Time Immortal

Inigo Montoya’s phrasing just never gets old, does it? In this particular case, I’m applying it to a list of 20 “reasons” why evolution and the Bible are not compatible, published by Apologetics Press. The list seems, at first, to be quite persuasive…but as will become obvious, it should only be persuasive to those who know very little about both evolution and about the Bible.

I confess that such lists amuse me, if only because they again prove right the Augustinian teaching that “[u]sually, even a non-Christian knows something about the Earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the Sun and moon, the cycles of the years and seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of the faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men…. Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by these who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion.”

Most lists of this nature are comprised of entries that reduce to one (or both) of two basic fallacies: ignorance of Scripture or ignorance of science. As we move through the list, then O Reader, let’s see if we can spot which error is the more prominent in each entry.

(1) The Bible teaches that matter is not eternal; rather, it was created by God(Genesis 1:1; Hebrews 11:3). Evolution, on the other hand, asserts that matter is eternal, and that it is absurd to suggest that it was created ex nihilo (out of nothing).

This is clear scientific ignorance, and then for one simple reason: evolutionary theory does not pertain to the physics and origin of matter, and has nothing in particular to say about the nature thereof.

Modern physics still generally accepts the validity of Big Bang theory, which asserts that all extant matter came out of an initial eruptive event, when a condensed “megaparticle” exploded outward. Of course, there was probably no matter in said megaparticle — it was probably composed entirely of energy (which is dualistically related to matter according to Albert Einstein’s famous formula).

Physicists and other theorists have not come to a conclusion about the origin of the megaparticle which precipiated the Big Bang, but there is easily room in the theory for ex nihilo creation, and Christians can easily believe both in that concept and in modern theories concerning the formation of the Universe.

Of course, a second question could be asked as to whether creation ex nihilo is actually an integral part of Biblical faith, but that is a subject for another blog post.

(2) The Genesis account affirms that the Earth was created on the first day of that initial week (Genesis 1:1), and that the Sun and stars were created later — on the fourth day (Genesis 1:14-19). Evolution asserts that the Sun and stars existed billions of years before our Earth came into being.

This is also a very clear example of scientific ignorance, and then again for one simple reason: evolutionary theory pertains only to the emergence of life on Earth, and does not pertain to the formation of stellar bodies.

Aside: it is true that modern astronomy and physics assert that the formation of stars must necessarily have pre-dated the formation of planets — planet-forming matter accretion discs tend to only be able to form around objects with strong gravity, such as stars.

But we have to ask: is this really incompatible with Scripture?

At risk of sounding like a progressive creationist (which I am not, I hasten to disclaim), it should be pointed out that the first line of the Book of Genesis — which is the verse we know as Genesis 1:2^[1] posits an “earth” (small ‘e’) already in existence, without form and void, over the waters of which the Spirit of God moves. Genesis, then, begins in media res, with the formless void of early creation already present, and God moving over it.

God creates Earth (big ‘E’) in verse 10, the firmament in verse 7, stars in verses 14-15, the Sun and Moon (apparently) in verses 16-17…and day and night way back in verse 5. Light itself was created in verse 4.

Now here is a question: absent the Sun and Moon, how would “day” and “night” have been delineated, especially since Genesis 1:5 makes it clear that the delineation between then specifically had to do with the light of day and the darnkess of night? And indeed, how could there have been evening and morning on each of the days of creation, without a sunset to denote the end of a day and a sunrise to denote the beginning of the next one?

Indeed, how is there light — in the visible spectrum — at all absent the presence of sources thereof?

As I see it, three explanations are possible here:

1. This account is not meant to be a literal description of historical events
2. God created the Sun and Moon back in verse 4, but did not fix their positions until verse 16
3. God Himself is the light referred to prior to the creation of the Sun and Moon

Of these three, only the first explanation makes sense in a way that affirms both Scripture and the natural evidence. The second explanation, however, does serve to demonstrate that even the Genesis account is compatible with the idea that the stars were created before the planets were. The third explanation is bollocks, however, unless we are to assume that God created Himself in Genesis 1:3, despite the fact that He was already extant in Genesis 1:2.

(3) Moses stated that the “waters” existed before any land appeared (Genesis
1:2,6,9). Evolution, however, alleges that the Earth’s waters gradually seeped
out of its interior to form vast oceans.

This is again clear scientific ignorance: evolutionary theory does not pertain to the geological formation of the Earth, but only to the emergence of life on the planet once it had formed.

Moreover, geological theory doesn’t argue that water seeped out of the interior of the Earth. It is thought that, during the Hadean Eon — the period of time in which the Earth first formed and took its shape as a planet some 4.6 billion years ago — the oceans of the world formed by a combination of factors which principally have to do with water vapor:

A sizeable quantity of water would have been in the material which formed the Earth. Water molecules would have escaped Earth’s gravity until the planet attained a radius of about 40% of its current size; after that point, water (and other volatile substances) would have been retained. Hydrogen and helium are expected to continually leak from the atmosphere, but the lack of denser noble gases in the modern atmosphere suggests that something disastrous happened to the early atmosphere.

Part of the young planet is theorized to have been disrupted by the impact which created the Moon, which should have caused melting of one or two large areas. Present composition does not match complete melting and it is hard to completely melt and mix huge rock masses. However, a fair fraction of material should have been vaporized by this impact, creating a rock vapor atmosphere around the young planet. The rock vapor would have condensed within two thousand years, leaving behind hot volatiles which probably resulted in a heavy carbon dioxide atmosphere with hydrogen and water vapor. Liquid water oceans existed despite the surface temperature of 230°C because of the atmospheric pressure of the heavy CO2 atmosphere. As cooling continued, subduction and dissolving in ocean water removed most CO2 from the atmosphere but levels oscillated wildly as new surface and mantle cycles appeared.

Study of zircons has found that liquid water must have existed as long ago as 4400 Ma, very soon after the formation of the Earth. This requires the presence of an atmosphere.

At risk of sounding like a scientific concordist, it should be pointed out that this geological theory is entirely compatible with the idea that the existence of water predated the existence of the Earth; water vapor could easily have been a major component of the accretion disc from which the Earth was formed.

(4) The Genesis narrative states that light existed before the Sun was created (Genesis 1:3,16), while evolution contends that the Sun was the Earth’s first light.

This is mostly a logical failure: if not from the Sun, where the the light come from? As was previously noted, God could not be the light source referred to in Genesis, because God did not spontaneously create Himself in Genesis 1:3. The light — which, since it was able to separate morning from evening, must have been visible spectrum light — would have required some manner of point/emission source.

What was this source, if not the Sun?

Note, however, that there is also yet another misrepresentation of the science here: evolutionary therory, as was previously noted, does not pertain to stellar formation.

(5) The Bible specifically states that there were “waters above,” separated by an “expanse” [ASV footnote] from the waters upon the Earth [which doubtless condensed at the time of the Flood]. Evolution claims that there was continuous atmosphere above the early Earth.

Once more, scientific ignorance rears its ugly head: as has been previously noted, evolutionary theory is not concerned with planetary formation or the geological history of the world.

But here we also see the conflict of the ancient cosmological model presented in Genesis (pictured below) with the actual arrangement of the Universe.

We know that the firmament in Scripture — the dome of the sky — is understood to be solid, like bronze (Job 37:18). We know that the stars, Moon, and Sun are embedded in it (Genesis 1:15-17). We know that it separates the waters above it from the waters below it (Genesis 1:6-7) — which, incidentally, argues also for its solidity, since an empty expanse wouldn’t exactly hold back a torrent of water.

And we know that the Earth was formed in the middle of the waters under the firmament (c.f. Genesis 1:9-10), a flat Earth with a circumferential sea (c.f. Isaiah 40:22).

That’s the reality of the cosmological model presented in Genesis, and it simply doesn’t compare to the reality of the cosmos that modern astronomy has revealed. There is, in fact, little compatibility between the two. If one really wants to get technical, for example, there are no “waters above” — beyond the Sun, the Moon, the stars, and the sky there is only the black emptiness of space (and a few stray hydrogen ions).

But at risk of sounding, again, like a concordist, let’s take a brief look at the actual theory concerning Earth’s formation, and see if it is as incompatible with Scripture as is claimed. The assertion is that God formed the atmosphere after the Earth, according to the Book of Genesis, and that science asserts the presence of a continual atmosphere.

By looking again at what information exists concerning the Hadean Eon, however, we see that the assertion concerning what science says is, in fact, not true. During the early stages of its formation, the proto-planetary Earth wouldn’t have had sufficient gravity or size to maintain an atmosphere. So even in the geological theories concerning Earth’s formation, the atmosphere is not an ever-present aspect of the planet; it came later, once the planet had grown large enough to keep the gases and vapours trapped by gravity.

(6) The Scriptures teach that the first biological forms of life upon the Earth were the plants (Genesis 1:11), whereas the theory of evolution argues that the initial life forms were marine organisms.

(7) The Bible teaches that fruit-bearing trees existed before fish were created (Genesis 1:11,20), but evolution contends that fish evolved long before fruit-bearing trees.

These two points are, really, the same point repeated twice. Was Apologetics Press only able to think up 19 points for their presentation that they found it necessary to pad the list with such an obvious repetition?

The best thing that can be said for these points is that they at least graspa, belatedly, the purpose and extent of evolutionary theory, which is only concerned with the emergence of life into the world.

Of course, even here, the would-be apologists get it wrong: the earliest life on Earth was not, strictly speaking, marine life; a more accurate classification would be “bacteria.” These micro-organisms don’t really fall into the category of plant or animal, to be fair.

And at risk of sounding like a concordist, it should be noted that the current proposed models of early evolution suggest that this early life acquired the ability to produce food photosynthetically long before it diversified into more complex forms of life; in one sense, at least, the ancestorship of plants predates that of animals.

(8) The Genesis record declares that birds were created on the fifth day (Genesis 1:20) and that insects [creeping things] were created afterward on the sixth day (Geneses 1:24). Evolutionists contend that insects were in existence long before birds.

(10) Genesis instructs us that birds came first (Genesis 1:21), and that creeping things (which included reptiles) came later (Genesis 1:24). Evolution, of course, asserts that birds evolved from reptiles.

Finally, Apologetics Press gets one right, at least in terms of the science: insectoid life forms did, in fact, predate avian life forms. We have a goodly amount of fossil evidence in support of this conclusion (c.f. Job 12:7-9). Unfortunately, here again we see that the would-be apologists weren’t able to come up with 20 actual points of discussion, and so were forced to repeat themselves.

But here we must remember something. The Spirit inspired the authors of Scripture, but that does not mean that the authors of Scripture just sat there taking dictation from the Lord when they wrote the various texts of the books of the Bible. They wrote in a very human way, with human knowledge, about human experiences…and the Spirit worked to ensure that in all their writings, a consistent, infallible and inerrant message of faith was presented.

But, as God asks of Job in the Book of Job, where were the authors of Scripture when God laid the foundation of the Earth? Did Moses witness Creation? Did Isaiah? Did Job? Did we? Of course not! And so, when the authors of Genesis set out to record the account of creation, they drew upon the cultural legends, origins mythologies, and historical beliefs of the Hebrew people as expressed through fluid oral traditions.

And the Spirit of God, accommodating to their knowledge as a parent accommodates to a child, inspired their authorship to ensure that an infallible, inerrant message of faith was imparted to humanity through the historical legends being recorded. We must remember this most important fact: the Bible is a book of faith! It is not a book of science. It is not a book of history. Yes, it contains many historical elements, and it even gets a few scientific principles correct here and there…but these are incidents within the text, and not the point of the Scriptures as a whole. Yes, Abraham was historical. Yes, David and Solomon were historical. Yes, Jesus — the Son of God — was historical, and did in fact die upon a cross, and did in fact rise again on the third day in fulfilment of the Scriptures.

But these historical realities within Scripture are not the point of Scripture, and do not mean that all of Scripture is necessarily an accurate historical account. Scripture contains poetry, it contains metaphor, it contains allegory, and it contains historical fact…and in all of these, it contains and conveys a message of faith, hope, love, and salvation. And it is the message, and not necessarily the incidental aspects of the text, that is important for us to hear and learn. Thus, it was the message, and not the presentation of a completely accurate historical account of creation, that must have been important to the Lord when He inspired the authors of Scripture.

(9) Moses wrote that plants were made before the Sun was brought into being (Genesis 1:11, 14ff.) while, as everyone knows, evolution affirms that the Sun was burning billions of years prior to the first plant.

Plants cannot live without the Sun. This isn’t a chicken and egg argument; the Sun clearly had to come first, because plants require the light of the Sun for the photosynthetic processes they use to manufacture food for themselves.

And as was previously discussed, the Genesis account actually does leave ample room for the conclusion that the Sun was created prior to the Earth, and therefore plants. The existence of day and night, evening and morning, and visible light in the early verses of Genesis all suggest that this is, in fact, the case.

(11) The Mosaic narrative reveals that living creatures were created according to individual groups, and that thereafter, each reproduced after its own “kind” (Genesis 1:11,12,21,24-25). According to the evolutionary myth, all living organisms derive from a common primitive source.

There’s really nothing in evolution to suggest that Genesis is wrong about the issue of reproduction: creatures of a species produce offspring of that species. Things like environmental pressures and mutations can cause phenotypical or genotypical changes in organisms over subsequent generations, and at some point (the boundary, as I understand it, is a tad nebulous) these changes bring about a variant or offshoot species…but even then, that species will reproduce after its own “kind” from generation to generation, until environmental or mutational changes cause further changes in subsequent generations.

Evolutionary theory does posit an initial common ancestor for all living things, and this is evidenced by the fact that all living things share a few base commonalities in their DNA…even plants have some genetic similarity to human beings. But then, Genesis 2 relates how God fashioned the first man and all life out of the Earth; is there really a gulf of difference here?

(12) The Bible teaches that man was fashioned from the dust of the Earth (Genesis 2:7; 3:19; 1 Corinthians 15:45; 2 Corinthians 5:1), but evolution suggests that we came out of the seas.

This is actually more deliberate mis-representation on the part of the would-be apologists. Evolutionary theory, if you actually look back to the theories pertaining to the origin of the first living organisms, posits an abiogenic emergence of life from extant minerals and proteins. Is it not possible that the Spirit, in speaking of humanity being formed abiogenically from “the dust of the Earth,” left us a subtle, if poetic, hermeneutical clue in the text of Scripture?

Personally, I don’t see where the conflict is here: if God made us by fashioning the first life out of proteins and minerals, and then evolving us from that basis, does that really conflict with the poetic depiction of God making man out of the Earth?

(13) The Bible teaches that Adam, the first man (1 Corinthians 15:45), came into being as a result of a miracle, hence, never was born.Evolution claims that all men have arrived as a result of the biological reproductive process.

Hey, I thought that evolution teaches that “we came out of the seas” (as per point 12)? These would-be apologists are struggling to keep their stories straight.

We need to discuss, just briefly, something called “one seed theory” here.

Ancient peoples — not just the Hebrews, mind you, good Reader — tended to understand the world through agrarian metaphor. This was certainly true of their limited understanding of human reproduction, which was thought to work in a similar way to the growing of grain. It was believed that the man “planted” the “seed” of the child in the womb of the woman, in the same way that grain was planted in the dirt of a field, and that the only function of the womb was to grow the seed into an infant. The idea that the woman would contribute “blood” (e.g. genetic information) to the infant was not in the heads of the ancients.

And we have to interpret the description of the origin of humanity in light of this. To the author of Genesis 2, there was simply no way that Adam — the first man — could have been “born,” because birth required a male pregenitor to plant a seed to grown the man out of, in the same way that a stalk of wheat required a farmer to plant a seed grain at some prior point in time.

Of course, it should be noted that in Genesis 1, there is no description of the specific process of the creation of men and women; according to this creation account (which was written after the account in Genesis 2, even though it appears before it), God simply created humanity “male and female” in His image and likeness.

Which, it should be noted, is easily compatible with evolutionary theory.

(14) The Scriptures declare that man was ordained to exercise dominion over “every living thing that moveth upon the earth” (Genesis 1:28), but evolution alleges that multiplied billions of creatures already had lived and become extinct millions of years before man set foot upon the planet, hence, before he had opportunity to have dominion over them.

This is not actually a conflict, it should be noted. Man’s dominion over the Earth and all its creatures has nothing at all to do with whether or not some or many species of creature had become extinct by the time God had finished evolving humanity. Remember: God created all living things through an ordained, sustained, design-reflecting evolutionary process; is it not possible that He saw fit to end the lines of certain species to better suit the world for mankind’s eventual emergence? And would that not still reflect the dominionship of man over all the Earth?

(15) The Genesis record claims that man existed upon the Earth before it had rained (Genesis 2:5), but evolution believes that rain watered our planet eons before man crawled from his slimy womb.

This is a surprising demonstration of Scriptural ignorance on the part of the would-be apologists. One notes, for example, that Genesis 2:5 tells us that “no plant of the field was yet in the earth and no herb of the field had yet sprung up — for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was no man to till the ground.” This tells us nothing about who came first, the man or the rain.

Genesis 2:6, however, gives us the answer of Scripture: “a mist went up from the earth and watered the whole face of the ground.” The Lord forms man in verse 7. And if we look instead at the creation account in Genesis 1, the error in the above point is even more staggering: humanity is created in Genesis 1:26-27, plants and vegetation (and, presumably, the rains to water them that they might grow) in verse 11. Water exists in this account from verse 2 onward.

So the would-be apologists can’t even get their Scripture right, it seems.

(16) The biblical document proclaims that the Earth and all created beings
were brought into existence within a span of six literal days — days of the same type as the Hebrew Sabbath (Exodus 20:11; 31:16-17). Evolution claims that the origin of the Earth and its inhabitants required some five billion years.

Now, for those who are familar with Jewish custom, the Sabbath was to be observed from sundown on what is now called Friday until the appearance of three stars in the night sky on what is now called Saturday. In other words, the Sabbath’s duration is intimately linked with the setting of the Sun, with evening.

And yet, in Genesis 1, as the would-be apologists would have us believe, morning and evening were marked even in the absence of the Sun.

Something doesn’t add up here, as the Sun is the integral component in tracking the timing of the Sabbath.

God instituted the Sabbath as a perpetual covenant for the people of Israel, as a way for them to outwardly show a sign of respect and devotion to Him (c.f. Exodus 20:8-11, 31:13-17). Is it not possible, then, that when the Spirit inspired the authorship of Genesis, it inspired the ancient authors to re-cast the historical beliefs of the Hebrew people about the creation of the world in the mold of the seven day ritual pattern? Could not God have inspired and ordained this early covenant and its observance by using the extant historical legends of the Hebrew people to demonstrate the unity between the covenant and the creative intent and design of their Lord?

(17) The Scriptures teach that mankind has existed “from the beginning of the creation” (Matthew 19:4; Mark 10:6; Romans 1:20), thus, virtually “from the foundation of the world” (Luke 11: 50-51). Evolution contends that humanity’s age is but a tiny fraction of the Earth’s, thus, man is a “relative newcomer” to the planet.

And again, it must be noted that the authors of Scripture did not simply sit and take dictation from God when they wrote the books of the Bible; they wrote in a very human way, drawing upon human knowledge and human experience. They did not have secret, special knowledge of all things to come; they had the knowledge of their day, and the historical beliefs of their day.

Jesus spoke to them using their beliefs as examples and vehicles for His message of salvation, just as the Spirit inspired more ancient authors to record the historical legends of the Hebrew people in order to convey a message of faith to them, and to us. So too, the authors of the Gospels drew upon the historical knowledge of their day when they constructed the imagery presented in the Gospel accounts.

Also, it should be noted: God created humanity through an ordained, sustained, design-reflecting process of evolution. As we are the only extant creatures on Earth made in the image and likeness of God, is it not possible that God ordained, sustained, and designed the world prior to humanity’s emergence in such a way as to explicitly foster the emergence of man, and to present us a world uniquely suited to our needs as a species?

And if so, then does that not mean that, from the beginning of creation, the object of the Earth was mankind, even if mankind did not emerge into the world until many billions of years after it first began to form?

(18) Moses affirmed that God’s work of “creation” was “finished” with the completion of the sixth day (Genesis 2:1-2). Evolution, however, requires that some sort of “creative” process has continued to hammer out new forms of living organisms across the eras of history.

Here, again, the would-be apologists demonstrate an inability to properly read Scripture, let alone interpret it. They assert that Genesis 2:1-2 means that creation is “finished” (and take this to mean that nothing new is to be created after Genesis 2:2).

Then, in Genesis 2:7, God makes Adam.

In Genesis 2:8-9, God creates plants and makes a garden in Eden.

In Genesis 2:19, God creates the animals, birds, and every other “living creature.”

In Genesis 2:21-22, God creates Eve.

And in Genesis 3:17-18, God’s curse upon the ground causes the creation of thorns and thistles.

Even in Scripture, then, creation is ongoing…and we see evidence of this in the natural world as well.

(19) The Bible announces that God made man in His own image (Genesis 1:26; Corinthians 11: 7). Evolution scoffs at such, and suggests that man, because of his fears of natural forces that he could not understand, created God in his own image.

This again is pure scientific ignorance: evolutionary theory has no teleological component, and puts forth no philosophical conjectures.

It is true that some people have abused evolutionary theory to propose that human evolution included the evolution of god-concepts as a form of “social glue,” but other Christian apologists have noted that it may have in fact been the case that a part of humanity’s being made “in the image and likeness of God” involved the evolution of the ability to perceive the supernatural.

(Note: This latter proposition would seem to offer a more sensible explanation for the reason that Religion and the quest to understand the divine has been a facet of every human civilization in history, and of why even avowedly secular people are so often taken in by the lure of the occult, the paranormal, and the mystical.)

But the fact that some people have abused evolutionary theory to make it say things that it has no ability to say does not invalidate the theory itself. Methinks the would-be apologists are confusing sin and sinner in this point.

(20) Each of the Bible spokesmen treated the Genesis record of origins as literal history — i.e., a true account of what actually happened in the beginning (cf. Matthew 19:4ff.; Romans 5:12ff.; 1 Corinthians 11:7-8; 15:45ff.; 2 Corinthians 11:3; 1 Timothy 2:13). Evolution laughs at the inspired documents, repudiating them as literal history.

There’s a few points that can be made here, the first of which is that we need to differentiate between what people believe to be history and what is actually historical. 58% of Britons think that Sherlock Holmes was real, and 25% of Britons think that Winston Churchill was just a legend, like King Arthur. This suggests, at the very least, that what people believe to be historical is not always in alignment with what actually is historical fact, especially when the people holding those beliefs were not actually present to witness the events their beliefs pertain to (c.f. Job 38:4).

More importantly, though, evolutionary theory holds no religious opinion, nor does it posit any opinion about the sacred texts of any religion, including Christianity. To assert that it does, whether one is a religious or secular person, is to demonstrate one’s utter ignorance of the theory itself, and possibly of much of science in general. It’s just a scientific theory, and is concerned with very different things than is the Bible. So to attack it as being anti-religious is, frankly, dishonest…as surely as it would be dishonest to promote evolution as evidence against religion.

So, we come to the end, and should briefly review. We looked at twenty (well…18, with two repeats) points presented that purported to demonstrate that evolution and Scripture were incompatible. We have discovered that precisely none of these points actually served to demonstrate what it set out to do — often because of a mixture of ignorance and dishonesty on the part of the authors. In the process of this analysis, we have seen examples of how Scripture and evolutionary theory are actually compatible, and explored reasoning concerning this.

In the end, it’s up to the Reader to decide which side is the more correct: Evolutionary Creationism, or Apologetics Press. Remember that the would-be apologists cited above can’t even get their Scriptural interpretations correct, and are obviously uncertain about the concents of some passages of Scripture. Conversely, evolutionary creationism fully accepts that Scripture is inerrant, infallible, and sufficient…and also accepts natural revelation (c.f. Job 12:8) and the findings of research as alternative, or additional, means of revelation of the glory of God.

1) if one knows even a little bit about ancient Hebrew literature, one knows that the first line of a particular manuscript serves as the title for it. What we know as the Book of Genesis was not always called that: its title in Hebrew, translated into English, would basically be the phrase we recognize as Genesis 1:1: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.”