Is Genesis Historic and Reliable?

Corn cob on plant

Refuting the Critics

by Dr. Lisle

Our feedback this week comes from Colin who believes that the Bible is “historized” fiction and not reliable in terms of science.  Here are his comments in purple text along with my response.

Dr. Lisle: Hi Colin.  I will try to answer your questions here.

Colin> For Dr Jason Lisle: Dr Lisle, why do you think the Bible is Scientific or reliable when most Ancient Historians know it is historized Fiction?

Dr. Lisle: Actually, ancient historians verified much of Scripture.  Consider the writings of historians like Josephus and Herodotus and how they confirmed many of the events of the Bible as literal history.  Modern archeology has further confirmed many of the events recorded in Scripture.  The fallen walls of Jericho have been excavated.  The remnants of Sodom and Gomorrah have been found.  What gave you the impression that the Bible is historized fiction?  As a matter of procedure, how do you know what happened in the distant past so that you can check the record of the Bible?

The Bible has demonstrated itself to be God’s Word, and must therefore be accurate on all matters on which it touches.  This necessarily includes science and history.  You can easily check some of the scientific claims yourself.  For example, the Bible teaches that you will reap what you sow (Galatians 6:7).  Why not perform a scientific experiment to test the claim?  Plant some corn and see what grows.  If corns grows, then the Bible is right in its scientific claim.  But if strawberries spring from your corn kernels, then you would at least have some basis for claiming that the Bible has scientific errors.

Colin> Even other Christians don’t agree with you let alone Sceptics:

Dr. Lisle: Actually, many Christians agree with me.  But even if the majority of people are ignorant of history, this has no bearing on the truth of the historical events recorded in Scripture.  Even most secular historians understand that the Bible contains accurate history, even if they don’t agree with all of the details.  The existence of Abraham as recorded in Genesis, for example, is well established.

Colin> How do you know the Universe needs a Cause…

Dr. Lisle: It has a beginning.  Things that have a beginning require a cause.  (Can you cite any counter-examples?)  Therefore, the universe requires a cause.

Colin>  that’s a fallacy of Composition…

Dr. Lisle: No.  The notion that “the universe must have a cause on the basis that all things within the universe have a cause” would be the fallacy of composition.  But that’s not my argument.  (This is discussed in my latest textbook on Logic.)  My argument for creation is the transcendental argument.  I don’t argue from causation except as confirmatory.

Colin> I will now challenge your assumptions that the Bible is true or Scientific: You, Ross and Stephen Meyer have Science Degrees but are untrained in Evolutionary Science or Statistics:

Dr. Lisle: First, this is not a challenge of my conviction that the Bible is true and scientifically accurate.  Rather, it is simply a circumstantial ad hominem fallacy.  This fallacy occurs when you shift the topic to the person’s biases or credentials, rather than dealing with evidence for the claim at issue.

Second, I do indeed have training in statistics.  A good understanding of mathematics in general and statistics in particular is essential in astrophysics, and is part of any Ph.D. program in that field.

Third, “evolutionary science” is an oxymoron.  Science and evolution are opposites – they cannot both be true.  This is because science is predicated upon the biblical creation worldview…


image credit: Christophe Maertens