Is the Bible really the word of God (1969)

Download: PDF — Is the Bible really the word of God (1969)

Is the Bible really the Word of God?

Is the Bible really the Word of God?

Dedicated to the cause of truth, which honest-hearted persons in all lands seek to know

COPYRIGHT, 1969

by

WATCH TOWER BIBLE & TRACT SOCIETY

OF PENNSYLVANIA

PUBLISHERS

WATCHTOWER BIBLE AND TRACT SOCIETY

OF NEW YORK, INC.

INTERNATIONAL BIBLE STUDENTS ASSOCIATION Brooklyn, New York, U.S.A.

First Edition

3,000,000 COPIES

Made in the United States of America

CONTENTS

CHAPTER PAGE

1 Why Examine the Bible? . . . . .

NOTE: Unless otherwise indicated, Bible quotations in this book are from the modern-language New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures, revised edition of 1961.

Why Examine the Bible?

AS the Almighty God provided a written guide for all mankind? Do you believe that the Bible is that guide? Or do you consider the Bible to be a "good book" written by wise men of ancient times—but no more than that?

There are people who are convinced that mankind's Creator inspired the writing of the Bible. Others are not convinced. Why not? Many of these have never personally read the Bible, so, at best, they have only a hazy idea about what it contains. Some persons ask:

How could reading the Bible, which was written centuries ago, be of real value to me in this modern world?

How practical is the Bible for people who need to spend their time working hard to feed and clothes their families?

If the Bible's influence is for good, why have the "Christian" nations destroyed so many human lives in war?

What about the discoveries of science? Have they not shown that it is unwise to view all the accounts in the Bible as actual fact?

Perhaps you have asked some of these questions yourself. But what are the facts? Have you ever made a personal investigation to find out? If not, you should do so now. Why?

IS THE BIBLE REALLY THE WORD OF GOD?

SOUND REASONS FOR INVESTIGATING

It is not merely because the Bible is a very ancient book, parts of it having been written over 3,400 years ago. Age alone is not the major reason for interest in it. Nevertheless, mankind's history stretches back thousands of years.

So, for any book to be the Almighty God's Word to all mankind, you would hardly expect it to be written recently, would you?

Nor is the Bible's vast distribution the major reason for interest. Although, again, you would logically expect any book that is the Creator's guide for mankind to be available to people of all races, everywhere, would you not? The Bible has, indeed, penetrated every land on the face of the earth. It is available now, the whole or in part, in over 1,300 languages. Though few books reach a circulation in the millions, the Bible has been published by the thousands of millions.

The Bible, available in over 1,300 languages, has a circulation of thousands of millions

As The World Book Encyclopedia (1966 edition, Vol. 2, p. 218) says: "Almost everyone in the world can find at least parts of the Bible written in his own language.

. . No other book can equal its record. In one single year, enough copies were distributed to average forty-seven for every minute of every hour, night and day."

Impressive though these facts are, there are more important reasons for investigating the Bible. No matter who you are, no matter where you live, the Bible deals with matters that vitally concern you—your personal welfare, your happiness, your security. The possession of genuine happiness, with peace of mind, requires having sufficient good food, clothing and shelter. It must include protection from harm for oneself and one's loved ones. It must also provide for good health and long life. The Bible claims to show how these vital needs can be satisfied. Can we afford not to investigate what it contains?

Some may say, "But the Bible was written thousands of years ago. We today live in a modern, scientific world." True, but the ancient problems of mankind are still here, clamoring for a solution. Scientific advances have, in effect, reduced the distances between the peoples of earth by rapid transportation and communication, as well as by long-range war equipment. However, instead of lessening mankind's difficulties, this has actually increased them. Even though modern inventions have provided many conveniences, and lightened man's work, they have not solved the major problems of human living. When has the need ever been so vital to learn how to live at unity and peace with others? to know how to forge strong and loving family ties? to be able to make wise decisions in times of crisis?

It is because the Bible comes to grips with these problems that it has such universal appeal. This is a powerful reason for investigating its message in these dangerous times.

An even greater reason exists. The Bible merits your examination because it focuses on the very purpose of life. Animals may be content with food, shelter and ability to procreate. Intelligent humans cannot be. For genuine satisfaction and happiness, their life must have a purpose. No doubt, like so many other persons, you have asked the questions: "Where did life come from? Why am I here? What does the future hold?" Since we have been given the ability to ask such questions, reasonably the Creator of man would provide satisfying answers to them. In every part of the earth there are persons who have accepted the Bible as the Word of God precisely for the reason that it gave them these answers.

Linked with this is the notable fact that the Bible itself openly says it is the Word of mankind's Creator. And it emphasizes this point over and over again. King David, writer of numerous psalms, for example, declares: "The spirit of Jehovah it was that spoke by me, and his word was upon my tongue." (2 Samuel 23:1, 2) The prophet Isaiah wrote: "This is what the Sovereign Lord, Jehovah of armies, has said." (Isaiah 22:15) And the apostle Paul said: "All Scripture is inspired of God." (2 Timothy 3:16) Were the Bible writers being presumptuous in making such claims? Well, if the Bible really is the Creator's message to mankind, then would it be honest on the part of these Bible writers to fail to credit Him as the Source? And since the Bible so definitely states that it is the Word of God, would it not be wise on your part to examine its contents?

There is yet another reason for you to examine the Bible and to do it now. According to the Bible, we are living in the last days of this trouble-filled system of things. Even world leaders freely acknowledge that global calamity threatens from many directions. But thousands of years ago the Bible pointed to such a time of global crisis, describing in detail the very things our generation is witnessing. The Bible gives reasons why destruction threatens and points to its source. It also sets out requirements for survival, and states that those preserved by God will be blessed with the opportunity to gain eternal life under righteous and happy conditions right here on earth. This prospect should appeal to those who daily work so hard to better their lot in life, only to find, at best, a short-lived happiness in this present system. When the strands of life wear thin in old age, it becomes clear that so much is presently beyond our reach, so much that we sincerely want to do, but must leave undone. If the Bible truly is God's Book in which he tells us how he will bring everlasting blessings to mankind, we should by all means want to know what it says.

Many, it is true, have declined to investigate the Bible because they identify it with the churches of Christendom. They note a marked loss of faith among many churchgoers and hypocrisy in the lives of others. But is the fault with the Bible? Or could it be that these churches are really failing to follow the Bible? In fact, how many churchgoers are there who have personally read the entire Bible?

Church members, also, are urged to make an examination of the evidence in answer to the question, Is the entire Bible truly the Word of God?

PUT IT TO THE TEST

So, why not make an impartial investigation of the Bible? Put it to the test, as many others have done. Former chief justice of the United States Supreme Court Salmon P. Chase was one of these. In doubt about the Bible's claim that it is the Word of God, he decided to examine it as he would examine any matter in court, taking evidence for it and against it. Of the result, he said:

"It was a long, serious, and profound study; and using the same principles of evidence in this religious matter as I always do in secular matters, I have come to the decision that the Bible is a supernatural book, that it has come from God."

But why take somebody else's word one way or the other? Why not examine the facts for yourself?

If the Bible is what it claims to be, then those who try to discredit it are, in fact, enemies of Almighty God. Your falling victim to their devices would result in the greatest possible loss to you. If the Bible truly is God's Word, then you should follow its wise guidance and instruction, so as to gain benefits that are available to man in no other way.

We invite you, yes, urge you to examine the evidence. Determine for yourself whether the Bible really is the Word of God.

Genesis Account of Creation Fact or Fiction?

N THE beginning God created the heavens and the earth."

With these words Genesis, the first book of the Bible, opens. Many persons today believe that modern science has proved the Genesis account of creation, including those first words, to be in error. Even religious leaders take a similar stand.

For example, a publication of the Protestant United Church of Canada refers to the first eleven chapters of Genesis as "myth."2 A new Catholic catechism from the Netherlands says the same chapters are "largely poetry and legend."3

Are these claims true? We need to know, for the Genesis account forms the very foundation of some of the key teachings of the entire Bible. Have you personally read that account? Why not open the Bible to the first chapter and find out for yourself what it says. Then compare what you read with the following information.

BASED ON ANCIENT MYTH?

Among ancient peoples, there were "creation stories." How do these compare with the Genesis account of creation? Do they form a basis for that account as has been claimed? Consider the evidence:

IS THE BIBLE REALLY THE WORD OF GOD?

The main Babylonian myth of creation says that, during an insurrection among the gods, the god Marduk took the goddess Tiamat and "split her like a shellfish into two parts"; half of her becoming the earth, and half becoming the sky. Taking the blood vessels of another god that was executed, the gods are said to have fashioned mankind. (Ancient Near Eastern Texts, by Pritchard, pp. 67, 68) Among the Egyptians, one myth said that the sun-god Ra created mankind from his tears.

Now, what does the Genesis account in the Bible say? First, it says, God created "the heavens and the earth." Then he proceeded to prepare the earth for human habitation. At the beginning of this activity he 'caused light to be' for the planet earth. Then he formed an expanse above the surface of the globe, with waters beneath the expanse and waters above the expanse. Next, dry land, continents and other land masses, appeared above the surface of the global sea, and vegetation and fruitful trees were made to grow. Following this, 'luminaries came to be in the expanse,' to mark off seasons, days and years. Then came the creation of marine life and of winged creatures. After this, land animals were made, and finally God formed man from the dust of the ground.—Genesis 1:1-28; 2:7.

Compare this account with the myths referred to before. How reasonable is it to claim that the Genesis account is based on those myths? Says Professor J. A. Thompson: "It [the Genesis account] is a lofty, dignified statement devoid of those coarser elements that are to be found in the non-biblical creation stories."4 Really, comparing the Genesis account with these myths is like comparing a palace with a pigsty.

True, both structures have walls, but there the similarity ends.

And what about the shape of the earth? Does the Bible agree with any of the myths of the Middle Ages, saying that the earth is flat? Or does it include myths such as the one from an ancient tribe of India which represented the earth as resting on the backs of elephants that stood on a huge turtle that rested on a cobra? By no means. Of God, the Bible long ago said:

"He is stretching out the north over the empty place, hanging the earth upon nothing" "To whom can you people liken God? . . . [He] is dwelling above the circle of the earth."—Job 26:7; Isaiah 40:18, 22.

Though the Bible writers had not circled the earth in a spacecraft or viewed it from the vicinity of the moon, yet their description was completely accurate, free from the influence of ancient mythology.

Earth as viewed by astronauts circling the moon. It could be seen that, as the Bible said thousands of years ago, the earth is round and hangs "upon nothing."

THE ORIGIN OF THE UNIVERSE

But what about scientific discoveries concerning the origin of the universe? Have they not proved the Genesis account to be outdated and inaccurate? Some persons think so and some scientists at least intimate that. For example, the noted British astronomer Fred Hoyle, in his book The Nature of the Universe (called by some "the Bible in its field"), says:

"I think it can hardly be denied that the cosmology [study of the universe] of the ancient Hebrews is only the merest daub compared with the sweeping grandeur of the picture revealed by modern science. . . . it is quite clear that they were completely ignorant of many matters that seem commonplace to us."—1960, p. 137.

Obviously, modern astronomers have certain technical advantages over Moses, who recorded the Genesis account. That is, they have huge telescopes with 100- and 200-inch focusing mirrors and radio telescopes that "see" even farther than the light-receiving ones.

With all this equipment, what has modern science found out about the origin of the universe? Can they tell us anything that the Genesis account does not or that proves it to be wrong?

In plain words, eminent British astronomers F. D. Kahn and H. P. Palmer begin their 1967 book Quasars with this statement:

"We are almost completely ignorant about the early history of the Universe."

Can this be true? Surely scientists must have some idea about the origin of the universe. Yes, they do; in fact, they have three different ideas, popularly called the "Big Bang Theory," the "Steady State Theory," and the "Oscillating Theory."

\circ

Would you feel greater confidence in the Genesis account if it coincided with one of these modern theories, say the "Steady State Theory"? If so, how would your confidence have been affected by this news report from Science Digest of December 1965?

"British Astronomer Fred Hoyle, foremost proponent of the steady-state theory of the universe, has admitted that he may have been wrong for the last 20 years about how the universe began."

Then, would one of the other two theories perhaps be more reliable? Consider what scientists R. M. Harbeck and L. K. Johnson say of all three theories in their book Earth and Space Science:

"None is better than the others. You, the reader, can choose the one you like best, or you can reject them all."—1965, p. 224.

Actually the Genesis account goes far beyond the confused theories of twentieth-century science. How so? They do not come to grips with the major question: Where did the original matter or matter-producing energy come from to form the universe in the first place? But the Bible answers that question.

SOURCE OF ENERGY AND MATTER

Swedish physicist Hannes Alfven of the Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm comments that the proponents of the Big Bang Theory

Scientists admit: "We are almost completely ignorant about the early history of the Universe." "We don't know how the universe 'originally' arose."

"turn extremely vague when asked about what happened before the big bang. Sometimes they suggest that a prior universe existed. . . . But just as often we are led to believe that nothing prior existed." Putting the matter bluntly, he states:

"We don't know how the universe 'originally' arose, and perhaps we shall never know for sure." —The Worlds - Antinworlds, 1966, p. 3, 17, 18

Is it reasonable, then, to contend that the person who puts faith in God's creation of the universe as related in Genesis is credulous whereas the person who prefers some modern theory is scientific? Note this comment by science lecturer Allan Broms in his book Our Emerging Universe. Of the main advocate of the Steady State Theory, Broms says: "He does not tell us how this new matter comes into being, but asks us (at least for the time being) to take its gradual creation on faith (scientific faith, that is), which of course means that we will take it all back the instant any positive fact gives us the slightest excuse .

. . And when we look dubious over taking so much on faith, he properly reminds us that we ourselves have no way of explaining how matter otherwise came to be . . . and that we are taking the Big Bang [theory] itself very nearly on faith."—1961, p. 18.

Really it is a question of deciding whether to put faith in the record of the Bible, which has never had to be updated, or credulously to follow shifting human theories.

Interestingly, there seems to be one point on which most modern scientists agree. Following Einstein's equation, they hold that just as matter can be converted into energy, so energy can be converted into matter. If this is so, it would mean that an intelligent Source of tremendous energy would have no problem in producing a material universe. The Bible speaks of such a Source:

"Raise your eyes high up and see. Who has created these things? It is the One who is bringing forth the army of them even by number, all of whom he calls even by name. Due to the abundance of dynamic energy, he also being vigorous in power, not one of them is missing." -Isalah 40:26.

The Bible speaks of that One as Jehovah God. —Jeremiah 10:10-12.

THE SIX DAYS

What, then, about the age of the universe? Science Year of 1968 speaks of the "birth date of the chemical elements" as being "from 7 to 15 billion years ago." But does not the Genesis account say that, about six thousand years ago, the universe was created in just six days?

No, the six "days" of the Genesis account are used only in connection with the planet Earth, not the universe. The Bible does not say how long ago the material that makes up this planet came into existence. The six "days" relate only to the preparation of the already existing planet as a home for mankind. Just how much time passed between the "beginning" of the creation of the material universe as recounted in verse 1 and the start of the first "day" described in verses 3 and 4 is not stated. So, by its very silence on when the "beginning" took place, the Bible allows for present estimates of the age of the universe or for any future revisions of such estimates.

"Nevertheless," some may say, "even the idea of this planet passing from a 'formil and waste' condition to its present form with continents, forests, plants, animals and men, all in just six twenty-four-hour days—this still is incredible!" But where does the Genesis account say that the six days were twenty-four hours each? Though some religious groups teach this, the Genesis account does not say it. You yourself use the expression "day" in a broad sense when you speak of your "grandfather's day." Likewise, the Bible often uses the word "day" in a broad sense. —Genesis 2:4.

Keep in mind that the works spoken of in the first chapter of Genesis are those of God, not of man. Man did not come into existence until the end of the period discussed. So, is it not reasonable that the time periods mentioned here are those of God, instead of those used by men? Are God's "days" of work controlled by the rotation of this globe? Obviously not. Of God, the Bible says: "One day is with Jehovah as a thousand years and a thousand years as one day."

(2 Peter 3:8) And that even to God a "day" can have more than one meaning is seen when comparing this text with Psalm 90:4, which says: "A thousand years are in your eyes [not a full day] but . . . as a watch during the night."

So it is plain that the word "day" can be used to refer to a twenty-four-hour day, a person's lifetime, 1,000 years or even longer. In fact, on the basis of the length of the seventh "day," there is reason to believe that each creative period or "day" was 7,000 years in length.

EARTH'S EARLIEST HISTORY

Should we look to modern science to establish the correctness of the Genesis account of the earliest stages of earth's history? No, and for very good reasons. Modern science is still trying to find its own explanations for these very matters. As geophysicist Arthur Beiser says:

"While knowledge of the earth's size and shape is as ancient as Greek geometry and as modern as [Cape Kennedy's] rockets, man's understanding of the planet's origin—and its exact composition—is notoriously imprecise. . . . [How] continents came into being . . . is one of the most difficult questions that one can ask about the earth, . . . There are many more hypotheses than there are continents—nearly as many as there are geologists."75

This uncertainty is stated even more frankly by Professor J. H. F. Umbgrove, who says:

"But why should we not enter [this field] if everyone who wants to join us in our geopotential expedition into the unknown realm of the earth's early infancy is warned at the beginning that probably not a single step can be placed on solid ground?"

As with the origin of the universe, so too with earth's early history, twentieth-century science is still groping in the dark.

How, then, can its theories qualify as a standard by which to measure the accuracy of the Genesis account?

True, the Genesis account of creation is very simple. Does that weaken it in your eyes, making you feel that it it is "unscientific"? It should not. Why not? Because even modern scientists are obliged to recognize the value and strength of simplicity. The book Earth's Shifting Crust says that in Einstein's philosophy of science "simplicity was a prime consideration." The Genesis account is notable for its simplicity and yet for its providing a suitable answer to the major questions of mankind.

Remember, too, that knowledge is continually increasing, and new discoveries cause drastic changes in scientific views once thought to be final. As professor and natural scientist Merritt Stanley Congdon cautions:

"Science is tested knowledge, but it is still subject to human vagaries, illusions and inaccuracies. . . . It begins and ends with probability, not certainty. . . . There is no finality in scientific inferences. The scientist says: 'Up to the present, the facts are thus and so.'"

With this in mind, let us consider some of the criticisms raised against the Genesis account.

WHAT TOOK PLACE ON DAYS ONE AND FOUR

A frequent objection is that the Genesis account says God produced light on the "first day" but that it was not until the "fourth day" that God made the sun, moon and stars. (Genesis 1:3-5, 14-19) How can this be explained?

First, we need to get the whole picture there presented. Neither "day" deals with the actual creation of the sun, moon and stars.

The Hebrew word for "make" (wa-sah) used with regard to the fourth "day," is not the same as the word for "create" (ba-ra) used in verses 1, 21 and 27. Genesis 1:1 shows that the "heavens," which include the sun, moon and stars (compare Psalm 8:3; 19:1-4), were already created before the "first day" even began. Yet, prior to the "first day" the earth itself was in darkness. (Genesis 1:2) How could this be, since the sun was there and the earth was revolving around it?

The Bible does not state what prevented the sun's rays from reaching the planet at that point. It is known that within the Milky Way, the galaxy in which our solar system operates, there are dark regions caused by cosmic dust and perhaps gases ("space smog") that only radio telescopes can penetrate. Whatever the cause of the darkness enshrouding the earth prior to the "first day" or preparatory period, that "day" saw the cause removed. Now, instead of being in total darkness, the spinning planet always had one-half bathed in light while the other half was in darkness.

What, then, happened on the "fourth day"? Remember that between the "first day" and the "fourth day" a new factor entered the picture. During the second creative period the "expanse" of atmosphere came into existence. The record shows that this expanse, in which winged creatures would later fly, resulted from a dividing or separating of the waters, some now lying beneath the expanse and other waters being above the expanse. Note that it was in this expanse that the luminaries 'came to be' on the "fourth day." (Genesis 1:6-8, 20) How did this happen?

That there were 'waters above the expanse' is evidently the key to understanding the matter. These waters likely blocked the entry of light rays within the expanse. In fact, the book of Job, in describing the earth's formation, at one point speaks of it as having "the cloud as its garment and thick gloom as its swaddling band."—Job 38:4-9.

To illustrate: One planet in our solar system, Venus, is completely blanketed by an unbroken layer of clouds. Even with their powerful telescopes, astronomers have never seen its surface. Though Earth's "swaddling band" may have been of different composition, the present state of Venus at least illustrates what may have been the condition of its neighbor planet Earth up until the "fourth day."

One thing is certain: A notable change took place in that fourth period. We have no way of knowing exactly what processes were involved. The Bible does not state. Scientists cannot tell us. But now God evidently caused the "swaddling band" high above the earth to become translucent, thus dispelling the darkness beneath. So, by God's creative force the sun, moon and stars were now "made" to be visible from within the earth's atmosphere, "to shine upon the earth." (Genesis 1:15) Man, when later created, would be able to use them in measuring time. Now sunrise and sunset would provide a demarcation between day and night. The lunar phases would mark off the months. The sun's position in the sky, as it seemed to move toward the south or toward the north, would mark off the seasons and years.

VEGETATION ON THE "THIRD DAY"

On the third creative "day," following the appearance of the land areas and the formation of seas, the Creator caused the earth "to put forth grass, vegetation bearing seed according to its kind and trees yielding fruit, the seed of which is in it according to its kind."—Genesis 1:9-13.

The question is raised: How could this vegetation grow and survive for thousands of years until the coming of the "fourth day" and the appearance of the sun? What about photosynthesis, that is, the process by which the green substance in plants called chlorophyll reacts to light and converts water and carbon dioxide into life-sustaining food? Is the appearance of vegetation on the third creative period out of order?

Here again it is evident that men cannot say with any certainty what was or was not possible at that early period of earth's history. Consider a report from Science News Letter of August 25, 1962, under the headline "Lightless Photosynthesis." After showing that biochemists Kunio Tagawa and Daniel Armon succeeded in 'eliminating the need for light in a key energy-transforming reaction of the photosynthetic process' in spinach leaves—"a feat that would have been considered impossible under the theories . . . that prevailed until recent years"—the article states:

"In place of light, they supplied the initial energy kick' with hydrogen gas, known to be a powerful electron supplier."

"The result was the production of reduced pyridine nucleotide by chloroplasts (that is, the build-up of a key store of chemical energy) entirely in the dark."

This experiment only involved causing a "portion of the primary photochemical act without light." It may not coincide with or even approximate what the Creator accomplished during the third creative period. Yet it illustrates the point that things often called "impossible" turn out to be possible—when certain previously unknown factors are brought into action. Who can say what the atmospheric conditions on earth were at the time vegetation was brought forth or what forces were then at work? How wise is it to deny the correctness of the Genesis account when there are so many things that are not known? As Russian-born biochemist and physicist Eugene Rabinowitch stated:

"In photosynthesis, we are like travelers in an unknown country around whom the early morning fog slowly begins to rise, vaguely revealing the outlines of the landscape."8

The horizon of human knowledge will continue to widen. Already it has shown many critics of the Bible to have been too narrow in their viewpoint.

So, too, with pollination. The fact that the creation of vegetation (on the "third day") evidently preceded the creation of insects is no reason for doubting the truthfulness of the Bible account. There are numerous ways in which plants may be pollinated. Note the following by Professor J. D. Meeuse in the 1961 publication The Story of Pollination:

"First of all, in spite of Darwin's famous dictum (Nature tells us in the most emphatic way that she abhors perpetual self-fertilization), it is a fact that successful self-fertilization occurs with great regularity in a large number of plants, including important agricultural species such as peas. There is pollination by the wind in grasses, evergreens, and various spring-flowering deciduous trees.

In a few cases, water acts as the helper, and finally there are some very exceptional cases where no pollination of any sort is required."—P. 209.

Additionally, he shows that even within the same family of trees, including maples, oaks and chestnuts, one variety may be wind-pollinated while others are insect-pollinated. Who knows which varieties were the earliest ones to exist? And why should we doubt that the One who created the vegetation in all its amazing diversity could also see to it that, before the appearance of insects, the plants were pollinated in one of the above ways or in still other ways that men have not yet discovered?

One decisive factor should not be overlooked. The Genesis account shows that the spirit or active force of God was operating in a marvelous variety of ways during those creative days. —Genesis 1:2.

GENESIS AND THE GEOLOGISTS' "RECORD OF THE ROCKS"

After mentioning the bringing forth of vegetation and the making of the celestial bodies visible, the Genesis account describes the creation of marine creatures, birds and land animals on the fifth and sixth "days."—Genesis 1:20-25.

Even though the Bible allows thousands of years for these creative "days," this will not satisfy some persons. They have read statements by geologists and others that earthly life, both vegetable and animal, has been in existence for hundreds of millions of years. What about this? What is the so-called "record of the rocks" that supposedly proves this claim?

The average person, reading a book on geology, may be mystified and even impressed by strange terms such as Cambrian, Devonian and Carboniferous.

He may not realize that these periods so named, as well as the others referred to by geologists, are basically the product of human interpretations. Note what a university professor of geology states in the textbook Outlines of Geology:

"Much of the information contained in this book is within the well-lighted zone of proved fact. But no one ought to embark upon a study of even the elements of geology without realizing that we quickly pass from fact into a twilight zone of inference in which we can say, not 'This is true,' but only 'Probably this is true,' and that thence we pass into a region of darkness lit here and there by a guess, by speculation. Speculation is a legitimate . . . thought process just as long as the thinker fully realizes that he is only speculating. But when he speculates, and at the same time persuades himself (and also, alas, his listeners) that he is drawing sound inferences, then knowledge does not progress. The reader of this book should remember at every page . . . that 'We do not know' must be said or implied at nearly every turn, and finally that what we do not know at present would fill an indefinite number of volumes.'—1949, p. 12.

Consider, then, some of the evidence about the "record of the rocks." When confronted with a geologists' chart of the earth's time periods one might think that the geologists find such a record practically anywhere they dig down deep enough. Is that so? By no means! The book The Earth Our Home says:

"The record of the rocks is confused and broken, with many parts of it missing altogether."—1957, p. 30.

Another science publication tells us:

"There is no single place on the earth where all the rocks in this series can be found. In any one place, some of them have been destroyed.

Geologists studied the best examples of rocks in many places. Then, after long and patient work, they pieced the series of rocks together.[70]

Since geologists have never found a complete series, it is obvious that they decided the order in which to place the rocks gathered from many places and they also assigned the time they thought best to allow for each period. So, the millions of years that each of these geological periods is supposed to cover are arbitrary figures of the geologists. How did they arrive at them? Primarily by the length of time they calculated would be necessary to conform to the theory of evolution.*

Recently, however, geologists claim that new dating methods confirm their estimates of millions of years for certain geological periods. These methods use certain elements such as radiocarbon, radioactive potassium, uranium and thorium, which give off radioactive particles. Scientists measure the amount of radioactive material and the product resulting from its "decay" or loss of radioactivity. Then they compare this with what is believed to be its rate of "decay." Assuming that nothing has disturbed this substance since it was formed and that the "decay" rate has always been consistent, they use this information to calculate the age of the substance in which the radioactive material is found. How reliable are such radioactive "clocks"?

To measure time there must be a starting point, a "zero point" from which the clock begins to measure.

Showing the need for determining the original concentration of such radioactive material to be able to ascertain when the clock was at zero, astronomer Allan R. Sandage in Science Year of 1968 says:

"We know the amounts of these elements in the universe today. We can read the time if we can find how these elements formed, for we can then estimate how much of each was made." -P. 64.

Can scientists determine this key point? Allan Sandage says, No. Why? "Because no astrophysicist was present at their creation." And Professor of Metallurgy Melvin A. Cook states:

"Unfortunately, one may only guess these concentrations [of radioactive materials], and the age results thus obtained can be no better than this guess."10

Besides this guesswork in its starting point, what if the clock disagreed with other clocks and even showed signs of damage in its inner works? Note what the book How Old Is the Earth? says of the radioactive-decay time measurements:

"The drawback with the [radioactive-decay] method is the lack of general distribution of radioactive minerals and the fact that these radioactive minerals have suffered such a large amount of radiation damage that they frequently show ages that are not concordant." -1559, p. 105.

It is not surprising, then, that the radioactive decay method of dating has produced erroneous results. As an example of the confusion resulting from the use of this damaged "clock," a special report from Romania to the New York Times, March 26, 1967, stated: "For nearly 50 years, the dating of the Vinea culture has been an open controversy among anthropologists.

A radiocarbon test of burnt wood splinters from the Vinea area in 1953-54 indicated that they dated from about 4100 B.C. But this date contradicted the evidence of rock strata, which suggested that the culture dated from about 2900 B.C."

And in other instances, possible errors of thousands of years are acknowledged.

Is a dating method that can be thousands of years in error and that starts with guesswork a sound basis for doubting the accuracy of the Genesis account? Would you be inclined to put trust in a clock if you were not certain that it had been set at the right time and if you knew that its gears were damaged?

ADAM AND EVE

Perhaps no part of the Genesis account has come under more attack than the part relating to the creation of the first man and woman in the Garden of Eden:

"And God proceeded to create the man in his image, in God's image he created him; male and female he created them."—Genesis 1:27; 2:8.

What is necessary to satisfy a person as to the truthfulness of the account concerning Adam and Eve? Does it require a copy of the Eden Times dated 4026 B.C.E. with a photograph of the act of creation in process? This, of course, will never be supplied. But what objection to the Bible account could a reasonable person have? Is there basis for doubting that there ever was an original human pair? Is belief in an original pair "unscientific"?

For answer, note this from a publication printed in Paris by the Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization of the United Nations:

"All of us, if we went back far enough, hundreds of generations, would arrive at the same place—the base of the human family tree with the first Homo sapiens. . . . Our common ancestor could as well be called Adam, which also means man in Hebrew, for the familiar Biblical story foreshadowed the evidence of science that present men derive from a common stock."11

And another scientific publication, The Races of Mankind, says:

"The Bible story of Adam and Eve, father and mother of the whole human race, told centuries ago the same truth that science has shown today: that all the peoples of the earth are a single family and have a common origin."—1951, pp. 3, 4.

What has brought the scientists to such conclusions? Anthropologist M. F. Ashley Montagu explains:

"All varieties of man belong to the same species and have the same remote ancestry. This is a conclusion to which all the relevant evidence of comparative anatomy, paleontology, serology, and genetics, points. On genetic grounds alone it is virtually impossible to conceive of the varieties of man as having originated separately."12

The like structure of humans of all races and the fact that they can all intermarry and produce children point to our having descended from an original human pair, male and female. Why, then, should we balk at calling these first ancestors Adam and Eve?

The creation of the first woman as recorded in Genesis has been scoffed at by some. The account states that, while Adam slept, God took one of his ribs and "proceeded to build the rib that he had taken from the man into a woman and to bring her to the man."

(Genesis 2:21, 22) Some persons may refuse to believe this.

All humans descended from Adam and Eve, says the Bible. "All the peoples of the earth are a single family and have a common origin," scientists acknowledge.

Yet they will read with great interest and seriousness an article such as appeared in Life magazine of September 10, 1965.

It dealt with experiments on plant cells by biologists, and contained the following statement:

"They [the biologists] expect similar breakthroughs with animal cells. It is thus not absurd to imagine the day when a single tiny cell taken from the skin of the world's greatest genius might be grown into a second individual who is in every respect identical." -P. 72.

So, some find more plausible a scientist's making a man or woman from even a single cell than for God to produce a woman from a rib. This suggests that, for such persons, the Genesis account would be more "acceptable" if the words "human scientist" were substituted for the word "God."

THE EVENTS IN EDEN

In reading the remainder of the account of the events in the Garden of Eden, one may again note its simplicity. But we have seen that simplicity is no reason for doubting the account's truthfulness. Most important, the account explains certain things that otherwise would be unexplainable.

No matter who we are, no matter where we live on this planet, we are all faced with the evidence that we have a common ancestry. The grand truth found in Genesis was restated by the apostle Paul in Athens, Greece, that God "made out of one man every nation of men, to dwell upon the entire surface of the earth." (Acts 17:26) This truth provides a solid basis for the long-desired goal of a united family of all nations and races.

Another self-evident fact that confronts us is the imperfection inherent in all humankind. This produces, not only sickness, aging and death, but also wrong acts, difficulties and errors; it contributes to crime, immorality and bloodshed. How did this come to be? Only the simple account of Genesis gives the explanation. It is worthy of your thoughtful reading.

NO HALFWAY ACCEPTANCE POSSIBLE

Is it necessary to believe the entire Genesis account in order to accept the Bible as the inspired Word of God? Or can one pick and choose according to his personal preference and ideas? The latter attitude seems to be the one preferred by an ever-increasing number of so-called "Christian" clergymen. As an example, after the American astronauts read portions from the book of Genesis during the first successful trip around the moon, what did the Episcopalian ministers of two of the men say? They quickly denied that the Genesis account is factual, one minister calling it a "myth."13

In contrast, Christ Jesus clearly accepted as fact the Bible account of Genesis. To religious critics in the first century, Jesus said:

"Did you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and his mother and will stick to his wife, and the two will be one flesh?' So that they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore, what God has yoked together let no man put apart."—Matthew 19:4-6; Genesis 1:27; 2:24.

The Bible writer Luke, who states that he "traced all things . . . with accuracy," gives Jesus' ancestry from his own day back to Adam.

If the Genesis account is a myth, then just where, between Jesus and Adam, did the genealogy become mythical?—Luke 1:1-4; 8:23-38.

Further, Jude, the half brother of Jesus Christ, describes Enoch as "the seventh man in line from Adam." (Jude 14) What logic does it make to refer to any man as "the seventh" in line, if the starting point for the line is only a myth?

The learned apostle Paul did not doubt the accuracy of the Genesis account concerning Adam and the origin of sin. He states: "Through one man sin entered into the world and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men because they had all sinned—. Nevertheless, death ruled as king from Adam down to Moses, even over those who had not sinned after the likeness of the transgression by Adam." (Romans 5:12, 14) It is on this basis that the ransom sacrifice of Jesus Christ is stated to be effective on behalf of all mankind as descendants of Adam.

Those who reject the Genesis account may not realize that by so doing they reject Christianity. Why? Because the ransom sacrifice of Jesus Christ became necessary as a result of what Adam himself did. Whoever accepts the ransom sacrifice of Jesus Christ must also believe that the Genesis account is fact, because the one is the basis for the other. No halfway acceptance is possible.

So what does the evidence show? That there is every reason to accept the Genesis account of creation as fact. While it is at odds with certain theories, it harmonizes with proved scientific fact. It reaches out far beyond details of limited value and provides answers to questions of life that are of greatest concern to all of us.

Was There

an Earth-wide Flood?

BY THE days of Noah, the Bible record says, the earth had become "full of violence," as is also true of our day. What resulted?

The Bible relates that God informed Noah, "because all flesh had ruined its way on the earth," he would wipe out that violent world of mankind by a flood. Noah was to build a spacious ark for the saving of his household and all the various kinds of land animals and birds. Then, at God's command, the floodwaters fell, covering even the highest mountains. Of mankind, only those in the ark survived. (Genesis 6:12; 13; 7:1-24) Did these things really happen? There is strong evidence that they did.

Some persons will accept this account only if the Flood is viewed as merely a local one. But that is not what the Bible says. If the Flood had been local, why would not God simply have told Noah to move to another locality? Why all the labor of building a large ark for survival? If the Flood did not cover all the earth, why bring animals and birds into the ark to preserve all the different kinds? Animals elsewhere could have survived. And the birds could have easily escaped by flying to another area. So we must face the fact that to believe this account means accepting that there was a global flood.

THE FLOODWATERS

—FROM WHERE AND TO WHERE?

Of course, you may wonder where such a vast amount of water could come from. The Genesis account states that during the second creative period or "day," when the earth's atmospheric "expanse" was formed, there were 'waters beneath the expanse' and 'waters above the expanse.' (Genesis 1:6, 7) The waters "beneath" were those already on earth. The waters "above" were huge quantities of moisture suspended high above the earth, forming a "vast watery deep." These waters fell in Noah's day.—Genesis 7:11, 12.

In the book The Genesis Flood (pages 240, 241), coauthor Professor Henry M. Morris of the Virginia Polytechnic Institute examines the scientific aspect of such a water canopy above the earth. He says:

"The region above about 80 miles is very hot, over 100\circ F and possibly rising to 3000\circ F, and is in fact called the thermosphere for this reason. High temperature, of course, is the chief requisite for retaining a large quantity of water vapor. Furthermore, it is known that water vapor is substantially lighter than air."

Of course, no person today can know what the composition or nature of the upper atmosphere was in the ancient past. However, as Professor Morris goes on to say:

"There is thus nothing physically impossible about the concept of a vast thermal vapor blanket once existing in the upper atmosphere."

The Bible says that, when the suspended waters fell, they "overwhelmed the earth so greatly that all the tall mountains that were under the whole heavens came to be covered.

Up to fifteen cubits [about twenty-two feet] the waters overwhelmed them."—Genesis 7:19, 20.

Do you find this difficult to conceive? Living on land as most of us do, it may seem so. But we should not forget that, in its present state, 71 percent of the earth's surface is covered by water. Only 29 percent is land surface. Also, did you realize that, while the average height of the land surface is only one-half mile above sea level, the average depth of all the oceans is two and a half miles? Earth is truly a watery planet. In fact, The Sea, a Life Nature Library publication (Danish edition), says:

"If all the irregularities on the earth's surface were to be smoothed out, both above and below the water, so that there were no dents or holes anywhere, no land would show at all. The ocean would cover the entire globe to a depth of 8,000 feet."

Is it possible that the earth's surface was at one time smoother or more regular than at present? Is it possible that high mountain ranges, such as the five-mile-high Himalayas, the Alps, the Andes, and the Rocky Mountains, were not always so high? Yes. It is.

The magazine The Scientific Monthly, for example, expresses the belief that in earth's earlier days "there were no high mount-

'If earth's surface were smoothed out, water would cover the entire globe to a depth of 8,000 feet' tains forming physical or climatic barriers."14 Abundant evidence can be found of marked changes in the earth's surface.

Even in recent times sharp adjustments of land levels have taken place. As an example, in 1950 a powerful earthquake in the region of Assam, India, changed the form of entire mountain chains in the eastern Himalayas. So, when the Bible says that the floodwaters covered the highest mountains, we are not to think of water sufficient to cover Mount Everest today.

What about the ocean depths? May they also have undergone changes? There is evidence that they have. For example, the book The Genesis Flood says:

"In the past decade have been discovered great numbers of 'seamounts', which are nothing but drowned islands out in the middle of the ocean. . . . they give abundant evidence of having once been above the surface."—1967, pp. 124, 125.

Deposits of corals that grow only in shallow water have been found on deeply submerged undersea ranges. Commenting on this, marine geologist Edwin L. Hamilton writes in The Scientific Monthly:

"For some reason that is not known, probably having to do with [gravitational pressure] adjustment or subcrustal forces, the whole great undersea range sand and, initially, sank fast enough to kill the reef coral when the coral dropped below its life zone in the upper waters."15

So, if the pre-Flood mountains were indeed lower and the ocean basins not as deep, the waters now on earth could certainly account for a global flood. And what caused the floodwaters thereafter to 'progressively recede' as the Genesis account relates? A deepening or sinking of the ocean floors, along with a rising of the land surfaces, evidently had that effect.—Compare Psalm 104:6-8.

A CHANGE IN CLIMATE

Since a globe-encircling water canopy would have caused a hothouse state reaching even to the polar regions, the falling of this water in an earth-wide flood should have produced a drastic change in earth's climate. Is there any evidence that there has been such a drastic change? Yes, there is. And the change is so striking that, without the Bible, geologists find themselves very hard pressed to explain it.

Various scientific publications present evidence that there was once an earth-wide warm climate. As an example, French scholar Henri Decugis, in The Degeneration of the Living World, says:

{"text": "[The earth once] enjoyed a uniformly warm and wet climate in every latitude. . . Islands and continents were covered with a prodigious luxuriant vegetation of continuous growth. . . There was, at the beginning, but a slight difference in the temperatures of summer and winter. Fig-trees have been unearthed in Greenland in latitude 70° North and palms in Siberia."},-1941, pp. 12, 13.

So there is evidence of what we might expect would result from the falling of a water canopy in a global flood—a drastic change in climate.

VAST, SUDDEN DESTRUCTION

Besides a change in climate, we would also naturally expect the Flood to produce earth-wide evidence of a vast, sudden destruction. Is there such evidence? Yes, and it is found, not in just one locality, but throughout the earth.

Excavations have uncovered the bones and carcasses of countless thousands of animals buried together.

These are often from animals that would not normally herd together. The circumstances in which they are found indicate that they were all killed at the same time and then swept together by a gigantic force.

Concerning such excavations in Alaska, Professor F. C. Hibben states:

"There is evidence of atmospheric disturbances of unparalleled violence. Mammoth and bison alike were torn and twisted as though by a cosmic hand in Godly rage. . . . The animals were simply torn apart and scattered over the landscape like things of straw and string, even though some of them weighed several tons."10

French writer François Derrey refers to this in his book La Terre Cette Inconnue and adds:

"The pits of Alaska are not unique. All over the world there have been found channel houses of this nature, piled high with the broken remains of thousands of animals."

Even more amazing is the fact that carcasses of tens of thousands of animals unearthed in the extremely cold north are of types that do not normally live in cold regions. Some were frozen solid and so well preserved that the flesh, when thawed after thousands of years, could be eaten. Green grass and flowers, fully preserved, have been found in such animals' stomachs and between their teeth. Even fruit trees were discovered in these locations, the leaves and fruit perfectly preserved by sudden freezing. It is plain that these trees were growing and the animals were grazing in a warm climate when a sudden catastrophe struck.

The evidence is just what one would expect to result from the fall of a vast insulating moisture blanket.

The polar regions were suddenly plunged into a deep freeze. Animals in or near those regions were trapped and frozen solid. Creatures overtaken elsewhere were buried in great numbers under earth and debris. Neither natural death, nor drowning by ordinary means, nor death by disease can satisfactorily explain all this evidence. But an earth-wide flood accompanied by a drastic change in climate can.

UNIVERSAL FLOOD TRADITIONS

We would expect that the gigantic catastrophe of an earth-wide flood would be long remembered by mankind. Other than the Bible record, is there any evidence that this was so?

Yes, in all parts of the earth there are people with traditions of a great flood, one that drowned all but a select few. As the book Target: Earth states:

"In the ordinary experience of man floods are not of such great or of such wide spread occurrence that he would generate a story of an overwhelming, all-exterminating flood. . . . Why then should practically all races of men have this legend of a great deluge? Why should people who lived far from the ocean in dry highland country such as central Mexico or central Asia have a legend of a flood? ...

"If universal deluge had not been an actuality, then some races would have had their wicked ancestors being eliminated by awesome volcanic eruptions, great blizzards, drought. . . . Thus the universality of the deluge story is one of the best arguments for its truth.

"Any of these legends, taken by itself, might be brushed aside as the working of a vivid human imagination, but . . . taken together, from the world-wide aspect, . . . they become well-nigh incontrovertible."—1953, pp. 239, 253.

COULD THE ARK

HAVE HELD ALL THOSE ANIMALS?

Since the Bible says that Noah brought some of all the various kinds of land animals and flying creatures into the ark, some persons have asked, "How could there possibly have been room for all those animals?"

According to the Bible's description, the ark was a great floating chest or box, having no prow or stern. It did not need these, for it was designed only to float on top of the water. Its size was 300 cubits long, 50 cubits wide and 30 cubits high. A cubit is estimated as from 17.5 to 24 inches long. On the basis of the lower figure, the ark would have been 437 feet 6 inches long, 72 feet 11 inches wide and 43 feet.9 inches high. Only in recent years have ships been built larger. The ark had lower, second and third stories. —Genesis 6:14-16.

If we allow 100,000 cubic feet of space for deck floors and other inside parts, there still remain nearly 1,300,000 cubic feet of usable space. This is equal to the carrying capacity of ten freight trains of about forty-eight American stockcars each!

Also, investigation reveals that, of some 3,000 "species" of land mammals classified by zoologists, only about 300 include any that are larger than a horse, whereas some 2,200 are no larger than a rabbit.17 Marine mammals such as the huge whales and dolphins would be no problem, as they would have remained outside the ark. So Noah had relatively few large animals to care for.

Another key factor to keep in mind is that the present classification scientists call "species"

Not all varieties of animals needed to be in the ark. All interfertile types of the dog family, for example, could have come from just one pair.

is not the same as the Bible "kinds" that Noah took into the ark. (Genesis 6:20) For example, there are many "species" in the cat family, such as tigers, panthers, leopards, and so forth. But many of these could have descended from an original cat "kind." So, too, with the various types of dogs in the dog family. Thus, not all of today's animal varieties needed to be in the ark. Only representative numbers of each "kind" would be required. When the facts are analyzed, it becomes plain that the ark's capacity was sufficient to hold them all.

THE CHRISTIAN VIEWPOINT

There are, of course, those who doubt the account of the global flood. Strangely enough, among them are some professed Christian religious organizations.

For example, the latest Lutheran and Catholic encyclopedias say the Flood account was based on 'myth' or 'imagination'.118 But in view of all the evidence presented, is there any sound basis for objecting to this Bible account? Every point has been shown to be both reasonable and in accord with known facts.

Those who reject the account put themselves not only at odds with the actual evidence but also in conflict with Jesus Christ, the Founder of Christianity. Jesus spoke of "the days of Noah" and of the destruction of those who "took no note until the flood came and swept them all away." (Matthew 24:37-39) Jesus' apostle Paul accepted as fact the Bible's Flood account, for he wrote that Noah "constructed an ark for the saving of his household." (Hebrews 11:7) The apostle Peter said that God "kept Noah, a preacher of righteousness, safe with seven others when he brought a deluge upon a world of ungodly people."—2 Peter 2:5.

Is it wise to reject the Bible account of the Flood as nothing more than a myth, or to brush it aside as of little consequence? Is it being honest with oneself?

This is a point for serious consideration. Why? Because the Bible points to the Flood as a warning example of a greater destruction that is to come from God upon those who do not heed his Word, and it strongly warns that such destruction is due to come upon the generation now living on the earth. (Matthew 24:36-42; 2 Peter 3:5-7) If this warning truly is from God, will your attitude toward the Bible and your course of life cause you to be looked upon with favor when that day of accounting arrives?

The Bible and Ancient History

—Do They Agree?

HE book that is to measure up as the Word of God must contain the truth no matter what subject it discusses. When it mentions a certain town or place, it must have existed. When it speaks of a particular person, he must actually have lived. When it says a certain event took place, it must have happened. In its treatment of history, does the Bible show itself to be such a book?

In the last two centuries ancient history has been illuminated in marked degree by archaeological excavations. The tombs of the Pharaohs in Egypt, the magnificent palaces of the kings of Assyria, Babylon and Persia, as well as the ruins of hundreds of cities and towns, have yielded literally tons of material. What has this revealed as regards Biblical history?

NUMEROUS POINTS OF HARMONY

The geographical locations mentioned in the Bible have been found to be accurate time after time. Likely for this reason, Dr. Ze'ev Shremer, leader of a geological expedition in the Sinai Peninsula, stated:

"We have our own maps and geodetic survey plans, of course, but where the Bible and the maps are at odds, we opt for The Book."19 Names of persons previously found only in the Bible have also turned up in ancient inscriptions that have been unearthed.

…