Hello. I've noticed often on your site that you claim that the bible is an “eyewitness” to creation. This is a very silly thing to say. You do realize that the bible is simply a collection of stories and writings (which has varied throughout the centuries) and it cannot be “witness” to anything past or present? I assume your point is that God was the witness to His own creation, and that Genesis is allegedly a written account of creation received word for word from God. However, this is a total assumption. There is no declaration in Genesis that the writer was to write the creation account from the very words of God. Instead it is much more plausible that the writer of Genesis merely took initiative (whether by God's prompting or not) to write down the traditional story of creation handed down from generation to generation. This better explains the problems in Genesis, which God would have surely clarified if He ordained and guided the writing of any account of His creation. The writing of Genesis itself is far too removed from the time of creation to be a witness. And the writer of Genesis lived much too long after creation to be a witness. I think it's fine to believe whatever you wish about creation, but it is irresponsible to present Genesis or the Bible as a “witness” to creation; a generalized account based on limited human understanding? - Yes. But a “witness”? - No. I don't know if you'll use this feedback, seeing as how you've shied from several other inquiries I've sent in (aw-dawm and ruddy man for instance), but at least reconsider the whole Genesis/witness thing. Thanks.

Jason
USA
 

---

Hello. I've noticed often on your site that you claim that the bible is an “eyewitness” to creation. This is a very silly thing to say.

After a search of 100 articles on our site, only one could possibly be taken that way-clearly out of context with the rest of the website. What we almost exclusively say is that we have been given an eyewitness account to creation (and subsequent events) in the Bible. We often claim that God is an eyewitness to His creative acts and has given us an eyewitness account in His Word, the Bible. This is logical.

You do realize that the bible is simply a collection of stories and writings (which has varied throughout the centuries) and it cannot be “witness” to anything past or present?

This, of course, presupposes that the Bible is not what it claims to be-the Word of God-and ignores the supporting evidence for its divine authorship. Over the years many have made the claim that the Bible, especially the Old Testament (OT), has been changed and revised throughout the centuries, but this is indeed a baseless claim.

The Qumran texts (a.k.a. the Dead Sea Scrolls) that were found in 1947 and the following years have given very strong testimony to the reliability of the OT. These texts have dated to two centuries or more before the time of Christ. About 100 of these documents are copies of the OT and some of the books were represented by several copies. Since the Dead Sea Scrolls were written, thousands of copies of the OT have been made and yet there are only slight variations (copyist errors, apparent inconsistencies, etc.). The effects are insignificant and what was found in the Qumran caves is an excellent confirmation of what we have today.

Not to mention the OT has time and again been supported by archaeological discoveries, i.e., Jericho, the Hittites, Hazor (mentioned in Joshua 11:10) and David. But we would expect this sort of supporting evidence since the Bible records the true, historical eyewitness account of God. The claims of the Bible's unreliability are unsubstantiated. For more on the historical reliability of the Bible, I suggest reading the article What is the importance of the Dead Sea Scrolls?

I assume your point is that God was the witness to His own creation, and that Genesis is allegedly a written account of creation received word for word from God. However, this is a total assumption.

This is what we presume (just as you apparently presume that it is not the Word of God, and so not an accurate account of creation). So the question really becomes, whose presupposition is more likely?

The Bible, as a divinely-inspired eyewitness account of history, is better able to explain the evidence (fossils, genetic variation, people groups, rock layers, etc.) in a more logical and consistent way than evolutionists' or other long-age believers' 12445 of 10203. In the same way you are trying to get us to give up our axiom of God's Word, I ask you to consider giving up your axiom that man's ideas about the past are true.

There is no declaration in Genesis that the writer was to write the creation account from the very words of God.

The “writer” of the book of Genesis is generally understood to be Moses, although he may have compiled accounts, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, written by eyewitnesses (e.g., Adam, Noah, Shem) to the events mentioned throughout the book (see The Tablet Theory of Genesis Authorship).

If you are claiming that God did not inspire Moses to write the Pentateuch (which includes the creation account), then you haven't read much of the Scriptures. For example, Moses directly conversed with God (Exodus 33:11). Please see 11313

Instead it is much more plausible that the writer of Genesis merely took initiative (whether by God's prompting or not) to write down the traditional story of creation handed down from generation to generation.

There is no direct scriptural support for your claim, although it has been suggested that Moses compiled the accounts of those who had gone before him (see above). But, throughout the Bible are numerous claims that it is inspired by God (2 Timothy 3:16); that it came about by His, not man's, interpretation (2 Peter 1:20-21); that man is not to add to His Word (Proverbs 30:5-6); and that God even directly wrote some of it Himself (Exodus 31:18).

This better explains the problems in Genesis, which God would have surely clarified if He ordained and guided the writing of any account of His creation. The writing of Genesis itself is far too removed from the time of creation to be a witness.

What problems with Genesis? This is another assumption that you have made but have failed to recognize and substantiate. (Additionally, most supposed biblical contradictions have been answered here.)

Since it is very possible that various eyewitnesses (e.g., Adam) were able to write down the events they observed (e.g., the naming of the animals, the fall into sin), and pass these accounts to their descendants, then the authorship is not far removed from the events that are recorded (again, please see The Tablet Theory of Genesis Authorship.)

And the writer of Genesis lived much too long after creation to be a witness.

Then why are parts of it in first person in Hebrew by Moses? This clearly supports the idea that Moses edited narratives of those who were eyewitnesses.

I think it's fine to believe whatever you wish about creation,

Then why the previous portion of this email trying to influence us the other way?

but it is irresponsible to present Genesis or the Bible as a “witness” to creation; a generalized account based on limited human understanding? - Yes. But a “witness”? - No.

You honestly think that a perfect all-knowing God who created everything and eyewitnessed history can't have given us an eyewitness account? And yet, you, an imperfect human being who has only lived a short time eyewitnessing a brief portion of history, want us to believe your account of the past? It is much more logical to believe God's account.

Besides, didn't you just say that you “think it's fine to believe whatever you wish about creation”? Yet you contradict yourself by then stating, “but it is irresponsible to present Genesis or the Bible as a 'witness' to creation.”

Without God's eyewitness account, the origins of the earth and universe, the origins of animals and humans, all that we see in the world (rock layers, different people groups, death and suffering) cannot be explained logically or consistently using fallible man's ideas (big bang, molecules-to-man evolution, uniformitarianism, etc.).

I don't know if you'll use this feedback, seeing as how you've shied from several other inquiries I've sent in (aw-dawm and ruddy man for instance),

If your sole purpose is to make feedback, and not learn, then what is the point? We receive many emails, but only a few make it online. Did the response to your previous email help you or was it ignored? Here is a good one on this subject, already in the feedback section, by Dr. Mortenson: 5309.

but at least reconsider the whole Genesis/witness thing.

Sorry, but we cannot and will not compromise on the Word of God for man's ideas.

Rather, we have renounced secret and shameful ways; we do not use deception, nor do we distort the word of God. On the contrary, by setting forth the truth plainly we commend ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God (2 Corinthians 4:2).

Thanks.

Jason
USA
 

You're welcome; we hope and pray that you will learn to trust in God and accept His perfect eyewitness account of the past.

In His name and for His glory,

David Wright, AiG-USA