The Unknown Genesis

The focus of this blog is always Genesis 1 & 2 and my translation and how it affects, or is affected by, science. I read a lot of science journals and blogs and ezines and I’m always looking to see where science is going and whether it continues to confirm – as it most usually does, or (very rarely) contradicts the translation I have proffered here and in the book “Hey Mom, What About Dinosaurs?”. When I find contradictions, I go back both to the Hebrew sources and the Scriptural translation I’ve made of them and see if I should rethink my work, or if Genesis should be a basis to judge the science. Usually it doesn’t matter, though I’ve a couple of examples I wish scientists could handle, and let Genesis clue them into a possibility or probability. But, of course, most of the time there is no contradiction, just more confirmation of the Genesis record.

Let me give you an example of each. The first is about mosses. In ScienceDaily, an easily accessible ezine, out of England, that collects and reports on the latest of nearly every kind of science. In “Moss Helps Chart the Conquest of Land by Plants”, they tell us about a project reported in Science (a not-so-accessible peer-reviewed weekly put out by the AAAS).

Mosses appear in Genesis 1:11. I make quite a bit of it because no one quite recognized this until I brought it out. Until my work, everyone accepted something like the NKJ version, “Let the earth bring forth grass”, or the NAS, “Let the earth sprout vegetation” - which is better but still misses the idea that it was a category (1) in a sequence of 3: (a) simple plants such as algae and mosses, etc, (b) grasses and other seed-bearing plants, and (c) fruit-bearing woody plants), rather than just “plants”, and then parenthetically mentioning seed-bearing and fruit-bearing sorts. Critics, like scientists and scoffers of the Bible prefer the KJV/NKY version, of course, because it actually lists “grass” as first, thus showing just how off the Bible is, because science has shown grass is a sophisticated/advanced plant type that appeared much later, after major historical and/or evolutionary progress amongst plants. You can read all that, and my refutation of it, in Chapter Three of “Hey Mom, What About Dinosaurs?”

If you read the ScienceDaily article, you’ll learn a few things. First, of course, confirmation that mosses are most likely the pioneers of land life. The scientists, here, are interested in identifying and understanding the genetics and biology that allow mosses to survive both very wet and very dry. They say its a pretty complex genetic system, in both DNA and RNA design/functions. It looks like, to them, that the mosses pioneered an ability to survive dessication and passed it on to flowering plants, but only their seeds. Fascinating. But as for me, I’m especially impressed to see that mosses, “simple plants”, came with such complexity and well-developed genetic software as early as 480 million years ago, and get this – in the order Genesis said. So, this is a “Science backs up Genesis”!

The next example comes from another ScienceDaily article, “Bird-from-Dinosaur Theory of Evolution Challenged: Was It the Other Way Around?” (Source: Proceedings of the National Academy of the Sciences) Anything to do with dinosaurs is huge. Everyone, young and old, every ethnic group, is fascinated by dinosaurs - and critics have long had a field day scornfully pointing out the Bible seems oblivious of them. Of course, I blew that out of the water – I just wish more people would read my book and blogs so they would know it!

Almost as big a deal, for anyone knowledgeable of such things, is the fact scientists have long believed, and adduced a lot of paleontological evidence, that birds came after – perhaps even evolved from – dinosaurs. So its no small matter that I show in my work that Genesis talks about birds just after it does about dinosaurs. (See Chapter Four of “Hey Mom, What About Dinosaurs?”) The Bible doesn’t say birds “evolved from”, of course. It doesn’t say anything about the way in which life and its myriad of forms came to be, of how God created. It simply says He was the Author of life, and supplies a historical outline - without timescales or and dates – of the most significant forms (as far as we, mankind, are concerned) of life.

As you can tell from the title of the article, some are now hypothesizing that dinosaurs came (evolved) from birds. They have some interesting evidences. And who can tell, from fossils at least 60 to 70 million years old? Who knows, if (as they say) “Small animals such as velociraptor that generally have been thought to be dinosaurs are more likely flightless birds”. Remember Jurassic Park? Wouldn’t that contradict the movie! Whatever, they really have nothing conclusive. The best I can offer is to agree with them that “We’re finally breaking out of the conventional wisdom of the last 20 years, which insisted that birds evolved from dinosaurs and that the debate is all over and done with.” (Does that sound familiar?)

But what about Genesis? I would say Genesis tends to support the traditional “first dinos, then birds” but should scientists decide this reverse evolutionary history is right, there’s still no real conflict with Genesis. First, Genesis actually speaks about birds that have feathers and fly, not flightless “birds”. And the fact that only after the dinos are gone do birds (and mammals, for that matter) become well established or preeminent still leaves Genesis’ history in fine shape. Other scientists suggest that dinos and birds have a common ancestor rather than a more linear connection. Again, that too is fine with the Genesis account. So, in this case, there’s nothing here that requires any new work on my translation of Genesis 1 and 2. Its a tie (or bye?).

When I taught various applications of the evolution paradigm at a couple of universities, I would teach the danger of assuming evolution. The danger was ad hoc and post hoc interpretation and explanation of a biological history or current biological form/design. The danger was rationalization instead of science, of teleology: that the end explains the beginning and process, that the theory explains and confirms the hypothesis. That’s how evolution came to be “a fact” instead of a theory, and scientific research became little more than fleshing out the story of Creation and extolling the beauty of evolution as Creator. All this is exactly what critics say about Intelligent Design. And they were pretty much on much of the time. But what is good for the goose must surely be good for the gander.

When I critiqued evolution articles and books, and research and authors, for that sort of language and reasoning I was keeping biology and anthropology honest, and most people in the field agreed. And truthfully, error of that sort remained rare in evolutionary science but not so much in Intelligent Design. I think that sort of error contributed much to the decline in standing which Intelligent Design has suffered in the past couple of years, and why the “Evolutionists” have won essentially every major contest in courts and school boards and politics in general. It might be hard for the proponents of Intelligent Design to admit they’ve lost enough battles that many on both sides think the war is over, I think most of the science and anti-ID community are confident they’ve won. Certainly their hackles and anxieties are way down today compared to, say, the time of the Dover trial.

Along with their hackles, however, I fear they’ve also dropped their guard against sloppy language and thinking, and a lot of that ad hoc and post hoc and teleological garbage is sneaking back into the picture. And in so doing, the science of evolution is beginning to sound like many researchers are not so anti Intelligent Design. Like those studying evolutionary biological topics, at least, are open to, or leaning towards accepting the idea that evolution of life has had some hand of a higher intelligence guiding or directing or influencing the flow of creation!

I’ve always seen some of this and figured it was, as I’ve said, sloppy thinking or speaking. But in recent times its gotten to be more than just a rare thing, and not just error by junior or less – say, bright? - scientists. To give you an idea of what I’m talking about, here are three examples I came across in one brief session reading online reports.<.h3>

The first:

“Smoke plays an intriguing role in promoting the germination of seeds of many species following a fire,” Johannes Van Staden and colleagues point out in the report (in ACS’s Journal of Natural Products) They previously discovered a chemical compound in smoke from burning plants that promotes seed germination….
In their new research, the scientists report discovery of an inhibitor compound that may block the action of the stimulator, preventing germination of seeds. They suspect that the compounds may be part of a carefully crafted regulatory system for repopulating fire-ravaged landscapes…. The inhibitor thus may delay germination of seeds until moisture and temperature are right, and then take a back seat to the germination promoter in smoke.

Comment: “They suspect that the compounds may be part of a carefully crafted regulatory system…”. “Crafted” by an overseeing Intelligent Designer of the ecological system?

The Second:

Has the almond tree developed a unique way of drawing potential pollinators? A group of researchers at the Department of Environmental and Evolutionary Biology and the Department of Science Education at the University of Haifa-Oranim speculate that the toxin called amygdalin that is found in almond tree nectar is in fact an evolutionary development intended to give that tree an advantage over others…. it is likely that amygdalin is produced in the almond nectar so as to give the almond tree an advantage in reproduction…. it is possible that the plant produces it so as to attract potential pollinators.
Another possibility is that the almond tree has developed this substance in its nectar as a form of filter: it repulses “non-expert” pollinatrors, but gives access to the “experts”… providing efficient pollination services….

Comment: “[A] possibility is that the almond tree has developed this substance in its nectar as a form of filter: it repulses ‘non-expert’ pollinatrors, but gives access to the ‘experts’”. Is the intelligence and discernment of which pollinators are “expert” in the tree, or an outside Intelligent Designer of the system?

The Third:

A team of University of Toronto chemists have made a major contribution to the emerging field of quantum biology, observing quantum mechanics at work in photosynthesis in marine algae….
“Our latest experiments show that normally functioning biological systems have the capacity to use quantum mechanics in order to optimize a process as essential to their survival as photosynthesis…. We were astonished…. This and other recent discoveries …. [raise] some … potentially fascinating questions, such as, have these organisms developed quantum-mechanical strategies for light-harvesting to gain an evolutionary advantage? It suggests that algae knew about quantum mechanics nearly two billion years before humans,” says Scholes.

Comment: algae knew about quantum mechanics nearly two billion years before humans. We all doubt the ability of an algae to know about and use quantum mechanics, but does this suggest there was a much higher Intelligent Designer that did, and helped start this life form some 2 billion years ago?

Now, I have come to a fairly neutral position regarding the creation-evolution-ID debate. Each has its own strength and possibilities, and each can provide a satisfying paradigm/explanation for some people. My only conclusion is that the Bible, in Genesis 1 and 2, and elsewhere, does not tell us how creation happened. But it does tell us God was at least a witness to it all, and knew where it was going, as evidenced by (in my own translation of the Hebrew Scriptures) by the description, in some detail, of its history, so many years before anyone could have ever had even an inkling of what we have slowly discovered through science – so accurately and so long ago that it reads, as I’ve said, at least as a most remarkable prophecy! Wichever, whatever, this is enough to lend incredible confidence and believability to Genesis 1 and 2, and the Bible’s claim that God is the Intelligent Designer of life and universe, by whatever means He chose … but did not precisely tell us about.

**The three articles can be accessed at the following URLs:

The Secret Life of Smoke….

Almond Tree’s Secret Weapon

Quantum Mechanics at Work in Photosynthesis…

That’s the title of a book featuring 5 essays on the subject. Each expands a lecture given in Yale’s annual series entitled Lectures on Religion in the Light of Science and Philosophy. Talk about credentials, these authors could hardly have better: two scientists, a philosopher, an historian, and a sociologist, all tops in their fields. I had to have high hopes about what they would have to say. If anyone could be, they should provide some new insight, right?

Unfortunately, they don’t have much. Brilliant, erudite, and knowledgeable as they are, they offer little to advance our understanding. They, too, are still stuck in the past, have never tried to reexamine the 400 year-old interpretation of Genesis 1 and 2, and are more of the same ol’ same ol’. The Intro, by natural historian Keith Thomson, sets the tone and sums it up:

“While the basic issue concerns all of science, the bellwether point of contention is evolution.” That, of course, we all know. We don’t have much problem with astronomy. Or physics. Or biology, genetics, or medical sciences. Nor chemistry or any of the engineering sciences. Contention only arises if they get into EVOLUTION! And why is that? We all know the answer. As Thomson says, its about “The perception of scientific hostility to religion…” And why that is so, Thompson is clear in his explication, but hardly pioneering.

“The debate concerns first and foremost the ‘popular assertions’ – that there is a God who controls our lives and destiny and who is worthy of worship.” What does evolution really have to say about that? Nothing of course. But, in the course of human affairs, there have always been atheists, and for almost 200 years they have said it does. For the most part they are always “antichrists”, not “antibhuddists”, or “antiallahists”, or anti any other religion. Now that’s interesting. Why the focus on God, of the Bible, and his Christ? Why is the “Religion” in the title, and in the minds of everyone involved in the “debate” with science, the religion rooted in the Bible! Not Allah, not Buddha, not Hindus or animists or Zoroastrians. The answer to that question actually moves the ball down the field, a bit (football metaphor, here – can’t help it, I like that sport).

When Thomson talks about “recent attacks on religion by scientists such as Richard Dawkins that have contributed nothing but rancor to the debate”, he assumes everyone knows it is Christianity being attacked, and debated. If he would get explicit and point directly at Genesis 1 & 2, he could set the stage for something new. It is the fact that Christians, for the most part, have always accepted the Genesis assertion that God is the Creator; that God, the god of the Bible, created this universe and all its parts. From quarks to atoms, from energy to the dynamics of the billions of galaxies that make up the fullness of the physical universe, and from the chemical molecules like DNA and proteins to the sentient and spiritual top of the “web” of life on this planet, God created it. He caused it to begin, and become, and be what it is. No other religion does that, at least in terms and details that impress us as serious. Others may have myths about the earth being on a turtle’s back, or springing forth from the dreams of a snoozy prince, etc., but these don’t really spark any fear or debate among scientists, or atheists. Genesis 1 and 2 is why there is a “Debate”! Genesis claims, or is thought to claim to be a record of creation, from the infamous Big Bang to your great and wonderful self.

Darwin never claimed “evolution” created any of these things. Evolution was his theory of how the universe’s physical matter and chemistry became not life in the first instance, but how life (and only life) once started managed to get to be what it is today: very sophisticated, so multifaceted we still discover new “kinds” every day, and so forceful it threatens to consume the physical base upon which it thrives. Darwin’s theory is all about “descent with modification”, modification of life once begun. He doesn’t pretend to address the origins of the universe, matter, energy, physical/existential law and order, or life itself. To Darwin, this “anthropic universe” and the first event of life are outside the paradigm of his theory. And I’m sure he would insist that all the subsequent modifications and new generations of that theory cannot claim to replace God as Creator, but only suggest that God is not an ongoing “Intelligent Designer”! Rather than being the artist of record, Darwin would rather see God as the supplier of paint and canvas and (probably) the Teacher who set the rules for what art is. Darwin proposed that life itself was the power behind the brush, and Natural Selection the Adam Smith-like guide to the emergent painting(s). He knew his theory was challenging some common tenets of Christian doxology, but not the idea or sovereignty of God. That has always been the illicit expansion and disingenuous/ignorant claims and assertions atheists who hoped it did, or hoped Christians would accept that it does and get discouraged and quit their faith. These are the “antichrists” the Bible so often warns about.

If Christians were to accept his paradigm of “evolution”, I think Darwin, if alive today, would be happy to simply agree that “evolution” was a pretty good tactic, or technique, planned and put in motion by God, and be quite impressed by what we have learned about the intelligent design of a universe with such anthropic rules and laws and principles. If left up to Darwin, as with many modern scientists, the “debate” might very well have never arisen. Certainly not continued. Especially if he knew what I know about Genesis 1 and 2.

What everybody’s missing, and what leaves this latest try at explaining the long life and vitality of the culture war between science and religion search falling far short, is the truth about Genesis. They do not know that Genesis’ account of creation is seriously mistranslated, and the whole “debate” is practically groundless! The Genesis account says nothing about method or means. Those Christians, and there are many, who refuse to take part in the culture war because they understand that there is no contradiction between the theory of evolution and Genesis 1 & 2 are absolutely correct. Even if they don’t exactly know why, they nonetheless are correct.

The belief that God merely “spoke various things into creation as they became” is somewhat quaint, and was OK for believers 400 years ago, but not the best translation of what Genesis says. Genesis doesn’t say the way things (especially all the “kinds” of life that currently inhabit the earth) came to be, or actually say how long each event it does mention took to become what it is.

Genesis 1 & 2 are not so much a description of creating as they are an historical account of creation. It is a very abbreviated, sketchy outline of the history of all creation, but mostly of earth and life. So brief and sketchy that it is more like a quick assemblage of headlines or topics, the bold print in an article or textbook.

Tradition, and most people, has it as a series of “Let there be” type statements that command or speak into existence a list of features and things in the natural world. A better translation of those statements, say, “Let dry ground appear” (Gen 1:9, NIV), both a better representation of original Hebrew and what modern science attests, would be “Watch … see how dry land appears”. Plate tectonics are a perfectly good (and natural) and effective explanation of how God produced (and still does produce) dry land from the earth’s crust under the seas (as described in Genesis 1:2) and fit perfectly well with the best translation of the Hebrew texts!

My book walks one through a forensic reinterpretation of the Hebrew language of Genesis, utilizing the best of linguistics and scientific knowledge. It redoes what was last done in 1611. It brings the message of Genesis into modern language and modern understanding of the creation. It brings together Genesis 1 and 2, and Romans 1. It has reached many thousands now, but obviously not the authors at Yale. Our reinterpretation does not remove the miracles from the text and testimony of Scripture, but rather lets us understand another whole sense of the Scriptures, that there is in Genesis a remarkable foretelling, a prophesy of what we will learn as we do study the creation. Its a great testimony for our time, not something that modern science refutes, but something that modern science confirms! Genesis gives, in its outline of creation’s history, something no one in the time it was written could know, let alone understand. It is hard not to believe that the author was there, and saw it all, and told us about it.

Read my rendition of Genesis. Its posted here on this website. Read my book if you want to see how and why I interpreted Genesis as I did. Check the linguistics, the evidence, and the forensic analysis for yourself.

The resulting account is much like the records of the prophets. It tells us the end from the beginning. And, importantly, it answers and corrects a lot of misunderstandings commonly touted by those who accuse Genesis of significant scientific or historical errors. For instance, they like to say birds appear too soon in Genesis. Not so, birds come in at the right time - the King James translators simply thought winged insects were also birds. Critics like to say that the plants are out of order according to modern science’s analysis of “evolution”. Not so, the King James scholars simply mistook simpler plant life for sophisticated/complex grass. Many wonder why there are no dinosaurs in the Genesis account. Actually, the dinosaurs are there - in exactly the right place in the history of things!

So, the best answer to “The Religion and Science Debate, Why Does It Continue?” is “Because no one really knows the truth about what Genesis 1 & 2 actually say”. That’s why the Yale papers get no where new … they, like almost everyone, are saddled with the naiveté and errors of the past – the King James past of 1611.

Michael Shermer publishes and edits Skeptic magazine, runs the Skeptic Society, or something like that, and is sure to be found wherever two or three skeptics gather together. He’s critical. He likes to debunk things. Things like “junk science”, questionable theories and political ideas. And, religion. Especially Christianity. Like ex smokers, ex Christians are usually the worst. Oh yes, he really despises any and all things “creationist”. So, to him, “Darwin Matters” because he thinks Darwin erased chapters 1 & 2 of Genesis. He even wrote the book, Why Darwin Matters, to tell us all about it.

To tell you the truth, looking at Shermer I have think “there, but for the grace of God, go I.” He and I could have had the same mother. Once upon a time. But I’ve learned something over the years that he and a lot of other people should learn. I’ll get to that later.

I’ve learned that Darwin doesn’t matter that much anymore. He does to science and scientists, but not to us, not in the way Shermer thinks he should. Shermer thinks evolution should persuade Christians and creationists and Intelligent Designers, and pretty much anyone who has believed the Bible - well, in Genesis, chapters 1 & 2, at least – to abandon their beliefs. So the book, Why Darwin Matters. Well, since I once shared his ideas, and his special antipathy to Genesis, I wanted to see how he argues his case and how well he does it.

I was not impressed. In fact, a bit disappointed. There was really nothing there to challenge me, or stimulate any new ideas. The book is little more than a compilation and distillation of stuff that’s been done many a time before.

He argues that the facts and findings of an ever-increasing variety of sciences build and converge to establish “The Facts of Evolution” (Chapter 1). That’s probably his best chapter. After that he tells us “Why People Do Not Accept Evolution” (Chapter 2). He explains, mostly citing the Scopes Trial, its because they/we fear it leads to atheism and amorality, if not wholesale immorality. Then he’s onto debunking Intelligent Design as bad theology and simplemindedness (“In Search of the Designer”, Chapter 3) and as bad science in a pretty weak and fatuous “Debating Intelligent Design” (Chapter 4). Chapter 5, “Science Under Attack”, strikes me as something of an exercise in paranoia, reminding me of those who still can’t get over the Galileo affair. Like, when’s the last time we Christians won anything significant since in the schools or courts - well, before the Scopes Trial at least (which he celebrates, of course)! The red meat of Chapter 5 is the recounting of Kitzmiller v Dover, where the Christians failed even to get a one minute statement read to students declaring merely the obvious, the facts that the Theory of Evolution is still but a theory, and many Christians have another theory, about life and creation. That he, and so many others, seemed to see science fundamentally threatened by even this minute, there in Dover, is quite a stretch … of paranoia … or intolerance.

The rest of the book is Shermer waging culture war. Chapter 6, “The Real Agenda” disparages the hopes and politics of I.D. proponents. Chapter 7 disingenuously argues “Why Science Cannot Contradict Religion”. He might be right, it can’t. But he obviously (the book attests) believes that it does! So in Chapter 8, he tries to tell us “Why Christians and Conservatives Should Accept Evolution.” And so on.

When I finished the book, the biggest question for me was “Why?”. Why did he bother to write the thing? Looking at Amazon’s records you can see it didn’t make much money for him. Most reviewers recognized it didn’t break any new ground. Most who liked it were fellow travelers and Shermer fans. Few were scientists. Though I read a review that gave it credit for helping scientists who were still confused or insecure about evolution, I know enough science and scientists to know none of them will be persuaded by Shermer, and none need his defense or encouragement about evolutionary theory. No, its pretty obvious that because Shermer thinks Darwin’s theory negates Genesis, he’s hoping to undermine some Christian’s beliefs and win them over to his religion, atheism. I understand that, having been there once. And truthfully I believed and preached it for the same reasons, with very good success.

But its NOT true! There is NO contradiction between Darwin and evolution and what science has shown to be the history of creation, and Genesis 1 & 2! None! Genesis gives a history, an outline of the history of creation, and nothing science has learned in two hundred years contradicts it! In fact, every year the story science is telling matches the story Genesis tells even better! Better! But Genesis actually says nothing about “how”, about the processes or forces or mechanisms by which creation is effected! Evolution is no contradiction. For all we know (and most scientists insist we do) evolution may well have been God’s method. Genesis only tells us, for the most part, when things happened, relative to each other. It reads more like a book of the prophets than anything else, when once we accurately translate the Hebrew texts written 3500 years ago. That is the truth that totally revolutionized my own understanding and beliefs.

God tells us, in Romans 1, that we can have no ignorance about Him and His nature if we would only study His creation. Science is our best effort at that. Romans 1 pretty well ruled the day in Galileo’s time, but then politics, and dogma, overruled the truth Galileo, and others, were revealing. We are there again. Science, every day, fulfills the prophecy of Romans 1, and confirms the prophetic account of Genesis 1 & 2, at least the account we can discover when we set aside the translation of 1611 for a retranslation into the language and science of 2010!

Shermer was wasting his time with Why Darwin Matters, but didn’t know it. One wonders what he would believe if he did know what Genesis really says. And all too many Christians waste their time fearing and fighting for something that isn’t there. And nearly everyone is wasting their time fighting a culture war that is based in nothing but a 400 year-old interpretation.

God intended His word stay alive, and be reapplied to each generation’s times. You need to read what Genesis really says. Its available here, free. As for the Bereans among you, read my book. It takes you through a detailed forensic reinterpretation, using modern science and language, that brings Genesis into this day, this age, word by word, detail by detail. And see for yourself why Darwin really doesn’t matter!

For Christians, the Bible is a text book. Essentially a history text book that teaches them why they are Christians. Who God is. Why God has anything to do with us. What He’s had to do with us. Why it matters. What He wants of us. And looking to the future, what He promises us. And the history and purpose o Jesus. And then, the foundations of Christianity. And what that means, why it matters, and what is now required to live that revolution in our relationship with God. And a whole lot more. More than just history, that is.

Text books are often revised. Brought up to date. Revised to fit with new information, new perspectives, new language. A physics textbook written before Einstein would have to be rewritten to be of value to modern students. A textbook on paleontology must be continually revised to include fossils discovered in the last decade and newer scientific techniques for analyzing and dating them. A textbook on biology must be revised every few years to incorporate the newest knowledge of genetics and genomes and understanding of cellular processes and mechanics and the latest species discovered. A textbook on astronomy, written a mere decade ago, would have nothing about the discovery of planets, and star formation, and the latest theories of black holes or cosmology. Students wouldn’t even go to a university that still used only old textbooks from the 1950s.

We face much the same problem with the Bible. There are dozens of new versions that modernizing the language, incorporating new discoveries in archeology, even taking new theological or denominational slants. It is a textbook that has had many revisions and updates, especially since the King James translation of some 400 years ago. Though that version is still a favorite among many, it has been replaced by others to meet the needs and interests of many teachers and students.

Genesis 1 & 2 is a textbook in itself, a history of creation. And what we know today dwarfs what we knew but a decade a go. Think how our knowledge of the creation was revolutionized by Galileo, and Newton, and Einstein, and Feynman, and Wilson and Crick, and Hawking , and… there’s no end to it. How can we not need a new version of Genesis 1 & 2?

When Genesis was recorded, the things of which it talked were 99% (at least!) unknown and beyond even the language’s capacity, let alone the scribe’s ken. Maybe by 1611, when the King James rendition was published, maybe that was down to 98%. But it hardly mattered, because no one knew any better, no one questioned the account as the were reading it, and there were no culture wars going on questioning our beliefs in the veracity of the Bible or the reality of God, and no one’s beliefs or faith depended on what Genesis said – or was thought to say. Today, it is hugely different, on both (or all) sides of the belief divisions.

Another Genesis – THIS other Genesis – may well make the difference, whether a person, scientist or layman or atheist or Christian, believes the Bible is true, God is real, or Jesus is whom Christians say he is. So Another Genesis is potentially a game changer, and soul saver. The only question is, is it still Genesis as God intends it. Is it truth, not just more believable in our modern day? Is this other Genesis, which I have translated from the Hebrew texts, a better representation of the original message than the King James? I obviously believe it is.

You can read the Other Genesis here. You can see exactly how I arrived at this Other Translation, see how each word was interpreted, how every choice, and the reasoning and decision making led to it, in my book: Hey Mom, What About the Dinosaurs?

For 150 years Christians have fought like wet cats against the theory of evolution. But it’s been a futile “culture war” whose only victims are our own.

The other side doesn’t really lose anyone in the fray. They may have an intellectual or political stake, or have some ego investment in who wins each engagement, but beyond that, what’s for an “evolutionist” to lose should we persuade some of them to believe in God, even to become Christians? Few, if any, even give up their beliefs in science and evolution. The proof is in the thousands upon thousands of scientists who are Christians, but are relatively untroubled by the “great satan”, the theory/concept of evolution. The proof is in my own life. Losing my faith in evolution merely opened me up to gain faith in God. And the hope of eternity. But should I now lose my Faith in God because of …

When we lose a child, when one of our sons or daughters, or any of the millions of adult Christians, when one is persuaded that evolution is probably true we tend to really lose them! We have set this war up such that they are rarely able to believe in both God and evolution. Why is this so? Because we have done it again, we have put God in a box, defined Him by some preconceived beliefs of who and what He is, and how He created this universe (which we can never really know). It is something we’ve done with several paradigm shifts in science, no better example than the Galileo affair.

We have, for at least 150 years, insisted that we know just how God created life on this earth, all based upon a translation of Genesis that was put in print by a committee of scholars some four centuries ago! And the most amazing (or “sad” is a better word) part of this is, is that there is nothing in Genesis that actually tells us HOW the various parts of His creation came into being. We are merely told that He commanded they do come into being. That He was the author and designer of it all, and that Jesus was the one who actually executed his Father’s will (John 1:3)!

No, we have not been like Bereans in our practices. We have not, every day, reexamined the scriptures to see if we understand them rightly, and if what others (not just Paul) tell us that other testament, nature itself, might tell us about Him. We have not taken the precept of Romans 1: 18-20 to heart. Like the church of centuries past, we ignore the testimony of the natural creation and cling to ideas and interpretations of scriptures that date to times when no one had more than an inkling of the true extent and nature of the creation. Times before telescopes and microscopes, before we’d dug into our planet or escaped its gravity. Before science could reveal to us other possibilities for the interpretation of the simple ancient language and lexicon of the Hebrew. Times before we could, utilizing all the intellectual and cultural powers that God gave us, discover the fuller truth of Romans 1:18-20, discover how study of His creation could reveal the mysteries and deeper truths buried in the expanse of His immense universe, and the depths of the earth, and shadows of time in His scale.

Do you think Romans 1:18-20 was meant more for the lonely shepherd or wandering prophet of 100 AD, or for the scientists and theologians of 2000 AD? Which of them could most likely best discern “God’s invisible qualities – his eternal power and divine nature … from what has been made (by Him)”?* I tell you the truth, many, if not most, of those scientists (about 40% of all scientists, and more among physicists and astronomers) have become believers because they have learned through science. I am convinced that the Romans 1 verse was really meant for this generation (if not my grandfathers!).
[*Source text: NIV]

Everything I have said here I know as truth by way of my own experience. I was once a scientist and taught evolution and evolutionary principles to my college students in a variety of subjects and applications. And I confess, to my great sorrow, I always tried to proselytize the young Christians. With all too much success.

There came a time when the zealotry of the “Evolutionists” turned me against them. There were too many unsolved problems with data and techniques, for me, to substantiate their claims for the theory, and I began to doubt. God took that as an opportunity to lead me to himself. Still a scientist, I soon insisted with equal (Berean-like) vigor that the Bible be tested and verified as the foundation of my faith. I could not see myself defining God for myself, as some are wont to do, but felt that it was vital the Bible remain the first and foremost source of our knowledge of God. As such, I was following the theory of inerrancy.

That lead to a crisis of faith. I could not reconcile Genesis 1 & 2, the Creation Account, with what I knew from my scientific knowledge and experience. Like many others of similar training and education that I knew, I tried ignoring those first chapters of the Bible. Which did not help me have confidence in the rest of the book! And that, I have found, is what happens to many a Christian. Stumbled from the beginning, the rest is very much put into doubt.

God took care of that, for me. I was “blessed” with an illness that sidelined me for several years, and I took the opportunity (and leading of the Spirit) to look into what the Hebrew language of the Scripture might really say. I spent two years conducting what I can only describe as a forensic investigation and analysis of Genesis, chapters 1 & 2 and a bit more. And I wrote a book on the process through which. I discovered just how unfounded our stand in this 150 year-old cultural war with evolution is.

Genesis does not describe creation but provides a historical outline of creation. Its more like an introductory chapter, or table of contents for a text book on creation. It gives us just a brief overview of the subject. In its time, that was enough. But in our time, we need more. And we get it! Like so much of the Bible, it prophesies. It tells us something that only we could appreciate. Only we can test and verify. Here’s the point: someone 3500 years ago could not possibly know or comprehend in any way what we know now in this time. If you read what I have shown the Hebrew texts can be understood to say, you can see that God did not bother to tell us the “how” of His creation (truth is, no one really thinks any of us are capable ever knowing or understanding that) but instead shows us that He was there, that He has seen it all, that He knew how the universe and the earth and life would proceed to develop in the future. Into our days. In that way, He turns Genesis into a testimony to the truth of Him and provides, Just as Romans says, another rock upon which we can found our beliefs!

Science has progressed much in the last decade or two. And I have come around to seriously considering the possibility that “evolution” is real. Almost all the gaps in the fossil record, which I once saw a woefully incomplete and woefully over-stated, have been filled. And genetic and anatomical evidence has shown the means and ways evolutionary processes could work. And I have come to realize that God, as the Author and Designer of all the laws of this material, dynamic entity we call “creation”, may well have chosen to utilize a process we call evolution. We know He did not create a plastic terrarium that merely cycles through time with nothing new, or nothing changing. We know that. And the creation clearly shows that He loves and enjoys endless change and variation, both in the cosmos and the web of life on this planet. No two roses are exactly the same. Who would want them to be? And every day we might find an entirely new blossom appear. Its part of what makes our rose garden exciting. And I am sure that we are only emulating Him. Sharing in His nature. So what better way to provide an endless supply of delightful variety and surprises than evolution?

At least I am sure God is not afraid of such a process. No more than the inventor of kaleidoscopes or lava lamps or disco balls would be afraid of them. So why are we? God is not diminished, nor is He bound by what we once thought about Him. We are the ones who must grow, and avoid giving our children such horrific choices, or ultimatums: evolution or God!

After writing my previous, as luck would have it, my daily reading took me to Psalm 102 and there, to my surprise, was what was probably the Scriptural source for Paul’s words in Hebrews 1:10-12. Psalm 102 reads:

25 Of old You laid the foundation of the earth, And the heavens are the work of Your hands. 26 They will perish, but You will endure; Yes, they will all grow old like a garment; Like a cloak You will change them, And they will be changed. 27 But You are the same, And Your years will have no end.
Psalms 102:25-27 (NKJV)

FYI, I’m currently working my 5th or 6th “Read the Bible in a Year” plan. And for at least ten years I’ve always been on high alert for verses that describe the creation, and creating the creation, and can give me clues to understand science, and God, and show a skeptical people how the Bible and science are (in the terms of Romans 1:18) both testaments to God as the author of creation. Yet I didn’t remember that one! See why we should never stop reading?

So I came across Psalm 102 and was really surprised to read the Hebrews 1 verse I’d just written about. Pleasantly surprised, I might add. Anyway, I want to preempt a couple of questions someone might ask, realizing that Paul might have been quoting a scripture rather than expressing his own unique revelation, and whether that affects my original point. It doesn’t. In fact, it makes my point even more something to be appreciated. Here’s why:

First: whether Paul got his knowledge about the things of the universe being but short-lived and ephemeral by hearing or reading makes no difference. Indeed, Jesus himself describes reading and comprehending a scripture, as well as hearing Him say something and comprehending, as “hearing”. And one can only comprehend/hear anything God says if the Holy Spirit has allowed or aided us in the hearing. Paul, by whichever means, still knew, and trusted in that knowledge enough to teach it as fact, even to an audience that should have been as skeptical as he, since they also believed that God and all his works were permanent, unchanging, eternal. And, none of them – surely - had no idea whatsoever what the “heavens” really are.

Second: My main point, my reason for bringing our attention to that verse, was that this is totally revelatory knowledge that “the heavens” are only temporary and cyclical – that is, that the heavenly bodies, planets and stars and nebulae, and so on, each have a distinct lifetime and fit into a recycling system, a creative process in itself embedded in the far greater timescape of the universe; that stars and nebulae and even galaxies all come to an end, like garments. And in God’s created order of the universe, all are discarded (recycled, actually) and new ones made and put in place to live out their own “lives” - for our viewing, says the Bible. That should not have been known 2000 years ago. Even modern science has only recently, by hard work and great technology, come to know it. But here, with Psalm 102, we’ve gone back at least another 500 years! The Bible didn’t get the scoop on our sciences by 2000 years - it beat them to the knowledge by at least 2500 years! Paul was, at least, repeating a 500 year old revelation.

And my point? That the Bible tells us many things, big things, that only the Author of the Bible could possibly know, and have told to the scribes who recorded them for our times, some two or three thousand years later. And that is a testimony, which no one can refute, that whoever Authored the Scriptures either knew the history of the universe, or created it.

We don’t need to go to Genesis to get some powerful testimony about the Creation, and find more evidence for the translation and interpretation of Genesis which we offer here, and scientific support for the Biblical account of creation. We can go to Hebrews, Chapter 1.

As in John, we are told that the Son, whom we call Jesus, was the actual creator, that He made the Universe: “…and through the Son he created the universe.” Heb 1:2, (NLT)

In my book* I compared this manifestation of the Trinity to the way Microsoft creates software: God the Father is the creative genius, the Intelligence, the Designer and Authority behind the creation, setting forth the nature and shape and rules/laws of operation of our universe, and the Son as the one who did His bidding, who actually executed and carried out the creation. At Microsoft Bill Gates sets out how he wants his product to look and work, tells his engineers what he wants and is fully confident they will execute his words, and create Windows 7 (within the limits of human capacity and foibles, of course).*

As we’ve pointed out so many times before, this declaration that there was a beginning, that the universe has not been here eternally but came into being, and for some reason took on a very intelligent, and orderly, and lawful design, was not something science believed or accepted until this last century. Indeed, the beginning, which scientists call/designate the “Big Bang” was a very contentious “theory” for many years, mostly because it allowed there was a point of creation, and most reasonably a creating power and creative order/plan which atheists had all but denied with their claim the universe was eternal, having no beginning or origins. The Bible, therefore, knew something science had to discover.

Hebrews also tells us that it is by God’s design, the laws of physics and astronomy He has ordained for this universe, and the efficacy of Jesus, that this universe stays, continues to exist, and will continue as long as he is faithful to the father (and so we rest easily, right?): “… he sustains everything by the mighty power of his command.” Heb 1:3 (NLT)

This is something scientists are still uncertain about. Einstein was so convinced that the universe was stable and certain to go on forever that he amended his own mathematics and theory of relativity because his formulas found too many scenarios in which the universe could/would end in either an awfully slow explosion or inevitable implosion (back into the point - “singularity” - of the orginating Big Bang). But soon astronomers discovered the universe is expanding in what appears to be an ever-accelerating expansion (that slow explosion Einstein first foresaw but could not believe). And they are still trying to figure that out. It makes everything ridiculous: a perfectly designed, beautifully designed universe simply wasting itself away into useless nothingness. To cope with such apparant inanity (they might find comfort in understanding God and having faith that Jesus will not let that happen, but…) the scientists are always coming up with new ideas. They are usually pretty wild and hardly “scientific” or reasonable theories, like multiverses or multi-”greater places than space” that can create ever more and ever new universes. But that’s not all that bad. At least the scientists, in the process, only prove to themselves is just how unique, and intelligently designed THIS universe really is. And without God doing just as the Scripture says, how it shouldn’t exist!

But here’s where Hebrews really says something that may seem a rather little point, but really is a huge, prescient observation that scientists have only been discovering and studying in recent times:

“You, Lord, in the beginning laid the foundation of the earth,
And the heavens are the work of Your hands.
11 They will perish, but You remain;
And they will all grow old like a garment;
12 Like a cloak You will fold them up,
And they will be changed. Heb 1:10-12 (NKJV)

Or as the NIV says it, “They will wear out like a garment. You will roll them up like a robe; like a garment they will be changed.“

Here we have a text written two thousand years ago, by a very nonscientist person, who has no idea of what this planet, or the stars and galaxies are, but should, if anything, given his beliefs about God - and like most scientists before Einstein - assume they are fixed and eternal. Yet here he is, still, writing that they are not! Paul writes that the stars and galaxies (the heavens) are just like a garment. They have a limited “lifetime”. They will each come to an end, wear out like a garment will, and then be discarded and replaced with a new garment! “They will be changed“!

Scientists were at first upset to discover that stars and planets, etc., come and go, that they serve their time and then are ended, to be replaced (recycled) into new ones, to adorn God’s heavens with even greater glory! But today one of the biggest tasks of astronomers and physicists is to observe and describe, and hope to figure out those very “life cycles” of the things in the heavens. Until we could study them with our telescopes and satellites, we pretty much thought just the way Paul should have, that they are absolutely fixed, eternal parts of the universe, those twinkling lights that have been there in the skies forever. But Paul had the word, the knowledge of a greater wisdom, and told us otherwise!

* Hey Mom, What About Dinosaurs?“

The Hubble Telescope is getting its upgrade! I couldn’t be more delighted over anything NASA has done. I am far more enamored of the Hubble than the “Space Station”, which I find interesting but mostly an expensive and distracting waste of resources – resources that could have been better spent on real and significant science projects and space exploration.

The Hubble is a gift that just keeps on giving. There’s hardly a soul alive who hasn’t enjoyed, marveled, and been deeply encouraged by its testimony to the awesomeness of God’s whole creation. Christians are not alone in believing that the universe, with its billions of galaxies, with their billions of suns, and their billions of planets, (and tell me why not “billions of other forms of life” - which obviously delight God, if we are to take earth’s as an example) are too perfectly … well, perfectly made to not be the product and artistry of a supremely intelligent design. We Christians just have a name and a 3500 year-old description of the Designer and essentially how He went about it (read my book!).

The Hubble has probably done more to expand all our understanding and appreciation of the WHOLE creation, and more to bring scientists – especially those in physics, astronomy, and cosmology – to a believe in God, and more to open our eyes and minds to the glory of it all, and more to fuel our scientific knowledge and understanding, than any other scientific device or tool.

Much of the new vision, perspectives, and knowledge the Hubble has brought has reached straight into our common understandings of Scriptures. The description of the creation in Genesis 1 & 2 notwithstanding (read my book!), we’ve all had to revise our interpretations and understanding of many things. Who hasn’t gained a far better, and probably far “bigger” and more picturesque sense of “the heavens”? The earth? The stars? The moon? The sun? The place earth actually occupies in relationship to the sun and moon and stars? The “lights” that are for the telling of dates and times? The size and nature of the realm in which God, the angels, and our own resurrected selves might have to spend our eternity in? Time? “The light”? To point out a few.

There are some deeper things in our theology and understanding of God which Hubble has also opened to us (“since what may be known about God is plain to them, for God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities – His eternal power and divine nature – have been clearly seen, being understood by what has been made…”, Romans 1:19,20 NIV). For instance:

I wrote an article on “Like Luther”, another blog, that gives a quick explanation how the theories of Relativity and of Quantum Physics, which the Hubble has been of great benefit in developing and validating, that show us exactly how the doctrines of God’s absolute sovereignty and our free will can not only coexist, but may show us just how God works.

The Hubble has also shown us that not only is the universe actually expanding, from what we can see, but gives me a clear and confident understanding of the several scriptures telling us that God, in the beginning, “stretched forth the universe”. In fact, it answers for me what the Big Bang most probably was! And, I have come to a theory of (and will soon write extensively about) just what the mysterious “dark energy” is, that so puzzles scientists, and what the so-long-debated future of the universe is.

These are just a few of the things that make me love (LOVE!) the Hubble. I am so thankful NASA put the current upgrade back in the program, and only pray that God enables and protects those astronauts who have undertaken such a risky endeavor.

For some folks, belief in the Bible, and its assertion that God created everything, is solid and unshakable. Their faith is not troubled by the rest of the world’s doubts or theories of evolution questioning the Bible’s authenticity or accuracy. They just believe, untroubled even by the lesser question of whether we live on a “young earth” or old, whether God accomplished His whole work in just a few days, as our clock would tick it off, or took a few millions or billions of years, as our sciences claim.

A recent poll by Christianity Today, counting mostly Christians we can assume, tells an interesting story. The question is, “What best describes your view of the origins of creation?”

10% Young-earth Creationism

Those who subscribe to YEC can only be very “Bible-believing” Christians. They accept the traditional Genesis creation account, uncritically and uncompromisingly. That is the only place one could possibly find that description of the origins of us and our universe, and it requires a staunch and rock-solid faith to hang on to it in this day and age.

10% Old-earth creationism

These folks are compromising a bit. They’re accepting some of what our modern sciences have to say about the age of the earth and universe and, perhaps, the evolutionary outline of life’s origins. They can be pretty staunch in their belief in Biblical authority, even inerrancy, if they decide that, (1) there is probably a big gap in time between verses 1 and 2 of Genesis1, and (2) the “days” of the six days in Genesis are not 24-hour days, but another perfectly legitimate translation of the Hebrew word yowm, such as epoch, era, or long time.

10% Theistic evolution

Theists are not necessarily even Christians, or are Christians because they respect and admire Jesus and/or many Biblical teachings and values, or are Jews and other faiths, or are persuaded by modern criticism and science that the Bible (at least Genesis 1 & 2) are only fiction, but are still convinced by science, other religions, or whatever, to believe in a god, or Intelligent Design, etc.

62% Naturalistic evolution

There’s the real headline story. Most Christians have pretty much decided the creation account is not believable or reasonable, and have been well-persuaded by the plethora of modern sciences, and the plethora of Bible criticism. This group probably includes a large proportion of folks who believe the Bible is (1) good, (2) a reliable source of values, and (3) in Jesus. In other words, they’ve lost confidence in the Old Testament, but probably not the New. And a few may have reasoned or discerned that evolution and God-as-Creator are not antithetical.

But most of those, in that 62%, have lost a certain degree of confidence in the Bible as truly “God’s own word”, or an inerrant representation of it, because what they now believe is NOT to be found in the Bible as they have ever read it. It is strictly a creation of modern minds, adapting or reconciling the Genesis assertion that God is the Creator, to modern sciences (and culture, academia, etc.) beliefs and teaching. So just like theists, they can only have a much less absolute trust and belief in the Bible.

I know all of those people (as types, of course) pretty well. I have, at some time or another, been one of a similar mind with each, as I worked out my own beliefs, having begun an atheist scientist and college teacher busy trying to cleanse young Christian minds of their beliefs, to a very Bible-believing good friend of Jesus, lover of God. And as I made my way to where I am now, I’ve seen just how tough it is to believe in the God of the Bible, and get the most out of all that the Bible holds in store for us, not to mention defend my belief and testimony against detractors and critics, with what Genesis seems to say.

I finally reached a point where I couldn’t stand it any more. I had to know what (or which) to believe. I had to reconcile my evangelical leanings, and pastors’ and friends’ faith, with Genesis. I had to decide if I was going to be able to have a full faith and confidence in the Bible, or also reach some compromise, some accommodation that omitted the creation account – and by implication – a few other passages that didn’t necessarily sit well with me and my intellect.

I thought, at first, I could find some other version, some other translation that would be less “ridiculous” in my mind. Many versions later I began to realize that those two chapters never varied, at least in no substantive manner. They simply repeated the first, and most popular translation, the KJV, which was a translation by a committee of scholars and academics in 1611! 1611!

Science hardly existed. No one knew there ever was such a thing as dinosaurs. Genes. Galaxies. Atoms. Plate tectonics. Even evolution! So whatever God might really have said about those sorts of things would go right over their heads. There weren’t even words for such, let alone ideas or concepts. I knew about all those things, but they didn’t. So I decided to go back to the Hebrew and do it all again. Re-translate.

When I started I soon discovered an even more problematic fact: that scribe was in far worse shape than even the King James scholars. Hebrew was a simple language built around some very different ways of categorizing and describing things. It had a very small lexicon. It was more a mnemonic device than written language, mostly to facilitate consistent telling, verbal transmission, of His words! I spent two years doing what I did. But the help and guidance of God’s own spirit, and all I’d learned in my eclectic academic and scientific history, served me well. And the interpretation I finished liberated me. I had started it ready to become a theist, or loose and liberal follower of Christianity. The Bible was too big, too much, too daunting, anyway. But no more.

I found that the Bible is only a brief and sparse outline. More like chapter and verse titles than textbook. But, with a careful forensic approach, the clues and evidence of every word, the time line and the descriptions of difficult pictures the Lord must have given the scribe to give him the facts, reveals an incredible record. It gives an outline of creation that not only matches well what modern scientists believe is the history of creation, but – given it was written 3500 years ago – is downright prophetic. Almost ten years after my first labors, science isn’t deviating, but moving into ever better accord with the Bible’s creation account!

So. If you are among the 62%, especially, read my book, or at least check out the finished translation of Genesis 1 & 2. You can even keep your belief in evolution!