Introduction. Another Faith and Science Conference sponsored by the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventist is over, and the reports I have heard so far do not seem to indicate that we have come closer to solving the dilemma posed by the apparent conflict between science and religion. Those who participated in this historic event state that on one occasion, the attendees had a chance to examine at close inspection the ice cores documenting the weather patterns going back 600,000 years. Said ice cores seem to be as reliable as the tree rings we find in trees, and the scientific evidence tends to indicate that life existed at least that far back in the history of planet earth, because of the presence of pollen trapped in the ice. How do you reconcile this scientific data with the chronology derived from the Genesis account that yields approximately 6,000 years for life on our planet since the creation event? Do you dismiss the scientific evidence in order to sustain your faith in the Genesis account, or do you abandon your faith in the Biblical record? Is there a way out of this uncomfortable dilemma? I believe there is, and it is based on an attempt at establishing the probable source of the information contained in the book.

Examining the Premise of the Inerrancy of Scripture. Let us start by examining the basic premise of those who defend a literal interpretation of the creation story: The Bible is an inspired document,[1] therefore every statement contained therein must be true, regardless of any real or imaginary inconsistencies resulting from this approach. This approach creates serious problems for those who opt for this alternative. For many centuries the church insisted that the earth was the center of the universe, and that the sun revolved around our planet earth, because the Bible stated very clearly that the sun rose and set. A literal interpretation of such passages incited the church to force Galileo to renounce his scientific heliocentric theory. More recently, when President Lincoln decided that it was time to emancipate the slaves, those who adhered to the Biblical inerrancy of Scripture argued that there was no condemnation of slavery in the Bible. This insistence on the inerrancy of Scripture split the Baptist Church in two, and said split persists even today.

Examining the Claim Found in the Non-Prophetical Books. The problem arises from the fallacious notion that inspiration implies infallibility and that every statement found in the Bible is the result of a direct revelation from heaven. Can this assumption be true? If we ask Luke about the source of the facts presented in his gospel, we discover that it was not the result of a direct revelation from heaven, but rather the fruit of careful research. He relied on the tradition “handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses”[2] of the events surrounding the life and death of Jesus. We can safely assert the same about some of the other Gospels, since close examination reveals that there was a close reliance by some of the Gospel writers upon the writing of others. Similarly, I doubt that any serious theologian would claim that books like Chronicles, Kings, Samuel, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Songs of Solomon were the result of a vision or a direct revelation from heaven. In these books I cannot find any claim to a vision or direct revelation as the source of the information contained therein.

Contrasting it With the Claim Found in the Prophetical Books. How about the so-called prophetical books? Common sense would suggest that the source of the material contained in these books is different from that of the other books, because they contain explicit claims to visionary experience or revelation. Most prophetical books start with claims like the following: “The vision of Isaiah,”[3] “The Lord said unto me,” [4] “The word of the Lord came to me,”[5] “Thus said the Lord,” [6] “Then the Lord said to me,” [7] [i] “The Lord showed me,” [/i] [8] “The word that came to Jeremiah from the Lord,” [9] “The word that the Lord spoke against Babylon,” [10] “I saw visions of God,” [11] “And the world of the Lord came unto me,” [12] “Thus said the Lord God,” [13] “A vision appeared unto me,” [14] “then said the Lord unto me,” [15] “the word of the Lord that came unto Joel,” [16] “thus said the Lord,” [17] “The vision of Obadiah,” [18] “The world of the Lord came unto Jonah,” [19] “Hear ye what the Lord said,” [20] “The book of the vision of Nahum,” [21] “thus said the Lord of hosts,” [22] “Thus speaks the Lord of hosts,” [23] and similar expression. Their writings are peppered with a plethora of claims to either a visionary experience, or else to a direct revelation from the Lord. Was this practice accidental, or was it perhaps because the writers wanted to call our attention to the origin of the information they were providing?

[b]Examining the Claims Found in the Pentateuch.[/b] Let us now examine the claims we find in the books, according to Jewish tradition, written by Moses. Did Moses have the habit akin to the prophets alluded to above of documenting the source of the information we find in the books he authored? In the book of Exodus we find expressions such as “And God said to Moses,” [24] “And the Lord said unto him,[25] “And the Lord said unto Aaron,” [26] “And the Lord spoke unto Moses,” [27] “Then the Lord said unto Moses,” [28] “And God spoke all these words,” [29] “And the Lord spoke to Moses face to face.” [30] Such expressions are constantly repeated throughout this book, quite often several times in a single chapter. We can assert the same about the book of Leviticus, and Numbers. It is evident that the author of these books was careful enough to stake a claim to the origin of the information contained in them. Notice also the pains Moses took to make it very clear that the Ten Commandments were not the fruit of his extraordinary legislative talent, but were rather written with God’s finger—not once, but twice while he was up in the mountain in direct communion with the Lord.

What about Deuteronomy? In this book, Moses resorts to either his memory or his personal records depicting God’s dealings with the rebellious children of Israel. It is a historical account of what happened during their forty-years journey through the wilderness until Moses’ death immediately prior to their conquest of Palestine. There was no need for a vision or for God to reveal to him the facts recorded there, since it contained a recompilation of everything he had experienced. All he had to do was to jog his memory, or else check his personal notes, or his secretary, if he had one. We trust that his recollection was accurate, although when he recited the Ten Commandments,[31] he slightly deviated from his original account found in the book of Exodus.[32] In Exodus he quoted God as justifying the Sabbath Commandment on the basis of the Seventh-day creation week, while in Deuteronomy he cited the Lord doing the same on the basis of the fact that the Israelites were slaves in Egypt. Some have suggested that Moses was getting senile and could not remember exactly what the Lord had stated as the reason for keeping the Sabbath holy. Others argue that the Exodus account represents what the Lord spoke,[33] while the second version we find in Deuteronomy what the Lord wrote on stone.[34]

The Missing Visionary Link! The material we find in the book of Genesis seems to be historical in nature, with the exception of the Creation account. Did Moses witness the events recorded in this book? Impossible, since he had not been born yet. Some theologians have suggested that Moses must have received all this voluminous information as a result of a visionary experience while he was taking care of his father-in-law’s sheep in the desert. If this is the case, does it make sense for Moses, who took pains to document the source of the instruction received from the Lord in the other books he wrote, to omit a similar claim when writing the book of Genesis? Notice how Moses emphasized his reliance on the Lord as the source of all the laws and instructions he imparted to the children of Israel by his repetition of phrases such as “And God said unto Moses.” Why would he suddenly fail to make similar claims in Genesis is beyond my comprehension. Is it perhaps because he relied on some other source for the information contained therein?

A Logical Solution to the Dilemma. We started with the dilemma of either reading the Genesis account literally and rejecting the testimony of science which tends to indicate that life on planet earth has been documented in the millions of years, or else accepting the verdict of science and reinterpreting the Genesis account. If we assume that every book in the Bible was the result of either a visionary experience or some other form of divine revelation, we have no choice but to reject the findings of science. If we admit, on the other hand, that many books that were included in the sacred canon were not the result of a visionary experience or revelatory experience, but rather the result of careful research, then we have a way of resolving the conflict without violating our integrity. This means that there is no need to claim that the historical or poetical books must be free from factual errors or scientific inaccuracies, and that inspiration does not necessarily equate with infallibility. If we have two versions of the Ten Commandments authored by God himself, then there is no need to claim infallibility to every statement found in the books of the Bible, especially those that were written on the basis of tradition and research, and we can reject the inerrancy theory without fear of delving into heresy.

Two Reasonable Alternatives. If Genesis is rather a historical book, and if Moses did not personally witness the facts he narrates in this book, then we are left with two alternative sources for the material presented therein: He either received the information thanks to a vision or direct revelation from on high akin to the way he received the Mosaic laws; or else he, like Luke, relied on the rich traditions accumulated by his ancestors. If the Lord inspired Luke to do his research, when it would have been as easy for him to provide him with the facts through a vision; I see no reason why would God hand the historical facts to Moses on a silver platter. If it is true that Adam lived a long and fruitful life before his death, he must have told the story of origins he received from God before his fall to his descendants on numerous occasions, and there was no reason for the Lord to provide him with a redundant version of the events. All God needed to do was to inspire him to record the facts he received from his ancestors for the benefit of future generations.

Concluding Comments. Had Moses, or whoever wrote the book of Genesis, received the facts related to the creation story directly from heaven or as a result of a vision, dream, or direct communication from heaven, would he have chosen to omit staking a claim to such an experience? Such an omission is extremely unlikely, given the fact that every law and instruction Moses received from above was accompanied with a claim to the divine origin of said instruction. We have examined how careful he was to document the source of all the teachings he received from on high. We have also examined how all the prophets took pains to tie their writings to a “Thus said the Lord.” No such claim is found in Genesis. I conclude, therefore, that it is very likely that Genesis, like Luke and other historical books of the Bible, is the result of research inspired by the Lord. Careful research can be extremely accurate, but never totally infallible. There is always the possibility of error or distortion. The books of the Bible are not an exception to this human frailty. The clearest revelation of God character is found in the Gospels, which means that elsewhere the revelation is not so clear. Otherwise, there would have been no need for the Son of God to come down at such great cost.

Should We Cave-in to Evolution? Does this mean that we have to cave in to the onslaught of evolution? I do not think so! There are reasonable alternative explanations to origins that agree with the creation story even if we grant that life on planet earth has existed much longer than 6,000 years. There is no need for us to claim for the origin of the creation story what the writer of Genesis did not claim. Our faith in the creation event should not be contingent on chronology, but rather on a “Thus said the Lord,” emanating from the mouth of men chosen by God to be their representatives on earth and who testified that they were writing what the Lord had revealed to them through visions and dreams. The writings of these prophets are full of references to God as the Creator of heaven and earth. This fact should not be in dispute, since it is grounded on a direct revelation from God. We cannot say the same about the creation story found in Genesis one and two. All we can say is that the author of Genesis felt inspired to record what he probably received from his ancestors, but not from a direct revelation from on high. Had this been the case, I have no doubt that he would have told us so, like all the other prophets have done, including Moses in his other writing in the Pentateuch. What is your opinion?

Nic Samojluk

Biblical References:

[1] 2 Timothy 3:16.

[2] Luke 1:2.

[3] Isaiah 1:1.

[4] Id. 8:1.

[5] Jeremiah 1:4.

[6] Id. 10:2.

[7] Ibid. 15:1.

[8] Ibid. 24.:1.

[9] Ibid. 30:1.

[10] Ibid. 50:1.

[11] Ezequiel 1:1.

[12] Id. 13:1.

[13] Ibid. 46:1.

[14] Daniel 8:1.

[15] Hosea 3:1.

[16] Joel 1:1.

[17] Amos 1:3.

[18] Obadiah 1:1.

[19] Jonah 1:1.

[20] Micah 6:1.

[21] Nahum 1:1.

[22] Haggai 1:7.

[23] Zechariah 7:9.

[24] Exodus 3:14.

[25] Id. 4:2.

[26] Ibid. 4:27.

[27] Ibid. 6:13.

[28] Ibid. 6:1.

[29] Ibid. 20:1.

[30] Ibid. 33:11.

[31] Deuteronomy 5:12-15.

[32] Exodus 20:10,11.

[33] Exodus 20:1.

[34] Deuternonomy 5:22.