Kant, the Finite Universe, and Natural Evolution.   Kant’s assertion that the universe was very finite and that there was no philosophical need for God split the Christian world of his time.  The German theologians made concessions and adjustments to their theology that gradually reduced Christianity to not much more than another social club.  Others, led by English and American theologians, reacted by denigrating science and philosophy, and by upholding the Bible as the only source of truth.

Higher Criticism.  There were authors who first tried to establish internal inconsistencies in the Genesis account.  These included Richard Simon, an Oratorian priest, who wrote in 1678.  Compegius Vitringa, a Dutch Reformed theologian wrote in 1707.  Their works were largely ignored by their contemporaries and forgotten by later generations.

 In 1753, a French physician named Jean Astruc published a work attempting to undermine the authority of Scriptures by demonstrating “inconsistencies” in the Genesis account.  He concluded that the writer of the Genesis creation account had taken material from many different and independent sources.  Most important, he concluded that the creation account from Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 are mutually exclusive, and that this strongly suggests that the two accounts were written by different authors.

 Johann Eicklorn – probably the most famous theologian of his day – later published the same conclusions.  He next pointed out that the recent discoveries by geologists that suggested a very old world indeed contradicted both Genesis chronologist, but also the creation date that had been earlier proposed by Ussher.  Soon, Eicklorn and others decided that much of the Old Testament was merely a compilation of unreliable documents and borrowed myths from other civilizations and certainly not the word of some god.

 As a result of their work, many laymen certainly, but also many theologians came to the unfortunate conclusion that the Bible was unreliable.  It was unreliable not only with respect to internal evidence such as the contradictions between Genesis 1 and 2, but also contradicted new “facts” from the emerging sciences of geology and paleontology.  Since the Bible was, according to this higher criticism, unreliable, God could only be known through faith.  The “faith” they described consisted of moral responses prompted by the conscience and by warm feelings about the presence of God.  Man would come to know God through the senses, since there was no objective basis for knowledge.  Thus, their position become similar to that of Kant – that God could not be known through the Bible, but only through ones own feelings and intuitions.  Of course, these feelings could be changed through the years, either as a result of new insights and growth, or as the result of the need for compromise brought about by the exigencies of life.

Fundamentalist Reaction.  The reaction by men to held the Bible to be the error free word of God also reacted strongly to the incursions of Kant and especially of higher criticism.  Basically, the fundamentalists dug in their heels and refused anything that might even look like compromise with respect to the absolute authority of Scripture.  More specifically with respect to creation, they discarded all forms of evolution; whether astronomical, geological, or biological.  All scientific discoveries were held subordinate to how they interpreted the word of God.
 The problem that eventually arose with this strict interpretation of the creation account, is that it fails to interpret correctly Genesis 1.  They got trapped into believing facts which have been shown not to be true by science, and in turn by appearing to be very ignorant and intolerant.  I believe this intolerance of science in the scientific age has repulsed countless millions of sincere investigators of Christianity.  Many felt as though they had to “check their brains in at the front door” of any church that promulgated this scientific intolerance.  Their basic error was to assume that the only revelation of God was through the Scriptures, and not to recognize that these same Scriptures clearly state that God also reveals Himself independently through His creation.  Scientific investigation of God’s creation was clearly indicating that their interpretation of the Genesis account of creation was just plain wrong.

Comparison of Genesis 1 and Genesis 2.  Many liberal theologians and higher critics of the Scripture have used the apparent discrepancies between Genesis 1 and 2 as showing the Bible is fallible and by inference, not to be trusted.  Without question, the creation accounts differ widely between these two chapters; however, further examination indicates that they differ primarily secondary to their difference in reference.  Genesis 1 focuses on the physical events of creation whereas Genesis 2 concentrates on the spiritual aspects of creation.  In Genesis 2, Adam simply interacts first with the plants, then with the animals, and last of all with Eve.  Then, his role in each of these interactions is defined.

 Genesis 1 states that “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.”  The Hebrew words for heavens and earth are shamayin and erets.  Whenever these two words are used together, they indicate the entire physical universe.  Furthermore, the Hebrew word for “created,” “bara,” always refers to divine activity.  It means to bring something entirely new into existence, something previously non-existent.  Genesis 1:1 talks of God’s creating – originating – the fundamental constituents (all of space, time, matter, energy, galaxies, stars, planets – and the Earth) of the Universe into existence.
 Genesis 1 and 2 then states the three initial conditions of the planet earth: it was dark upon the surface of the ocean, it was formless or disorganized, and the earth was void or empty.  Since the frame of reference is on the surface of the earth, the most fitting interpretation is that the earth was void and empty with respect to life.  It was also dark – presumably because the initial earth atmosphere blocked out the light that exists throughout the Universe – it could not pass through to the surface of the earth.

 Order of Creation:

1. Creation of the physical universe,
2. Transformation of the earth’s atmosphere from opaque to translucent
3. Formation of a stable water cycle
4. Establishment of continents and oceans
5. Production of plants
6. Transformation of the atmosphere from translucent to transparent (Sun, Moon, and stars become visible for the first time,
7. Production of small sea animals
8. Creation of sea mammals
9. Creation of birds
10. Making of land mammals
11. Creation of mankind

[Top]