You state in your book Is There a God “Comparison of Genesis one with
scientific knowledge implies a transcendent source for the creation
story.” Why only limit it it to Genesis one? What about Genesis
two? Not so brave there – you have to fall back on faith. There is no
strict logical implication in your above statement.

I do not limit it to Genesis one at all. I believe that the medical
evidence from Leviticus implies a transcendent source of that book. I
believe that the foreshadow content in Leviticus also argues for
transcendent reality. I believe that the prefigure/foreshadow content in
the story of Abraham in Genesis is compelling evidence for transcendent
reality. I can go on with dozens of examples, including specific ones
from the book of Genesis.

I also believe that Genesis two is consistent with transcendent reality,
but the evidence in this particular case is not as compelling as with
Genesis one. I can say the same about the book of Esther, but there, too,
the supportive evidence is not absent, it is just less compelling. I
agree that it requires more faith to believe that Ruth is inspired than is
required to believe that Isaiah is inspired. So what? I have freely
admitted the uneven distribution of evidence in the Bible in numerous
responses to you. It is the overall case which proves the conclusion.
The lack of compelling evidence for inspiration in the fourth chapter of 1
Samuel is not a logical argument against the transcendant nature of
biblical inspiration as a whole.

By the way, although the creation content in Genesis chapter two is not as
compelling evidence, scientifically, as Genesis chapter one (neither is it
evidence against inspiration), the foreshadow evidence from the story of
Adam and Eve is actually quite strong. See From Shadow to Reality for

John Oakes, PhD

Comments are closed.