On the last two Sundays of March the Everlasting Truths broadcast team aired two hours of discussion about Biblical creationism. Biblical creationism is the belief that the account of creation found in Genesis 1 and 2 is an accurate record of historical events that occurred as described in those two chapters. To some, this may seem to be a lot of time invested in something that is, at most, of secondary importance. If science has discovered life evolved as a product of chance mutations occurring over millions of years, why should Christians get in a lather and say that science is wrong? At first glance creation may seem to be unimportant in view of larger message of the Bible. In reality, the creation account of Genesis is vital to the rest of the Bible. A misunderstanding at the beginning threatens a correct understanding of the rest of the Bible.

A misunderstanding of the account of creation has profound impact on how views the Bible (and how one views the Bible has a profound impacton how one interprets the creation passages) and how one thinks about Jesus. Not that everyone who misunderstands Genesis will have a wrong understanding about Jesus and the Bible, but the logically consistent result of a rejected or wrongly understood Genesis is a wrong understanding of the Bible. Genesis is foundational to the rest of the Bible’s teachings. A wrong understanding of Genesis leaves the Christian with a weak foundation on which to build a Biblical theology. Without a sound Genesis foundation the Christian is forced to construct extra-Biblical buttresses and supports to uphold certain other doctrines.

Despite some arguments to the contrary, no grammatical or contextual reasons exist to conclude Genesis 1 and 2 are intended to be anything but historical fact. The words chosen and the structure of the verses show an obvious intent to declare a historical event. The later chapters of Genesis continue to communicate historical realities with the purpose of connecting the events of thousands of years ago to present day readers. The book of Genesis was written to provide the historical background of sin and the people of God. The book of Genesis was written as part of the basic foundational information needed for a right understanding of God and His plan to deliver men.

The events of Genesis 1 and 2 have an intentional connection to the rest of the history of Genesis. To doubt the creation accounts historical accuracy or to reframe it as an allegory leaves no rational basis for concluding any of the rest of Genesis is not also allegorical. If creation did not occur as described, did man sin as described? What about the flood of Noah, did that happen or is it an allegory for something else? How about the events at the Tower of Babel? Did the world rebel against God (again) and suffer God’s punishment of confusing language and dispersing the family groups, or is it a symbol of something else? If Babel in Genesis 11 is allegory, is Abraham in Genesis 12 also allegory? What about Isaac and Jacob? Is all the history of Genesis, the first 50 chapters of the Bible, just a massive picture of some other reality?

This same question also affects the rest of the Bible. When the Bible describes impossible historical events, are those just allegorical accounts that do not communicate genuine facts? If the plain language of Genesis 1 and 2 can be discarded because it is difficult, conflicts with prevailing scientific knowledge and is scorned by most of the American elite, then what reasonable basis does anyone have to keep any of the other difficult, unpopular truths of the Bible. It is no exaggeration to say that a rejection of Biblical creationism leaves one without the sound foundation necessary to accept the rest of the Bible as true. At best, the reader’s acceptance becomes an arbitrary decision based upon the individual’s subjective conclusion of the importance of a Biblical feature.