“[They
Examined] the Scriptures daily to see if these Things were so.” (Acts 17:11)
Although
the movie “Genesis: Paradise Lost”
(GPL), is a beautiful production that is a feast to both eyes and ears, its’
central message entails significant blunders that violate the text of the first
chapter of Genesis on several fronts. It
also engages in certain logical fallacies, and, with apparent willfulness,
glaringly misconstrues vital aspects of its primary “whipping boy,” the Big
Bang (BB). The latter set of errors is
symptomatic of GPL’s larger reactionary posture toward scientific knowledge
with respect to origins. This antipathy
is a logical outcome of its failure to apprehend St. Paul’s positive posture toward
the authority of natural knowledge (science) identified in Romans 1:18-20. For these reasons, even though I sincerely applaud
GPL’s intentions to both elevate the authority of Scripture and evangelize our
present generation (I share their intentions), it instead illegitimately imposes a chasm between the Bible (2 Tim. 3:16), and
the testimony of nature (Rom 1:20). It
also tragically imposes a stumbling block which hinders the
scientifically-inclined from considering the claims of the Gospel (see my
paper, “The Elephant Standing Between
Secularists and their Receptivity to the Gospel”). Consider then the specific errors which I
will first highlight and then answer below.
Every essay of mine cited here can in every case be found at my website:
www.christianityontheoffense.com.
1. It
is clearly incorrect for GPL to suggest that Genesis ch. 1 cannot accommodate
the BB. Since 1:2 begins with the Hebrew
copula waw
(“and”), this construction according to Hebrew grammar indicates that the
previous verse (1:1) cannot be a heading, but is the first episode of the narrative
(story) itself. It recounts the creation
of the heavens AND the earth as God’s first creative act. So GPL is mistaken in its assertion that the
earth stood solitary as the very first object of creation. What 1:1-2 instead says is that the heavens (including
the earth) were created within a period of unspecified time-frame prior to Day 1 (beginning
at v. 3). Indeed there is absolutely no
exegetical (textual) prohibition in these verses of any finite amount of time,
including billions of years. Only on Day 1 in v. 3 does the earth became the
solitary focus of God’s work-week. 1:1
doesn’t even fit the grammatical category of a heading (as 2:4a by contrast does).
GPLs’ mistaken assumption that 1:1 is a
title also leads to two awkward consequences including firstly that within the narrative, no mention of the creation of
either the heavens or the earth could be found anywhere! Furthermore, if it were true that 1:1 was a
title, its reference to “the heavens” would oddly have absolutely connection to
the remainder of the chapter.
To be continued…
