Page 314 - Way of Life Encyclopedia of the Bible Christianity. Based on the King James Bible

INSPIRATION

school of writers), perhaps in the tenth century B.C. one, for example, says God created the animals and
golden age of King Solomon, proclaiming to his plants according to their kind and put within them the
contemporaries the meaning of the existence of Israel ability to reproduce themselves according to their kind.
as a nation of Gods chosen people” (Kraft, Genesis, pp. That is precisely what we observe in the world.
18,19). Kraft also questions the historicity of Adam and Eve,
“... it [the Genesis creation account] is the sublime claiming the biblical account is probably a religious
statement of religious faith hammered out over the
centuries of Israel’s history” (Kraft, Genesis, p. 27). myth that depicts general truths of some sort. I don’t
In these excerpts, Kraft promotes the J.E.D.P. theory. believe it is possible for any man to be saved who denies
This teaching actually takes many different forms, but at the historicity of Genesis one through three. To deny
root it claims the Pentateuch was written by various Adam and Eve is to deny the Fall. To deny the Fall is to
unknown men and edited together in its present form make nonsense out of Christ’s Atonement. If Adam and
many centuries after Moses. This is unadulterated Eve of Genesis merely represent mankind in general
modernistic unbelief. Christ-denying Modernists devised (“every man and every woman”) what happened to
these theories and today’s Evangelical scholars are mankind when Adam died (Ge. 4:5)! Further, if Adam
gullibly following them. In reality, Genesis was written and Eve merely represent mankind in general, why does
by MOSES by DIRECT REVELATION during Moses the Bible always refer to them as historic individuals?
lifetime! We have seen how Christ and the Apostles Adam and Eve are mentioned 35 times in 12 books of
looked at Genesis. the Bible (Ge. 2-5; De. 32:8; 1 Ch. 1:1; Job 31:33; Mt.
19:4-6; Mk. 10:6-7; Lk. 3:38; Ro. 5:12,14; 1 Co. 15:22,
Note three additional excerpts from Kraft’s 45; 2 Co. 11:3; 1 Ti. 2:13-14; Jude 14).
commentary that illustrate the rationalistic unbelief that
Kraft also claims that the account of the clothing of
is rampant among biblical scholars today: Adam and Eve by God is a “Hebrew explanation.” Not
“Is it not logical that the Biblical writer could do no so; it is Divine Revelation! The account in Genesis three
other than write in terms of the scientific theories of is precisely what occurred after Adam and Eve sinned
his own day? How else could he have been understood
previous to the rise of modern science?” (Kraft, against God. God clothed them in coats of skins. Not
Genesis, p. 37). only does it teach us that God intends for sinful man to
“The first chapter of Genesis was not written primarily be clothed properly because of the wickedness of his
to explain how God created the universe” (Kraft, fallen heart; but the clothing in Genesis 3 also depicted
Genesis, p. 37). the death and blood that was required for the
“Above all, it is of the utmost importance that we see in atonement of mans sin and it pointed to the Cross of
the story not merely primeval history about the first Jesus Christ.
man and the first woman which our current knowledge Charles Kraft is only one of hundreds of examples we
of geology, anthropology, and biology will not allow us could give of biblical scholars who deny the infallibility
to accept. ... not primarily two individuals, Adam and of Holy Scripture. This damnable assault upon the Word
Eve, but, as their names imply, the man and the of God is called Modernism.
woman, that is, every man and every woman” (Kraft,
Genesis, p. 54). - The Evangelical assault beginning in the 1940s:
“Here, then, this story [of Adam and Eve being clothed New Evangelicalism broke down the walls of separation
by God after they sinned] may be an early Hebrew between Bible believers and unbelieving modernists.
explanation for mans universal adult consciousness of New Evangelicals represented a new generation of old-
sex and of the need for clothing to hide sex” (Kraft, time fundamentalists. They did not like separation and
Genesis, p. 57). contending for the faith and other “negative” aspects of
Though Kraft claims Genesis chapter one was not old-time Christianity. They wanted a positive
written to teach precisely how creation occurred, he Christianity.
does not tell us how he makes such an assertion. I have The term “New Evangelicalism” was coined by the
read Genesis one many times, and it always strikes me late Harold Ockenga (1905-1985) to define a new type
as a plain statement of how the world was created! That of Evangelicalism and to distinguish it from those who
is certainly what it appears to be. What proof does Kraft had heretofore born that label. Ockenga has had a
give that Genesis one was not written for this purpose phenomenal influence upon today’s Evangelicalism. He
and that its “scientific” declarations cannot be trusted? was the founder of the National Association of
The only proof he has is his belief that Genesis one Evangelicals, co-founder and one-time president of
contradicts scientific discoveries. This is not true, Fuller Theological Seminary, first president of the World
though. The literal account of Genesis one does not Evangelical Fellowship, a director of the Billy Graham
contradict any proven fact of science. In fact, it perfectly Evangelistic Association, and chairman of the board and
fits every observable fact of the scientific world. Genesis one-time editor of Christianity Today.

314 Way of Life Encyclopedia of the Bible & Christianity