side. That is an eyewitness picture of what went on. You can buy it or you can chuck it but don’t come up with this jazz that the Bible isn’t giving you eyewitness material; tell it it’s wrong but at least admit that the Bible professes to be giving us eyewitness data.
Turn to Job 38:4, here’s God’s answer:
“Where were you when [I laid the foundations of the earth?]” I was there? In other words, aren’t I a witness to My own
acts; you know…what the heck are you trying to tell Me, I was there when I
created the world and I was the eyewitness observer to it, so when I tell you I
did it a certain way, who the heck do you think you are telling me I don’t know
what I’m doing. Where were you, you think you’re a hot-shot observer, where
were you when I created the universe, that’s what He’s saying to Job. So we have to disagree with Dr. Kirkwood and
the millions of other people, particularly on academic campuses in the science
department who take this {?} view of religion that says the Bible is unplugged
from history.
They’re not coming from science. Science hasn’t said anything yet, all we’re debating now is where are we going to get our data from on which to check something out. We haven’t made any scientific pronouncement, we haven’t even asked the question of developing a theory to account for, we haven’t raised one model to try to explain reality; we haven’t entered the first step of the scientific investigation. All we’ve done is discuss what will and what will not be acceptable observational data for consideration, and at the very beginning of the argument these people like Dr. Kirkwood arbitrarily exclude the Bible from discussion. Well obviously, friend, if you exclude the Bible from discussion at step one when you get down to step 108 and you find the Bible’s missing there’s a good reason; you can’t knock it out of the discussion at the very first step and then resurrect it and plug it in later on in the step flow of logic. You’ve got to accept it at the first or don’t accept it accept it and pay the price for not accepting it.
So we disagree, the Bible is a textbook of science insofar as the Bible presents observational data. Now, the Bible is not a textbook of science in that it does not provide theories, explanations as to how God used, what means God used, or we’ll say the “how” question. How did God make the rain and the flood? I don’t know how; the Bible doesn’t tell us how. God has that up to scientific investigation, the “how question, but the “what” questions are not left completely up to science. They are recorded in Scripture.
Before I went in the ministry I was a professional meteorologist and I happened to know a little bit about atmospheric science, and I can assure you that Noah did not have to have his PhD in meteorology to tell whether it was raining or not. And if I am a meteorologist involved in theory construction, I don’t care whether Noah was a meteorologist, all I care is that he’s giving me an adequate observation of what went on so that I can okay, I have to figure Noah’s data into my theory and I’m going to use it, he’s a competent observe. And if I don’t buy Noah, at least I have to buy God; God tends to be a competent observer. So, therefore, as I start to develop my scientific theories I borrow the {?} on observational data. But I am in no sense dependent upon the scientific capability of my observer. I don’t need a meteorologist for Noah; I do not need a theoretical physicist to see and tell me how the first atom was created. All I care about is that there was an observation point that’s accurate.
So the Bible is a textbook of science in that it provides observational data, yes. This is the “what” question, what happened and the Bible tells me what happened; no, in that the Bible doesn’t always tell me how it happened. So let’s be very, very clear at the beginning of our discussion from Genesis as we go through this verse by verse that we are treating the Bible as real source of real observational historic data. We are not saying the Bible is explaining how it occurred; it’s just saying and announcing that, in fact, it has occurred.
Before we go any further in the book of Genesis we have to come to a point of choice, and this one is a point of choice you have to face, and the choice is whether we are going to accept the testimony of Genesis to real historic acts or whether we’re going to kiss it off, like Dr. Kirkwood. Dr. Kirkwood, fine if he wants to kiss it off, but the act of dismissing Genesis from discussion at the very first point of the discussion is a religious act. Why? Because he is arbitrarily saying that God does not speak in history and give us observational eyewitness material. How do you know ahead of time that God doesn’t speak in history? How do you know that? You don’t, except by an assumption, and that’s a religious assumption because you can’t test it scientifically.
Therefore, the position of Dr. Kirkwood and those like him is a religious position of human viewpoint autonomy, starting at the very basis of the discussion. And this is why, to explain to you why, as we go through Genesis verse by verse, we are going to differ radically with the scientific establishment, on almost every point, and we do so with full knowledge of where we disagree; we do so with full knowledge of why we disagree. We disagree because right here we’re starting with two totally different fields; one person is playing football, the other is playing baseball and we’re coming out with different scores and different plays; it’s because we change the rules of the game. So understand, I want everyone clear before we go into anything else in Genesis, I change the rules that you’re normally used to hearing; I demand that the data of Scripture be included in ALL theory construction at the very beginning, and I say not to is to become an apostate, satanic and idolatrous. So either we go with the text or we reject it; those of us who go with it can then sing hymns like 325, what a firm foundation we have for our faith.