

Previous Claim: CH030   |   List of Claims   |   Next Claim: CH055

Claim CH050:





  2. If Genesis is so all-important, why do creationists reject serious study of it? Modern (and even not-so-modern) scholarship has revealed much about the authors of Genesis (called J, E, P, and R) and other books of the Old Testament, including their motivations and places in history. For example, the Flood account is an interleaving of two different flood stories by J and P (Friedman 1987). Creationists studiously avoid any such knowledge. (Creationists are not alone in this; most Christians generally are woefully ignorant of biblical scholarship.)

  3. Ideas in other parts of the Bible stand on their own. Creationists themselves frequently quote them out of context. The Old Testament itself refers to documents that no longer exist; the Book of the Wars of the Lord (Num. 21:14); the Book of Jasher (Josh. 10:13, 2 Sam. 1:18); and others (1 Kings 11:41; 14:29, 19, 16:5; 1 Chron. 29:29; 2 Chron. 20:34, 13:22). Knowledge of earlier scriptures is helpful but not critical. Jesus sometimes rejected the letter of some Old Testament laws, so the letter of the Old Testament cannot be too important, and Jesus exemplified the spirit. The reason creationists find Genesis so important is because they depend on it, not because other parts of the Bible depend on it.


  5. No accepted science has ever been based on the Bible. That is not for lack of trying. Up to the nineteenth century, serious scientists tried to accomodate literal readings of the Bible to what they saw in nature. Young-earth creationism failed early on, so scientists tried gap creationism, day-age creationism, and other attempted reconciliations. But purely Bible-based science has always failed. True science is based on reality as expressed in the world (Young 1988).


  1. Friedman, R. E., 1987. (see below)

Further Reading:

Friedman, Richard Elliott, 1987. Who Wrote the Bible? New York: Summit Books.

created 2003-8-12, modified 2003-9-13