This is another post from 2024 that I am re-posting with minor edits due to time being spent with my eldest son, who has been away at college.

Although there are definitely non-Christians who deny that the Bible is the word of God or that it is true, there is also a disagreement between Bible believing Christians on how to interpret Genesis. There are those who, like the culture at large, believe in an old Earth and that life was created through the process of evolution (even if directed by God). There are those who believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis, especially the contested first eleven chapters. I am hoping to use the Bible to clearly interpret the Bible and convince my fellow brothers and sisters in Christ to believe in the historical accuracy and specificity of Genesis including the more contested first eleven chapters. If the accuracy and clarity of Genesis 1-11 is contested, it leads to contesting the accuracy of the rest of the Bible, but we know God’s word is truth.

Evidence That Genesis is Historical Narrative:

Among Christians there is a debate on how Genesis, especially the first eleven chapters that describe creation, the flood, and the Tower of Babel, should be interpreted. Should they be interpreted as a historical narrative of the actual events of history or is it more of a spiritual parable or myth? Should we take the words of Genesis literally or figuratively? To do this I am going to look at an example of a parable of Jesus and a description of Jesus’s life from Matthew to which better matches the text in Genesis.

“What do you think? If any man has a hundred sheep, and one of them has gone astray, does he not leave the ninety-nine on the mountains and go and search for the one that is straying? If it turns out that he finds it, truly I say to you, he rejoices over it more than over the ninety-nine which have not gone astray. So it is not the will of your Father who is in heaven that one of these little ones perish. (Matthew 18:12-14)

In this parable of Jesus, the character is not named, nor is he described in detail. The only details given are the number of sheep and those are nice round numbers. The parable is short and without extraneous details. The passage also ends with a clear explanation of what the parable means, so it can be clearly interpreted.

The record of the genealogy of Jesus the Messiah, the son of David, the son of Abraham:

Abraham was the father of Isaac, Isaac the father of Jacob, and Jacob the father of Judah and his brothers. Judah was the father of Perez and Zerah by Tamar, Perez was the father of Hezron, and Hezron the father of Ram. Ram was the father of Amminadab, Amminadab the father of Nahshon, and Nahshon the father of Salmon. Salmon was the father of Boaz by Rahab, Boaz was the father of Obed by Ruth, and Obed the father of Jesse. Jesse was the father of David the king.

David was the father of Solomon by Bathsheba who had been the wife of Uriah. Solomon was the father of Rehoboam, Rehoboam the father of Abijah, and Abijah the father of Asa. Asa was the father of Jehoshaphat, Jehoshaphat the father of Joram, and Joram the father of Uzziah. Uzziah was the father of Jotham, Jotham the father of Ahaz, and Ahaz the father of Hezekiah. Hezekiah was the father of Manasseh, Manasseh the father of Amon, and Amon the father of Josiah. Josiah became the father of Jeconiah and his brothers, at the time of the deportation to Babylon.

After the deportation to Babylon: Jeconiah became the father of Shealtiel, and Shealtiel the father of Zerubbabel. Zerubbabel was the father of Abihud, Abihud the father of Eliakim, and Eliakim the father of Azor. Azor was the father of Zadok, Zadok the father of Achim, and Achim the father of Eliud. Eliud was the father of Eleazar, Eleazar the father of Matthan, and Matthan the father of Jacob. Jacob was the father of Joseph the husband of Mary, by whom Jesus was born, who is called the Messiah. (Matthew 1:1-16)

When Matthew begins describing the beginnings of Jesus’s life, he starts with a very detailed genealogy. These details do not add anything directly to the story, but do give you extra information if you research each of these names and their history. In the rest of the chapter Matthew then continues describing Jesus’s mother and father in detail and detailing the prophecy of his birth.

Now after Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king, magi from the east arrived in Jerusalem, saying, (Matthew 2:1)

In this verse, he then goes into specifics of when and where Jesus was born and what was going on at that time. Many other details, that are historically verifiable, are then added to the description. There is no moral principle given to summarize the point of the text.

Now let’s look at Genesis to see whether it more accurately matches a parable or a historic narrative.

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters. Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light. God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness. God called the light day, and the darkness He called night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day. (Genesis 1:1-3)

As the Bible describes creation, he specifically numbers the days and even defines day in Genesis 1:3 (“God called the light day” and “there was evening and there was morning, one day”). By defining day as “light” and as “evening and morning, one day,” it prevents a misinterpretation of days as a longer than 24 hour period. (God knew how future people would twist his words.)

In Genesis 2:7, he describes his exact method of making man.

Then the Lord God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being. (Genesis 2:7)

Genesis then goes through a description of how God made Eve, how sin entered the world, the punishment for that sin, and how God would cure sin in the future. It then goes into details of the birth of their first two sons, what each son was like, and how Cain sinned and killed Abel.

In Genesis 5, the genealogy section begins.

When Adam had lived one hundred and thirty years, he became the father of a son in his own likeness, according to his image, and named him Seth. Then the days of Adam after he became the father of Seth were eight hundred years, and he had other sons and daughters. So all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years, and he died. (Genesis 5:3-5)

If you notice, not only does the genealogy list the names of the people, but it lists the exact age when the son was born and the exact age when the father died. This is true for each of the people listed up to Noah. There is no purpose of listing all of these names and ages unless they are actual people who lived in the past and these were the actual ages of the people when the next generation was born.

Because these genealogies are used to figure the age of the Earth, there are many people who try to say that there are missing people between the Fathers and sons listed. Even if this was true, it wouldn’t change the age of the Earth because it lists the age of the Father (Adam in the first case) when the son (Seth) was born. Whether Seth was his actual son (which I believe is the case) or was his grandson or great grandson doesn’t matter because Adam was 130 years old when Seth was born. This is very specific. God wanted us to be able to add up these genealogies and discover the approximate age of the Earth (with minor errors since you don’t know if each son was born at the beginning or the end of the year listed).

As you can see, the Genesis text is much better defined as a historical narrative than a parable. This specificity continues through the description of the flood (including the exact dimensions of the ark that are accurate scientifically as mentioned in part 4) and through the description of the Tower of Babel and the dispersion of the people due to the confusion of the languages. In Genesis 10 & 11, the Bible goes through more genealogies of the people, their ages, and even where they moved. This text does not follow any of the conventions used in parables or poetic texts. It is clearly historical narrative

I am specifically writing about Genesis 1-11, because most Bible believing Christians agree that the rest of Genesis is historical narrative. It is only the first 11 chapters that are not interpreted this way because they are trying to mold the Bible to fit the theories of fallible man.

Jesus’s References to Genesis as Real History:

If we want to know what God meant when He inspired Moses’s writing of Genesis, a good place to look is to the words of Jesus, the Son of God. Nobody knows better what was meant in Genesis than Jesus.

When Jesus was questioned about divorce, Jesus responded by referring to Genesis 2

“Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’?” (Matthew 19:4-5)

and

But from the beginning of creation, God made them male and female. For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother, and the two shall become one flesh; so they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.” (Mark 10:6-9)

Clearly Jesus believed the events in Genesis 2 were real history, otherwise His references to creation and the formation of Adam and Eve would make no sense. Notice that He didn’t say “from the beginning of mankind,” but says “from the beginning of creation.” If there were billions of years of creation and evolution and death before Adam and Eve, then this statement makes no sense. If He indeed created Adam and Eve on the 6th day of creation, then He can accurately say “from the beginning of creation.”

Answers in Genesis says this about an old earth:

It is estimated today, by naturalistic scientists, that the universe is around 13.8 billion years old. This means that if you try to argue for theistic evolution or an old earth creation position, then man was created after 99.99997 percent of those billions of years had passed. The evolutionary timeline makes no sense considering what Jesus says about creating man at the beginning of creation or with what the Bible teaches about God forming the earth to be inhabited . link

In another statement by Jesus:

“Therefore, behold, I am sending you prophets and wise men and scribes; some of them you will kill and crucify, and some of them you will scourge in your synagogues, and persecute from city to city, so that upon you may fall the guilt of all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah, the son of Berechiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar. (Matthew 23: 34-35) {emphasis mine}

This is another verse that is meaningless unless Genesis is taken literally. Would a righteous God punish men with the blood of a man that was only figurative, but never actually existed? This statement only makes sense if Abel was a real person in history who was wrongly murdered just as Genesis 4 proclaims. It also would make no sense to mention a mythological Abel, but a true Zechariah (nobody who believes the Bible questions the existence of Zechariah).

“For as were the days of Noah, so will be the coming of the Son of Man. For as in those days before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day when Noah entered the ark, and they were unaware until the flood came and swept them all away, so will be the coming of the Son of Man.” (Matthew 24:37-39)

When Jesus prophecies His future return, He compares it to the global flood and the time of Noah. How are we to interpret his prediction if we believe that Noah and the flood are only a parable or a myth? How are we to interpret his prediction if the flood was only a local flood and didn’t affect the whole earth? Does that mean that Jesus’s return is just a parable or myth or poetry and not a reality? Does that mean that Jesus’s return only affects a small part of the earth and a small portion of humanity?

For those days will be a time of tribulation such as has not occurred since the beginning of the creation which God created until now, and never will. Unless the Lord had shortened those days, no life would have been saved; but for the sake of the elect, whom He chose, He shortened the days. (Mark 13:19-20) {emphasis mine}

Once again Jesus mentions His creation as a real definitive event and not a billions of years process of mistakes, death, and pain.

Do not think that I will accuse you before the Father; the one who accuses you is Moses, in whom you have set your hope. For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me, for he wrote about Me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe My words?” (John 5:45-47)

In this verse Jesus specifically states that not believing Moses leads to not believing Him. Who wrote Genesis? Moses wrote Genesis. If we don’t believe the clear words of Genesis, we can’t fully understand the words and life of Jesus. The miracles of creation and the flood go hand in hand with the miracles Jesus did while on Earth and the miracles He will do in the end times.

Other New Testament References to Genesis as Real History:

When Luke begins his detailed history of Jesus, he begins with a genealogy of Jesus. Unlike Matthew, Luke (a gentile) goes all the way to the first man. This genealogy makes no sense if these men are not real individuals. Nobody questions the later men listed in Jesus’s genealogy, but so many question the first ten or more names mentioned. A genealogy mixing a bunch of real ancestors with a bunch of mythological ancestors is nonsensical.

the son of Enosh, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God. (Luke 3:38)

From “Is Genesis History”:

This (Luke 3:23-38) is basically a genealogical timeline of the world from the beginning of creation to Jesus. Luke clearly sees all these names as real men who conceived sons with their wives. link

Luke clearly views Genesis as real history.

Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned— for until the Law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come. (Romans 5:12-14)

In Romans Paul clearly takes Genesis as real history and Adam as a real man who sinned and brought sin and death into the world. If Adam is not a real person and death did not enter the world through his sin, then the gospel makes no sense.

For we who have believed enter that rest, just as He has said, “As I swore in My wrath, They shall not enter My rest,” although His works were finished from the foundation of the world. For He has said somewhere concerning the seventh day: “And God rested on the seventh day from all His works”; and again in this passage, “They shall not enter My rest.” (Hebrews 4:3-5)

Here the writer of Hebrews refers to a literal 6 days of creation with a 7th day of rest. The whole analogy fails if creation was billions of years of time as God tweaked His creation.

Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned— for until the Law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come. (Romans 5:12-14) {emphasis mine}

In this verse, Paul compares Adam to Jesus. Adam brought sin and death into the world while Jesus is the cure to both.

This passage also says “death reigned from Adam … .” This specifically states that death started at Adam. If sin didn’t enter the world through a real Adam, then the analogy comparing Jesus to Adam loses its power. If death isn’t the consequence of sin and if death occurred before Adam sinned, then death isn’t the consequence of sin, and the Bible is inaccurate (contradicting Romans 6:23 “For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.”). If death isn’t the consequence of sin, what do we need saving from?

For since by man came death, by Man also came the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive. (1 Corinthians 15:21–22 NKJV).

If we all die in Adam and Adam is a myth, then what do we think of Jesus? Is He real? Is He really the answer to sin? Can He really make us alive in Him?

But I am afraid that, as the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness, your minds will be led astray from the simplicity and purity of devotion to Christ. (2 Corinthians 11:3)

and

For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression. (1 Timothy 2:13-14)

and

who once were disobedient, when the patience of God kept waiting in the days of Noah, during the construction of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through the water. (1 Peter 3:20)

and

Woe to them! For they have gone the way of Cain, and for pay they have rushed headlong into the error of Balaam, and perished in the rebellion of Korah. These are the men who are hidden reefs in your love feasts when they feast with you without fear, caring for themselves; clouds without water, carried along by winds; autumn trees without fruit, doubly dead, uprooted; (Jude 1:11-12)

These are yet more examples of a reference to Genesis where it is treated as real history. These passages have no meaning if Genesis 1-11 is not a literal history of God, mankind, and the earth. The gospel, sin, and salvation fall apart if Genesis 1-11 are not literal history.

For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God. For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to corruption and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now. (Romans 8:19–22)

These verses use the true history in Genesis to explain why there is pain and suffering on Earth. If Genesis 1-11 isn’t real history then the God we serve is not a loving God. If mankind came to be through millions or billions of years of death and suffering, then God created a world in which pain in suffering was His plan.
If Genesis 1-11 is true history, then God created a perfect universe with no suffering nor death, and it was only through the free choices of Adam and Eve that sin entered the world and through that sin, death. We see how God reacted to sin to prevent Adam and Eve from having eternal life and further corrupting the world. We see God punishing the world through the global flood for being “always evil continually”. We see God dividing the world by confusing their languages so the worst evil of some didn’t spread to all. We see a holy God punishing sin while being patient with mankind and allowing them to turn back to Him through what He has done for us through Jesus Christ.

The God who made the world and everything in it, being Lord of heaven and earth, does not live in temples made by man, nor is he served by human hands, as though he needed anything, since he himself gives to all mankind life and breath and everything. And he made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place that they should seek God, and perhaps feel their way toward him and find him. Yet he is actually not far from each one of us … (Acts 17:24–27) {emphasis mine}

This passage references Genesis 2, where God breathed life into Adam. It treats Genesis as real history, not a parable or moral story.

A proper view of the historicity of Genesis also helps us to have a more accurate view of God as creator of all and as the one who is always in control. A proper view helps us to understand sin, death, and the hardship in the world. A proper view helps us see our sin nature and our need for a Savior.

They will say, “Where is the promise of his coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all things are continuing as they were from the beginning of creation.” For this they willfully forget: that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of water and in the water, by which the world that then existed perished, being flooded with water. (2 Peter 3:4–6)>

God knew that mankind would twist his word and would use uniformitarianism to try to disprove His existence. He warned us of this error ~2,000 years in advance. We need to take Him at His word.

Although I was trying to focus on New Testament references to Genesis, I couldn’t pass up this Old Testament reference from the Ten Commandments:

“For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day” (Exodus 20:11)

Could the Bible be more clear on the meaning of God’s description of creation, sin, the fall, the first murder, the flood, and the dispersion at Babel? Will you put the word of man before the word of God? The Bible couldn’t make things more clear that we live in a young earth, created in six 24-hour days and that sin and death entered the world when a literal Adam and Eve sinned. We are not an accident and didn’t come to be by guided evolution through constant death. Death was not God’s design, but was the consequences of Adam’s sin.

We may be told that “science proves,” but science doesn’t prove an old earth. Besides the fact that science can’t prove what happened in the past but only suggest likelihood, fallible men, who deny God and want no god, have manipulated scientific evidence to try to disprove a young earth. The more you look at the actual science, the more clear it becomes that science supports the Bible and a young earth, rather than an old earth. Trying to fit Scripture into secular “scientific” story-telling, causes great damage to the gospel. If part of the Bible is untrue or misleading, then how can we trust the rest of the Bible?

Trust the Bible.

Trust Jesus.