As one opens the pages of the Bible to read, it’s easy to see the book presents the material within as factual history. It plainly states, in simple terms, propositions that can be either affirmed or denied, that are either true or false. Consider, for instance, Genesis 1:1-3, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. And the earth was waste and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep: and the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light” (ASV). In each sentence or independent clause, there is an assertion that God did a specific thing. This is true or it is not. No middle ground.

If one denies the statements, then there is no logical reason to accept anything else one reads in the Bible, otherwise one falls into a trap of being very selective in acceptance or not-acceptance of the written record, and this is done on a rather arbitrary basis. This is revisionists-history. On the other hand, if one accepts the statements as they are written, then there is every reason to accept everything else in the Bible.

History is the record of man in time. “Time” is only measured in a material universe by people with people at its center (created on day six). Apart from man, the use of the word “history” is meaningless. The material universe “experiences” time, but man measures and chronicles it. So, with man in mind, the Bible begins with God’s creation. The words of Genesis 1, are they true or not?

Many people don’t want the Bible to be a true, factual history. For if it is, then the words of Jesus haunt those who reject. Which will it be for you? RT