Genesis has become the most fervently attacked books of our generation (particularly the first eleven chapters). Though there is much useful evidence for the earliest chapters of Genesis, the best is the internal evidence and unity that proves it is the inspired word of God. It is the internal evidence that we will concern ourselves with in this article.

The first attack on the book of Genesis is directed at the author to cast doubt upon it being written by Moses. The book of Genesis does not attribute itself to the hand of Moses but it is the natural conclusion considering that in his other four books (Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy) Moses refers to himself in the third person (Exodus 17:14; 24:4, 7; 34:27; Numbers 33:2;Deuteronomy 31:9, 24-26). The other authors of the Old Testament vouch for the Mosaic authorship (Joshua 1:7-8; 8:31, 34-35; 23:6; 1 Kings 2:3; 2 Kings 14:6; 23:25; 1 Chronicles 22:13; 2 Chronicles 5:10; 23:18; 25:4; 30:16; 33:8; 34:14; 35:12; Ezra 3:2; 6:18; 7:6; Nehemiah 1:7-8; 8:1, 14; 9:14; 10:29; 13:1; Daniel 9:11, 13; Malachi 4:4). The New Testament also identifies Moses as the author (Mark 12:19; Luke 2:22; 20:28; John 1:17, 45; 8:5; 9:29; Acts 3:22; 6:14;13:39; 15:1, 21; 26:22; 28:23; Romans 10:5; 1 Corinthians 9:9; 2 Corinthians 3:15; Hebrews 9:19; Revelation 15:3). Jesus Himself confirmed this as well (Mark 7:10; 10:3-5; 12:26; Luke 5:14; 16:29-31; 24:27, 44; John 5:45-47; 7:19, 23). The Jews in the first century said, “we know that God spoke unto Moses” (John 9:29). Josephus, the first century Jewish historian stated, “For we have not an innumerable multitude of books among us disagreeing from, and contradicting one another [as the Greeks have], but only twenty-two books, which contain the records of all the past times; which are justly believed to be divine; and of them five belong to Moses, which contains his laws and the traditions of the origin of mankind till his death.”1)Josephus, Against Apion, Book 1, paragraph 8; The complete works of Josephus the Jewish Historian (trans. William Whiston), Master Books, (Green Forest, AR.: 2008), p. 598 To sum it up, Jonathan Edwards wrote in the first half of the eighteenth century, “That the Pentateuch was written by Moses, is the voice of all antiquity. It has been all along, even to this day, the received opinion of both Jews and Christians, that Moses being commanded and inspired by God, wrote those books, which are called the Pentateuch…”2)Jonathan Edwards, The Works of Jonathan Edwards, Hendrickson Publishers (Peabody, Massachusetts: 1834 edition, fourth printing 2004), Vol. 2, p. 676 The historical position only shifted in the 1800s.

Though a few authors questioned the Mosaic authorship earlier, none were ever considered seriously but label heretics for various other doctrinal positions they held. 1805 marks the specific rise of such doubt with Wilhelm De Wette who claimed none of the Pentateuch was written before King David.

From there the door flew open…

And today, several variant view of the documentary hypothesis exist, but perhaps the most popular is that of Dr. Julius Wellhausen proposed in 1895. Dr. Wellhausen put dates to the alleged four sources and none were earlier than around 1900 B.C.3)Terry Mortenson and Bodie Hodge, “The Documentary Hypothesis: Moses, Genesis, and JEDP?” in Ken Ham and Greg Hall, Already Compromised, Master Books (Green Forest, AR: 2011), p. 216

The Documentary Hypothesis rejects the internal unity of the books of Moses and claims a number of different sources were edited together at a much later date. “They [unbelieving scholars] believed that religion, like everything, had evolved, and that writing had not even arisen by Moses’ time. So they argued for much latter authors of the various documents and that the Pentateuch was finally compiled by an editor living 900 years after Moses, at the time of the exile.”4)Johnathan Sarfati, The Genesis Account: A Theological, Historical, and Scientific Commentary on Genesis 1-11, Creation Ministry International (Powder Springs, Georgia: 2015), p. 22 The label these speculative authors by the initials J, E, D, and P. Merril Unger explains, “The higher critical view is that Moses did not write it. It is a patch work of discordant and conflict ting oral traditions, written centuries after Moses. The J tradition (using the name YHWH) was written c. 850; the E tradition, c. 750; D tradition (Deuteronomy), c. 621 B.C.; and P, a priestly invention, c. 500 B.C.”5)Merrill F. Unger, Unger’s Bible Handbook, Moody Press (Chicago, IL: 1966, tenth printing 1977), p. 35 Finally, “around 400 B.C. some redactor (i.e. editor) supposedly combined these four independently written texts to form the Pentateuch as it was known in the time of Jesus and modern times.”6)Terry Mortenson and Bodie Hodge, “The Documentary Hypothesis: Moses, Genesis, and JEDP?” in Ken Ham and Greg Hall, Already Compromised, Master Books (Green Forest, AR: 2011), p. 214

This theory is speculative and easily debunked by a number of facts: (1) there is no evidence; (2) the internal unity of Genesis and the Pentateuch as a whole, which we will see in this article, contrast to the accusation of alleged contradictions which have consistently been answered; (3) Chiastic structures (which we will see later) argues for one author; (4) grammatical anomalies unique to the Pentateuch: “In the Pentateuch the 3rd pers. fem. sing. Is spelled הִיא  i.e. the masculine form is written but the feminine form is read; the reason for this is obscure.”7)Thomas O. Lambdin, Introduction to Biblical Hebrew,  Darton, Longman and Todd Ltd. (London: 1973), p. 82 (5) the author is accurate with Egyptian climate, geography, fauna, loan words, customs accurately identified in Pentateuch which points to Moses not the alleged other sources who were never in Egypt (6) great scholars who exceed the intelligence of the sceptics that hold this opinion have thoroughly refuted this theory. Consider Dr. Robert Dick Wilson, who was a Princeton professor and a prolific author who mastered forty-five ancient languages and dialects in his studies of the Old Testament and challenged the other so-called “experts” to prove their qualifications before making statements about the history and text of the Old Testament. (7) The term “Lord of Hosts” is a predominate term for the prophets writing during exile (Isaiah uses it 63 time; Jeremiah  83 times; Haggai  13 times; Zechariah  51 times). Why didn’t the redactors who were supposedly writing during this period use it in their editing of the Pentateuch? (8) Computer analysis have proven the internal literary unity of the Pentateuch: “Yehuda Radday and Haim Shore, published a detailed linguistic analysis of Genesis, including as many variables as possible. They argued that their work pointed to a unity, contradicting the Documentary Hypothesis.”8)Johnathan Sarfati, The Genesis Account: A Theological, Historical, and Scientific Commentary on Genesis 1-11, Creation Ministry International (Powder Springs, Georgia: 2015), p. 31 (9) Moses has historical been recognized as the author. The voice of history has a much better reliability than scoffers speculating over obscene theories that hold no tangible evidence in the 1800s.

It is further important to note that the literary genre of Genesis 1-11 is consistent with a historical narrative. Jonathan Sarfati comments:

The Hebrew grammar of Genesis shows that Genesis 1-11 has the same literary style as these other historical books. For example, the early chapters of Genesis frequently use the construction called the ‘waw consecutive’ (or wayyiqtol or preterite), a singular mark of sequential narrative, as Hebrew grammarians consistently point out.

Genesis 1-11 also has several other trademarks of historical narratives, such as ‘accusative particles’ (‘et את) that mark the objects of verbs, and many terms that are carefully defines.9)Johnathan Sarfati, The Genesis Account: A Theological, Historical, and Scientific Commentary on Genesis 1-11, Creation Ministry International (Powder Springs, Georgia: 2015), p. 48

Those who are sceptic of the six literal days of creation and the relatively short age of it’s existence have erroneously claimed that Genesis 1-11 is poetic, not historical. Poetry in the Bible is predominated with perfect and imperfect verb forms compared to the various other verb forms that dominate the historical genre of the Bible. If one desired to see a poetic literary style of the creation account they could look at Psalm 104 for a comparison. Dr. Henry Morris III wrote about the difference between the different literary styles presented in the Bible as contrasted to the obvious historical genre of the Genesis account.

For example, Psalms are written as poetry or lyrics. There are Hebrew Parallelisms, frequent repetitions of words or phrases, and many more descriptive words to convey emotions as well as facts. The Psalms are intended to be read (or sung) in just this fashion. The prophetic books are replete with predictive text and announcements, sometimes in the form of visions and dreams and unusual illustrative stories. Often the reader is told the interpretation of these visions, thus indicating how one is to discover the meaning of the text.

But the historical text of the Old Testament are just that—history.10)Henry Morris III, The Book of Beginning: A Practical Guide to Understand and Teach Genesis, Institute of Creation Research (Dallas, TX: 2014) Vol. 1, p. 39

Other scoffers of the Genesis account have claimed it to be mythological. Jewish scholar Umberto Cassuto who was an expert in the ancient Ugaritic and Middle East cultures that surrounded Israel in that time reveals how foolish this line of reasoning is.

 When we consider how the Mesopotamia mythologies portray the making of heaven and earth, we cannot but realize the enormous difference… The former relates that after the god Marduk (or a different deity according to other versions) had vanquished Tiamat, the goddess of the world-ocean, depicted as a great and mighty sea-monster, as well as the other monsters and monstrosities that she had created to aid her in her combat, and after he had slain his chief enemy with his weapon, he cut her carcass horizontally, dividing it into two halves, which lay on top of the other, and out of the upper half he formed the heavens and the lower half he made the earth (which includes, of course, the sea, the ‘Deep’). Here is a quotation from the Babylonian account of creation (Tablet iv. 137-140):

He split her like a fish into two parts;

The one half of her he set up and laid therewith the beams of the heavens…

He pulled down a bar and stationed a watch,

He enjoined them not to let her waters go forth.

The last two line (‘He pulled down a bar,’ etc.) do not refer to the heavens, as they are usually understood, but apply to the earth and the sea. In the Greek summary of the myth by the Babylonian priest Berossus, it is clearly stated that the god Bel, that is Marduk, sliced the body of Thamte (Tiamat, Tamtu) into two, and of the one half he formed the earth, and out of the other half the heavens.11)Umberto Cassuto (Trans. Israel Abraham), A Commentary on the Book of Genesis, Part 1: From Adam to Noah Genesis 1-V8, The Magness Press (Jerusalem, 1944, first English edition 1961), Vol. 1, p. 32

Just as some have attempted to present the ancient mythologies as the source of the Pentateuch by viewing the few insignificant similarities while ignoring the vast amounts of differences, so many contemporary scholars have compromised the Genesis account attempting to reconcile it with the modern secular mythology of evolution12)I refer to evolution as a secular mythology on the basis that it is historical dependent on pagan myths. See Heath Henning, “Evolution is Paganism,” at http://truthwatchers.com/evolution-is-paganism/ by ignoring the major irreconcilable conflicts.13)see Heath Henning, “Long Ages: Where did the idea come from?” at http://truthwatchers.com/long-ages-idea-come/ We will not deal with the various views that have been suggested to attempt to fit billions of years into the Genesis chronology in this article, but will address it in a future writing. One of the major voices of compromise is Dr. Hugh Ross from Reasons to Believe. He has been refuted thoroughly by Jonathan Sarfati in Refuting Compromise14)Jonathan Sarfati, Refuting Compromise: A Biblical and Scientifi9c Refutation of “Progressive Creationism” (Billions of Years) As Popularized by Astronomer Hugh Ross, Master Books (Green Forest, AR: 2004), pp. 411; with an updated and expanded edition in 2014, pp. 550 Hugh Ross is followed by the most popular New Evangelical apologist such as John Ankerberg, Norman Geisler, Lee Strobel, etc. In Jonathan Sarfati’s recent book The Genesis Account, he presents the following graph to present how such compromise is loaded with multiple contraditcions which cannot be reconciled (unless, of course, like the common mentality of New Evangelical apologists and theologians who are dependent on the philosophy of Hegelian Dialectics15)see Heath Henning, “Hegelian Dialectics,” at http://truthwatchers.com/hegelain-dialectics/ to synthesize two opposing views). Jonathan Sarfati expresses these contradicting accounts as follows:16)Johnathan Sarfati, The Genesis Account: A Theological, Historical, and Scientific Commentary on Genesis 1-11, Creation Ministry International (Powder Springs, Georgia: 2015), p 58

truthwatcher

Henry Morris also identified how the creation account of Genesis presents a unity within the theological standard of the Bible as a whole.

In similar manner the structure of the universe witnesses to the nature of God, or better, to the “structure” of God, the godhead. The universe is (both as all men sense intuitively and as modern science has described dimensionally) a remarkable tri-universe, a “continuum” of space and mass-energy and time…. Scripture does clearly reveal God to be a triune God, theologians through the centuries have naturally interpreted the term [“godhead”] to include the concept of His triunity—God, as Father, Son and Holy Spirit, one God in three persons.

Space is invisible, omnipresent background of all things, everywhere displaying phenomena of matter and/or energy (which are inter-convertible) which are, in turn, experienced in time. Just so, the Father is the invisible, omnipresent source of all being, manifest and declared by the eternal word, the Son, who is, in turn, experienced in the Spirit.

It is not that the universe is a triad of three distinct entities which, when added together, comprise the whole. Rather each of the three is itself the whole, and the universe is a true trinity, not a triad. Space is infinite and time is endless, and everywhere throughout space and time events happen, processes function, phenomena exist. The tri-universe is remarkably analogous to the nature of its Creator.

Furthermore, each of the three entities is also itself a trinity. That is, for example, space is comprised of three dimensions, each of which occupies all space. The first dimension is the basic dimension by which space is identified (e.g., the linear dimension); it can only be “seen,” however, in two dimensions and “experienced” in three dimensions.

Time is also a trinity. The future is the unseen, unexperienced source of time. As it “flows” forward, time becomes apparent to the senses, instant by instant, in the present.In the past, it has become “experienced,” or historical time.17)Henry M. Morris with Henry M. Morris III, Many Infallible Proofs, Master Books (Green Forest, AR: 1974, 1996), p. 118

The following graph is presented to simplify the discussion above.18) Henry M. Morris with Henry M. Morris III, Many Infallible Proofs, Master Books (Green Forest, AR: 1974, 1996), p. 119

truthwatcher

Creation reveals it’s Creator, just as Scripture says, “For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse.” (Romans 1:20) Henry Morris’ son, Henry Morris III offered a similar expression in his three volume commentary of Genesis, stating, “God the Father is like the space of the universe; the Source and Background of all things. God the Son is like matter (mass-energy) of the universe; the Visible One and Revealer of the Godhead. God the Spirit is like the time of the universe; the One who makes it possible to experience the work and will of God.”19)Henry Morris III, The Book of Beginning: A Practical Guide to Understand and Teach Genesis, Institute of Creation Research (Dallas, TX: 2014) Vol. 1, p.  54 He offers the following graph:truthwatcher

Roger Bullard acknowledged another intriguing factor of Genesis that points to its internal unity. “…it is possible to argue that the book of Genesis has a structure consisting of six panels, arranged in two series of parallel triptychs, in which panels I-III and Iv-Vi each advance a story line horizontally, while vertically panel IV has point of correspondence to panel I, V to II, and VI to III.”20)Roger Bullard, “God Will Provide: An Architectural Approach to Genesis 12:1-8a and 21-23,” Faith and Mission, Vol. 1:1 (Fall 1983), p. 57 One example Bullard provided was how God worked within a sequence of three days in creating the certain habitats followed by three days of filling them.

I. Day 1: light II. Day 2: sky and sea III. Day 3: dry land
IV. Day 4: heavenly bodies V. Day 5: birds and fish VI. Day 6: land animals and man

Another mark of the unity of Genesis is the significance of the number seven. Jewish scholar Umberto Cassuto states, “The structure of our section [Genesis 1:1-2:3] is based on a system of numerical harmony. Not only is the number seven fundamental to its main theme, but it also serves to determine many of its details.”21)Umberto Cassuto (Trans. Israel Abraham), A Commentary on the Book of Genesis, Part 1: From Adam to Noah Genesis 1-V8, The Magness Press (Jerusalem, 1944, first English edition 1961), Vol. 1, p. 12 with following information adapted from pp. 13-15 A number of scholars have addressed the following remarks which is summarized for simplification below.22) for examples, see Umberto Cassuto (Trans. Israel Abraham), A Commentary on the Book of Genesis, Part 1: From Adam to Noah Genesis 1-V8, The Magness Press (Jerusalem, 1944, first English edition 1961), Vol. 1, p. 12 with following information adapted from pp. 13-15; Arnold G. Fruchtenbaum, The Book of Genesis, Ariel’s Bible Commentary, Ariel Ministries (San Antonio, TX: 2009), pp. 29-30, 129; and Johnathan Sarfati, The Genesis Account: A Theological, Historical, and Scientific Commentary on Genesis 1-11, Creation Ministry International (Powder Springs, Georgia: 2015), pp. 15-16

  1. 7 paragraphs follow after intro verse Gen. 1:1
  2. 1st noun “God” [אֱלֹהִים] 35 time—7X5
  3. 2nd noun “heavens” [שָׁמַיִם] or syn. “firmament” [רָקִיעַ] 21 time—7X3
  4. 3rd noun “earth” [אֶרֶץ] 21 time—7X3
  5. 7 “fiats” of creation (jussive verb forms) “Let there be…” Cassuto addresses this one slightly different saying, “The ten sayings with which, according to the Talmud, the world was created (Aboth v1; in B. Rosh Hashana 32a and B. Megilla 21b only nine of them are enumerated, the one in i29, apparently, being omitted)—that is the ten utterances of God beginning with the words, and…said—are clearly divisible into two groups: the first group contains seven Divine fiats enjoining the creation of the creatures, to wit, ‘let there be light’, ‘Let there be a firmament’, ‘Let the waters be gathered together’, ‘Let the earth put forth vegetation’, ‘Let there be light’, ‘Let the waters bring forth swarms’, ‘Let the earth bring forth’; the second group comprises three pronouncements that emphasizes God’s concern for man’s welfare (three being the number of emphasis), namely, ‘Let us make man’ (not a command but an expression of the will to create man), ‘Be fruitful and multiply’, ‘Behold I have given you every plant yielding seed’. Thus we have here, too, a series of seven corresponding dicta.”23)Umberto Cassuto (Trans. Israel Abraham), A Commentary on the Book of Genesis, Part 1: From Adam to Noah Genesis 1-V8, The Magness Press (Jerusalem, 1944, first English edition 1961), Vol. 1, p. 12 with following information adapted from p. 14
  6. “light” and “day” 7 time in 1st paragraph
  7. “water” 7 time in 2nd and 3rd paragraphs
  8. 5th and 6th paragraph has “living creatures” [חָיָה] 7 times
  9. Creation is pronounced “good” 7 times
  10. 1st verse 7 words in Hebrew
  11. 2nd verse 14 words in Hebrew 7X2
  12. 7th paragraph deals with the 7th day, has 3 consecutive sentences, each with 7 words and the middle phrase “the seventh day”
  13. The Hebrew words in the 7th paragraph total 35—7X5

This list has been limited to the list presented by Cassuto because we are here mainly concerned with Genesis chapters 1-2, while Jonathan Sarfati offered 15 which included the two additional “14. In Genesis 1-5, the combined usage of YHWH and Elohim is 70 times (10X7). 15. God spoke to Noah seven times in the Flood account.”24)Johnathan Sarfati, The Genesis Account: A Theological, Historical, and Scientific Commentary on Genesis 1-11, Creation Ministry International (Powder Springs, Georgia: 2015), p. 16

Further expressions of the depth of the numeric significance is identified by Dr. Ivan Panin, who dedicated his life to “exploring the numerical structure of the Scriptures, generating over 43,000 detailed hand-penned pages of analysis.”25) http://www.fmh-child.org/Number7.html “Ivan Panin was born in Russia on December 12, 1855. Having participated in plots against the Czar, he was exiled from his homeland at an early age. After studying in Germany for some years, he came to the United States and entered Harvard University. He graduated in 1882 and made the conversion from agnosticism to Christianity.”26) http://www.fmh-child.org/Number7.html He was so outspoken as an agnostic, when he announced his conversion it made headlines in the newspapers. To understand his research, the reader must first be familiar with the fact that ancient languages, such as Hebrew and Greek, did not have Arabic numbers “1, 2, 3, etc.” but rather gave numeric equivalents to their alphabet (an example would be A=1, B=2, C=3, etc.).

hebrew

Panin discovered complex numeric patterns intricately woven into the text, all throughout the Scriptures. He documented in Genesis 1:1 alone:

1.) The number of Hebrew words equals 7.

2.) The number of letters equals 28 (7 x 4 = 28).

3.) The first three Hebrew words translated “In the beginning God created” contain 14 letters (7 x 2 = 14).

4.) The last four Hebrew words “the heaven and the earth” have 14 letters (7 x 2 = 14).

5.) The fourth and fifth words have 7 letters.

6.) The sixth and seventh words have 7 letters.

7.) The three key words: God, heaven and earth have 14 letters (7 x 2 = 14).

8.) The number of letters in the four remaining words is also 14 (7 x 2 = 14).

9.) The shortest word in the verse is the middle word with 7 letters.

10.) The Hebrew numeric value of the first, middle and last letters is 133 (7 x 19 = 133).

11.) The Hebrew numeric value of the first and last letters of all seven words is 1393 (7 x 199 = 1393).27)http://www.fmh-child.org/Number7.html

Grant Jeffrey noted, “After many skeptics had dismissed his research, Ivan Panin issued a public challenge through one of the major newspapers of the day, The New York Sun, in a letter to the editor on November 20, 1899, offering his detractors an opportunity to prove his research wrong if they could. Panin issued his public challenge to some of the greatest atheist scholars of the day.”28)Grant R. Jeffrey, The Signature of God, International Press (New York, NY: 1996), p. 236 His public challenged specifically named some of the major scholars of Hebrew (such as Dr. Briggs famous for the BDB Hebrew Lexicon) and Greek (such as Dr. Thayer famous for his Thayer’s Greek Lexicon) of the day pushing the JEDP theory. Panin wrote in his public challenge, “Lastly, my argument can also be refuted by showing that even though my facts be true, my arithmetic faultless, and my collocation of numerics honest, that men could have written thus without inspiration from above.”29)cited by Grant R. Jeffrey, The Signature of God, International Press (New York, NY: 1996), p. 237 In other words, they would have to show that the same patterns could be produced by men or discovered in some text that is not the Bible.

One man claimed, “Ivan Panin’s numerological proof of inspiration is demonstrably false and absurd. It is very easy to demonstrate his errors.”30)Richard Amiel McGough, “Debunking Ivan Panin’s Numerology,” http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?7152-Debunking-Ivan-Panin-s-Numerology He then went on to produce patterns of multiples of twos from Genesis 1:1. The ridiculousness of this is evident (hopefully to anyone who read it) in that, first, he is using the Bible which would essential prove Panin’s point; and secondly, by using multiples of two he produced a fifty-fifty chance that any combination of any two or more letters would equate a multiple of two. Every number is either an even or odd number, so any even number would be a multiple of two. This is hardly a reasonable rebuttal and true scholars would never attempt such foolishness. In fact, when mathematic scholars did try to debunk Panin’s work, they failed. “When professors on the mathematics faculty at Harvard University were presented with this biblical phenomenon they naturally attempted to disprove its significance as a proof of divine authorship. However, after valiant efforts these professors were unable to duplicate this incredible mathematical phenomenon. The Harvard scientists used the English language and artificially assigned numeric values to the English alphabet. They had a potential vocabulary of over 400,000 available English words to choose from to construct a sentence about any topic they chose. Compare this to the limitations of word choices in the biblical Hebrew language that has only forty-five hundred available word choices that the writers of the Old Testament could use. Despite their advanced mathematical abilities and access to computers the mathematicians were unable to come close to incorporating 30 mathematical multiples of 7 as found in the Hebrew words of Genesis 1:1.”31)http://www.fmh-child.org/Number7.html

Panin also made significant finds in the New Testament as well. For Example:

Matthew 1:1-17

1.) The number of words which are nouns is exactly 56, or 7 x 8.

2.) The Greek word “the” occurs most frequently in the passage: exactly 56 times, or 7 x 8.

3.) Also, the number of different forms in which the article “the” occurs is

exactly 7.

4.) There are two main sections in the passage: verse 1-11 and 12-17. In the first main section, the number of Greek vocabulary words used is 49, or 7 x 7.

5.) Of these 49 words, The number of those beginning with a vowel is 28, or 7 x 4.

6.) The number of words beginning with a consonant is 21, or 7 x 3.

7.) The total number of letters in these 49 words is exactly 266, or 7 x 38-exactly.

8.) The numbers of vowels among these 266 letters is 140, or 7 x 20.

9.) The number of consonants is 126, or 7 x 18-exactly.

10.) Of these 49 words, the number of words which occur more than once is 35, or 7 x 5.

11.) The number of words occurring only once is 14, or 7 x2.

12.) The number of words which occur in only one form is exactly 42, or 7 x 6.

13.) The number of words appearing in more than one form is also 7.

14.) The number of 49 Greek vocabulary words which are nouns is 42, or 7 x 6.

15.) The number of words which are not nouns is 7.

16.) Of the nouns, 35 are proper names, or 7 x 5.

17.) These 35 nouns are used 63 times, or 7 x 9.

18.) The number of male names is 28, or 7 x 4.

19.) These male names occur 56 times or 7 x 8.

20.) The number which are not male names is 7.

21.) Three women are mentioned-Tamar, Rahab, and Ruth. The number of Greek letters in these three names is 14, or 7 x 2.

22.) The number of compound nouns is 7.

23.) The number of Greek letters in these 7 nouns is 49, or 7 x 7.

24.) Only one city is named in this passage, Babylon, which in Greek contains exactly 7 letters.32)http://www.fmh-child.org/Number7.html

Despite all these remarkable features, critics still claim that there exists a contradiction between the creation account in Genesis chapter one and two, and this argument is used to cast doubt on the inspiration of God’s word. For example: “When it is realized that there are two distinct creation stories in Genesis belonging to two different sources, inconsistency becomes intelligible. That it exists at all, however, is sufficient to discredit a theory of divine inspiration that is obviously out of accord with the facts.”33)James A. Gordon, Creation Stories of Genesis, Student Christian Movement, (London: 1927), p. 31 They would claim the contradictions would look as follows:

Genesis chapter 1 Genesis Chapter 2
Trees created on day 3, before man, (v.11) Trees created on day 6, after man (v. 8-9)
Birds created on day 5, made from water before man (v. 20) Birds created on day 6, made from the ground after man (v. 19)
Animals created day 6 before man (v. 24-25) Animals created day 6 after man (v. 19)

 

The answer has been simple and available for the skeptics for centuries, yet they refuse to accept it. In Genesis 1:1 we have is an introductory summary clause, “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth,” followed by a detailed account of the act of creating and filling the heavens and earth in Genesis 1:2-2:3. Genesis 2:4 is another introductory summary of a detailed account for creating man while chapter 1 only offered a generalized expression that man was created. 2:4-6 summarizes the creation before man was created, “there was not a man to till the ground” (2:5). Genesis 2:7 God creates man on day 6. Genesis 2:8-25 describes events in the Garden of Eden which was “planted” after man was made (2:8). It is written in an ancient literary form known as “recapitulation.” Gleason Archer explains:

[The] technique of recapitulation was widely practiced in ancient Semitic literature. The author would first introduce his account with a short statement summarizing the whole transaction, and then he would follow it up with a more detailed and circumstantial account when dealing with matters of special importance.

To the author of Genesis 1,2 the human race was obviously the crowning or climactic product of creation, and it was only to be expected that he would devote a more extensive treatment to Adam after he had placed him in his historical setting (the sixth day).34)Gleason Archer Jr., A Survey of Old Testament Introduction, Moody Press (Chicago, IL: 1974), p. 118

David Clouds offers a simpler expression. “The seeming contradiction disappears when one understands that the two accounts are meant to be complimentary. They give two different perspectives to the account of creation. In chapter one the Holy Spirit looks on the big picture and at he general events which occurred in the six days of creation. In chapter two He focuses in on man’s creation and gives us the details of how man was actually formed and how there came to be male and female.”35)David Cloud, Thing Hard to be Understood, Way of Life Literature (Port Huron, MI: 2006), p. 20 Jonathan Sarfati states: “Thus Genesis 1:1-2:3 is a summary outline of the whole creation, in chronological order. This culminates with man being created in God’s image and given dominion over creation. Genesis 2:5-25 focuses in on the creation of man and woman, expands on their order of creation and their marriage, how man’s authority over creation was emphasized with the naming of the animals, and preparation of their home and occupation. So the difference in style is due to the difference in subject matter, not different authors.”36)Johnathan Sarfati, The Genesis Account: A Theological, Historical, and Scientific Commentary on Genesis 1-11, Creation Ministry International (Powder Springs, Georgia: 2015), p. 27

Finally, to answer again the reoccurring claim that there are multiple authors of the book of Genesis, it is evident that the internal unity exist and points to the fact that only one author was involved in its production. The text is full of chiastic structures which could not have been corroborated between multitudes of authors separated by centuries. Note the intricate chiasm expanding over the first two chapters identifying one author of them both.

A 1:1-3  bareness of matter

B   1:4-5  separation of light and darkness

C     1:6-8  separation of the waters above and the waters below

D       1:9-10  separation of dry land and the sea

E         1:11-13  fulfilling of the earth

F           1:14-19  filling of the sky with lights to govern and to measure time

G            1:20-23  filling of the waters below and the waters above with animals

H               1:24-25  filling the land with animals (living beings)

I                   1:26  God’s concept of mankind

J                     1:27  creation of mankind, transfer of image

K                      1:28  mankind’s habitat – the earth

L                         1:29-30  the basis of food for the living creatures

M                          1:31  the heavens and earth made, day 6

N                             2:1  God creation completed in content

O                               2:2a  God’s creation completed in time

P                                 2:2b  God rests on the 7th day

X                                   2:3a  THE HOLY GOD BOTH BLESSES AND SANCTIFIES

p’                                2:3b  God rests on the 7th day

o’                              2:3c  God’s works created and made

n’                            2:4a  the heavens and earth created (finished, completed)

m’                        2:4b  the heavens and earth made in a timespan

l’                        2:5-6  basis for life in the garden plants, moisture

k’                     2:7a  man’s origin = dust

j’                   2:7b  man’s creation, transfer of life

i’                 2:8  man’s place = the garden

h’              2:9  filling the garden with  plants (tree of life)

g’            2:10-14  filling the garden with water

f’          2:15-17  filling the garden with a caretaker + measure for good and evil

e        2:18  fulfilling Adam’s life

d’     2:19-20  separation (discerning, naming) of the animals

c’    2:21-23  separation of man and woman

b’  2:24  separation of parents and children

a’2:25  bareness of man37)A Literary Structure of Genesis 1:1—2:25, by Klaus Potsch, http://www.inthebeginning.org/chiasmus/xfiles/xgen1_1-2_3.pdf

print

References   [ + ]