Should Genesis 1-11 Be Read as History?

Creationists and literal interpreters of the Bible believe that the text of Genesis reveals the history of the earth, from the creation of the universe and humankind through to the Tower of Babel. Those who follow this belief, subscribe to the idea that the events of Genesis were revealed to someone, usually Moses, who passed it down through either written or oral form. Others choose to regard Genesis 1-11 as meaning something other than what it says – suggesting that it is poetry with theological concerns that supersede history, or that it has metaphorical meanings.

How should we interpret Genesis? Does this crucial Old Testament book provide nothing more than a poetic, allegoric story or does it describe the creation of the world and the earliest days of humanity’s life on earth?

What Kind of Literature is Genesis?

Anyone who has spent any time reading and engaging with the bible will know that it contains a wide variety of literature types in both the Old and New Testaments. These include poetry, parables, epistles, proverbs, historical narrative, prophecy and more. The key to interpreting any part of the bible correctly lies in first identifying what kind of literature it is. If we interpret a piece of text metaphorically, but the author intended for it to be read literally, then we misunderstand the meaning. When Jesus said “I am the vine, you are the branches” he did not mean that he was made from plant life, and that we are growing from him, about to sprout leaves. In the same way, if we interpret something that is clearly literal, as somehow allegorical, we will misunderstand, and misrepresent that text.

Genesis 1-11 is often singled out, apart from the rest of Genesis because it is a very specific type of literature. Its composition is extremely poetic and structured, leaving people to assume that it isn’t historical. Genesis 1-11 is often called ‘Primeval History’ as it presents a pre-history that depicts origins. It is crucial theologically and is steeped in Hebrew poetry and etiology. Because of its poetic nature, proponents of evolution that accept the bible and Genesis will often relegate the texts of Genesis 1-11 as myth or allegory so as not to align it against their belief in evolution.

We are not looking for meanings which are hidden, or hard to understand. We are looking for the straightforward meanings in Genesis 1-11. As well as being poetry it is also story, since it has characters, narration and dramatic events, and there is no reason for us to believe that this story was not based on real events. Elsewhere in the Bible are examples that provide ample support for Genesis to be interpreted as historical narrative.

Let’s take a look.

How Did Old Testament Authors of The Bible Interpret Genesis?

We know from Mosaic Law that creation week in Genesis 1 was important to God. With his own finger, God commanded the Sabbath, for the following reason;

“For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.”

If the creation week outlined in Genesis 1 was not a true, historical depiction, then this commandment loses all meaning. If one is to argue, as some do, that each ‘day’ equates to a ‘billion years’ then one would also have to suggest that God commands us to work for six billions years and then rest for one billion years.

Old Testament writers also treat Genesis 1-11 as chapters of literal history. This is particularly evident in the careful genealogies kept, particularly the ones in First Chronicles which provide a series of genealogies that trace back to Adam. The author of Chronicles clearly took the accounts of Genesis as historically accurate. If in fact, Genesis was not a historical account then these genealogies have been fabricated. Psalms also credits God as the creator and even cites events which took place during creation week, and, Isaiah cites God’s promise to Noah, another point which would be rendered meaningless if Genesis 1-11 was simply metaphorical.

How Did New Testament Authors of The Bible Interpret Genesis?

The New Testament is very vocal in its portrayal of Genesis as historically accurate. Every single New Testament author either quotes or alludes to Genesis, and over 60 of those allusions relate to Genesis 1-11. For such a small body of literature, this is a staggering amount.

The New Testament opens with Matthew’s genealogies which show Genesis to be historically accurate. If we are to regard Genesis as ‘myth’ or allegory then we also derail Jesus’ bloodline, and conclude that it was either made up or that he descended from a myth, much like Greek mythological characters such as ‘Zeus’ or ‘Hercules’. Paul in particular built a substantial amount of his theology around doctrines that come up in Genesis 1-11. In Romans and Corinthians, he discusses Jesus as the last Adam, who undid the damaging work of the first Adam, and affirmed that it was Eve who was deceived at the fall, not Adam. For Paul, the events of Genesis were a physical reality that were corrected in Christ, not simply an allegorical story. If Adam was a mythical character whose actions only had allegory for sinfulness, then Christ was not needed to rectify the fall. Only real, tangible people can make real, tangible actions which have universal consequences.

Creation and the fall are also deeply woven into the theology of Romans. Paul teaches that the bondage that affected the world at the fall affected the entire cosmos, and tells us that the entire creation is groaning for redemption.

Other New Testament books also utilise Genesis, reiterating the texts in order to form theologies that address certain issues. Peter based some of his teaching on Genesis 1-11, affirming the global flood that affected Noah and his family, as well as Hebrews which cites Abel, Enoch and Noah as heroes of the faith.

Finally, the bible ends with a depiction of the new creation, which once again draws on the original creation as a historical reality which is to come to fruition again. The Book of Revelation and the New Jerusalem are filled with imagery of Eden including the tree of life and the very real presence of God.

How Did Jesus Interpret Genesis?

The historical authenticity of Genesis mattered deeply to Jesus. He used Genesis language when teaching on marriage, when he discusses Abel as the first prophet, Noah and the flood and more. Nowhere in the New Testament do we find examples of Jesus allegorizing this material, but rather the opposite: Jesus always regard these events as straightforward history. He also predicted that the end of time would come quickly like the days of Noah indicating that he believed that the events of Noah’s history were a reality that would be repeated.

Jesus also expended much time and effort into defending scripture and emphasising the importance of taking scripture seriously. In John he asserted that scripture cannot be broken, and in Luke he reprimanded his disciples for not believing scripture.

We cannot get anything from Jesus other than a strong sense that all of Genesis reveals a historical narrative which should be taken seriously, and at face value.

So….Should Genesis 1-11 be Read as History?

We have to regard the texts of Genesis as historically accurate accounts, because that is how the Old Testament authors, the New Testament authors, and Jesus, regarded them. Though the texts employ beautiful literary motifs, are highly structured and address very specific theological concerns, we have no biblical basis whatsoever for taking them as anything but literal.

Choosing to regard Genesis 1-11 as myth or allegory undermines the text in question and the bible as a whole, as well as the biblical authors and Jesus who regarded them as history. It also robs the rest of the bible of its proper foundation.

If we believe that Jesus came to redeem a real, physical problem that existed in real space and time, then we have to believe that that the problem started in a real garden, with two real people. Believing in these real, historical events also allows us to look forward to the very real renewal which will take place on earth when Christ returns. Any other interpretation undermines this message and God’s redemptive purposes for the world.

The Bible is clear. We must believe Genesis 1-11 is real, literal history because Jesus, Old Testament authors and every New Testament author did. We must also believe because these opening chapters of our bible are foundational to our understanding of the bible as a whole. The gospel is grounded in the literal, historical authenticity of Genesis 1-11.

To honour God’s creation, be sure to sign the petition to establish Creation Day as an official holiday!

Adam and Eve: Matters of Original Sin

It’s the age old question: who actually sinned – Adam or Eve?

When we read Genesis 3, it can be difficult to decide who it was that was really responsible for the fall of creation. Satan was the first to display rebellion and Eve was the first to eat the fruit, yet Adam is placed with the blame throughout the bible. Who was at fault?

Eve

A common argument that Eve was blameless follows from the fact that the command was given to Adam before the creation of Eve;

And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, “Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat; but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.”

Though God did not directly command Eve not to eat from the tree of knowledge, it is clear that she knew what the rules were;

And the woman said to the serpent, “We may eat the fruit of the trees of the garden; but of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God has said, ‘You shall not eat it, nor shall you touch it, lest you die.’

Rather than deliberately disobeying, Eve allows herself to be deceived into thinking that she has misunderstood the command;

Then the serpent said to the woman, “You will not surely die. For God knows that in the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”

Though she wasn’t present to hear the command directly given in Genesis 2, Eve knew what could be eaten and what couldn’t. In a moment of weakness, she allowed herself to be tricked into thinking that perhaps she could eat the fruit after all. The Apostle Paul wrote;

And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.

Eve herself told God that “The serpent deceived me, and I ate.”

Satan

The serpent’s very presence in the garden makes it clear that sin, in one form or another, already existed. We know from prophets such as Ezekiel and Isaiah that Satan’s sin was steeped in pride and delusions of grandeur that led to his being cast out of the heavenly realm. The difference between original sin and the sin of Satan is the limitations on Satan’s sin. As an angelic being, Satan was never given dominion over creation as Adam was, nor was he ever going to produce any offspring who would be affected by his sin. Satan’s sinfulness affected only himself…UNLESS…he could deceive someone else and cause damage through them.

Satan needed Eve in order to carry out his destructive plans for the created order.

Adam

It is a common idea that Adam was the first sinner, responsible for the consequences of Genesis 3. This line of thinking has come from Paul;

Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned

Adam is credited with the introduction of sin into the world, and the consequences that follow as a result. Why is Adam to blame?

One argument that Adam was blameless is that Eve took of the fruit while he was not aware. Where was Adam while all of this interaction was going on?

So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree desirable to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate. She also gave to her husband who was with her, and he ate.

Right beside Eve. Adam was created from creation itself and Eve was created from Adam. These verses and others from Genesis make it clear that Adam’s role as husband was one of leadership. If Adam was privy to the conversation that took place between Eve and the serpent then he should have exercised his headship and corrected her misunderstanding, instead of passively standing by while she ate and then following in her footsteps. German theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer once famously declared;

Not to speak is to speak. Not to act is to act.

In remaining silent and inactive, Adam reinforces the serpent’s sin and fails to defend his household from sin. This does not mean that Eve was without sin, or that she does not share in the guilt, but as the head of his household, Adam had a responsibility to exercise this headship.

Adam was also responsible for stewardship over creation, another command given directly to him, and eating the forbidden fruit was surely a failure to live up to this directive. It’s interesting to note that when God calls out to them, he asks for Adam alone;

But the LORD God called to the man, “Where are you?”

Though Satan initiated the event, and Eve was the first person to actually sin, it is Adam who must answer to God. Adam, as head of his family, was responsible for his own sin, as well as providing adequate protection for his wife – especially given that the account makes it clear he was standing by and watching the scene take place.

With that said, the Bible never regards Adam’s sin as more serious than Eve’s. Both were held accountable and punished for their sin, as was the serpent.

Serpent:

“Because you have done this, You are cursed more than all cattle, And more than every beast of the field; On your belly you shall go, And you shall eat dust All the days of your life.”

Eve:

“I will greatly multiply your sorrow and your conception; In pain you shall bring forth children”

Adam:

“Cursed is the ground for your sake; In toil you shall eat of it All the days of your life. Both thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you, And you shall eat the herb of the field. In the sweat of your face you shall eat bread Till you return to the ground, For out of it you were taken;
For dust you are, And to dust you shall return.”

To honour God’s creation, be sure to sign the petition to establish Creation Day as an official holiday!

Were Adam and Eve Created Twice?

“And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness…So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.”

Genesis 1

“And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul…but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.”

Genesis 2

The Problem

The accounts of Genesis 1 and 2 appear to offer two separate and somewhat contradictory accounts for the creation of Adam and Eve. Were Adam and Eve created twice?

The Solution

You might be surprised to see that Adam and Eve do not appear in the first creation account at all. We are simply told that God created people in his own image – male and female. In the second account we see that God fashions Adam from dust and places him in the garden he has previously prepared. Eve is created shortly after from one of Adam’s rib bones.

The two accounts are not intended to describe two different creation events. The two accounts are merely describing the same event, in a different way.

Source criticism seeks to establish the sources used by the authors of the bible and looks at editing work that was undertaken on biblical texts before the bible was composed into its current form. According to source critics, the two creation narratives found in Genesis derive from different sources – the account in Genesis 1 being composed in the sixth century by the ‘Priestly’ source and the account in Genesis 2 being composed in the tenth century by the ‘Yawhist’.

A Cosmocentric Account

Genesis 1, composed much later, describes the creation of humanity within the bigger picture – as part of creation week. It is cosmocentric. In this account, the male and female are both created on day six and given dominion over the earth. We are not told if the male and female creation is limited to one person, or what their names were. In this passage the word ‘adam’ is present, but Is used as a plural to describe humankind in the broader sense. The creation of the man and woman finalises the creative week before God steps back and declares that everything he has created is ‘good’. This account appears to place the creation of humanity, as a whole, at the culmination of the cosmic creation that has taken place, evident by the fact that the male and female are not named.

If this piece was indeed penned by the Priestly source, then it was written after the Hebrews had returned from captivity by the Babylonians. Regardless, its function is clear: creation is complete.

An Anthropocentric Account

Genesis 2, the earlier account, describes the creation of Adam and Eve in more detail, with a focus on the birth of humanity rather than the creation of the entire cosmos. It is anthropocentric. In this account the man is also referred to as Adam. In this setting the word is capitalized to indicate a proper noun – it is the name for the man. Adam is fashioned from the ground before God blows the breath of life into his nostrils. The woman, Eve, is then fashioned from Adam. This account ends with the establishment of primeval innocence, depicting the man and woman as both ‘naked’ and ‘not ashamed.’ This account differs from the cosmocentric account in several ways including using different names to describe God, using different methods of bringing about creation and ordering the creative activity differently.

Having been written by the Yahwist could place the composition of this story as early as 950 BCE. The function of this second account serves as a departure point for the subsequent narrative.

In Conclusion

What is being presented here is two different accounts of the same event, fashioned in different ways. The first account places the creation of humanity as the climax for the grandiose story where God creates on a cosmic level. The second uses the event as a ‘scene-setter’ for the narrative which is to follow, in which the man and woman will ‘fall’ through disobedience to God.

Each account uses its own choice of language, structure and detail in order to achieve the theological agenda of its composer. The first account was most likely written as a Jewish, monotheistic response to polytheistic beliefs being spread at the time. The second account holds many similarities to the Babylonian creation myth the ‘Enuma Elish’, suggesting that perhaps this account is a direct response to this, and a way of offering rebuttal to its polytheistic ideas.

What is clear is that regardless of the difference in time, author and agendas, Genesis 1 and 2 were meant to be read together. Each account provides a unique perspective on God’s creative nature and the origins of humankind, as well as God’s relationship with humanity.

To honour God’s creation, be sure to sign the petition to establish Creation Day as an official holiday!

Finding Eden

“I made it beautiful with the multitude of its branches, and all

the trees of Eden, which were in the garden of God,

were jealous of it.”

– Ezekiel 31:9

One of life’s great mysteries for the inquisitive Christian is the location of the Garden of Eden. The Bible, our only evidence for the garden’s location and its very existence, is frustratingly silent in regards to the whereabouts of the garden.

The quest to find this geographical Holy Grail has become almost as consuming as finding Atlantis, Pandora’s Box or the creators of the statues that inhabit Easter Island. However, like many have found, trying to pinpoint the location of the purpose-built paradise has become like searching for a needle in a haystack.

Why Do We Want to Know?

Anyone who has read Genesis, or even heard of the story of Adam and Eve knows that Eden is the garden of God, and the place where all the magic (and disenchantment) happened.

The Genesis creation narrative depicts a creative God who fashions Adam from the ground and places him ‘eastward,’ in a garden crafted specially for him.

What is even more significant is that after Adam’s placement in the garden,

“…the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air…”

These creatures were formed out of the ground in the garden. Genesis 2 also tells us that:

“…out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.”

The origins of every living thing on earth trace back to this garden.

Eden is also significant because it is where the first theophany takes place. Genesis 3 tells us that Adam and Eve;

“…heard the sound of the Lord God walking in the garden in the cool of the day…”

God walked among humans in a very tangible way, making the garden not only the location of our human origins, but also a place of divine presence.

Eden was the birthplace for the human race, the place where God walked with man and woman, where the serpent appeared, where the Tree of Knowledge was placed, where humanity fell into wreckage, and where Adam and Eve were eventually cast out for eternity. It’s no wonder we want to know where it is.

What Does the Bible Say of Eden?

The Bible’s lack of proffered material when it comes to Eden’s location has been the cause of much irritation and disappointment among those searching for the lost paradise.

Most theorists claim the site’s location as somewhere in the Middle East. This is mainly due to the description given in Genesis which gives us the only geographical clues to the garden’s setting;

^“A river flowed out of Eden to water the garden, and there it divided and became four rivers. The name of the first is the Pishon. It is the one that flowed around the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold. And the gold of that land is good; bdellium and onyx stone are there. The name of the second river is the Gihon. It is the one that flowed around the whole land of Cush. And the name of the third river is the Tigris, which flows east of Assyria. And the fourth river is the Euphrates.”

This description has led many to believe that the Euphrates and the Tigris rivers mentioned in the passage refer to the same rivers that exist in the Mesopotamian area today.

Because the other two rivers are less known, determining the garden’s location based on this evidence is problematic. Jewish historian Josephus claimed that Pishon and Havilah referred to the Ganges and the Nile, a point which one scholar asserts was generally agreed upon until the renaissance. Since then, it has been largely questioned and discredited. For Josephus’ theory to work, the rivers would also have to flow to Ethiopia, to feed the Nile.

While the biblical text doesn’t actually name the ‘Tigris’ (it instead says ‘Hiddekel’), we know from elsewhere in scripture that it refers to the Tigris River. In a similar way, the river Euphrates is referred to as ‘Prat’. Most modern translations use the words ‘Tigris’ and ‘Euphrates’ so as to avoid confusion.

The problem with placing Eden in this area is that while it fits with two of the four rivers mentioned, it does not fit with the description of the rivers as emerging from the one head. While the Tigris and Euphrates both have their ‘head’ in the area that surrounds Mt. Ararat, they do not flow, filling the land as described in the text. There is also an absence of the other two rivers making this location implausible. Of course, it’s entirely possible that Tigris and Euphrates had offshoots that are no longer in existence, making this theory possible.

Given that we don’t know the size of the original garden, it is difficult to piece together a location with four rivers, but from the evidence, it appears that the descriptions given in Genesis and the geography as we know it, don’t match up.

What Do We Know of Its Location Now?

The biblical account remains ambiguous and open to much speculation. As a result, people have been venturing guesses for centuries as to the location of the Garden. However, most modern biblical scholars and archaeologists place Eden in or around ancient Mesopotamia.

This is a logical conclusion due to the location of the Euphrates and Tigris rivers as well as the biblical mention of Adam being placed in a garden ‘eastward’ (meaning, east of Israel). Placing Eden in Mesopotamia also stands to reason from a linguistic point of view. In Greek, the word ‘Mesopotamia’ means ‘the land between two rivers,’ a reference to the Tigris and Euphrates.

Science has discovered that crude oil forms from vegetation and animal life which has died and proceeded to decay. With this in mind, it has caused some scholars to argue that the oil reserves found in the Middle East could have formed from the decay of Eden. It stands to reason that the vast oil stores present in the Middle East could be a result of decomposition from the lushest garden that has ever existed. Of course, this is just a theory.

Here are some other theories which have been posed over the years;

Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believe Eden to be located in Missouri, USA. Founder Joseph Smith discovered a stone slab that he claimed was Adam’s hand-built altar and thus established the place as the location of the famed garden.
‘The Sky People’ by Brinsley LePoer Trench suggested Mars as a location since canals that fit the biblical description of the four river heads are theorized to have existed on Mars. He also claimed that Eden was created by Space People, and that descendants of Noah (who also lived on Mars) were eventually forced to come to Earth to live.
General Charles Gordon supported a theory that was developed that argued Lumeria– a continent that was over what is now the Indian Ocean – existed. Lumeria is claimed to have housed Madagascar and India on one continent. It was also maintained that the human race was started in Lumeria and thus, was the location for the garden.
Some scholars believe that Eden existed in Northeast Africa. This theory is built around the fact that the oldest human remains have been found there, as well as Josephus’ idea that Pishon is the Nile.
It has also been reasoned that Eden was located in the Holy Land, with the river Jordan being the water source in question. This is partly due to the prophet Ezekiel tying in his account of Eden with Jerusalem; “You were in Eden, the garden of God;” … “You were on the holy mount of God.” The mount being specified is generally regarded as Mount Moriah where the Dome of the Rock now sits.

Two Reasons We Will Never Find Eden

1) The Flood

In order to properly investigate the whereabouts of this paradisal Holy Grail, we need to take in a major factor: the flood.

The global flood that wiped out all of humanity, save for Noah and his family, changed the surface of the earth to the point that it was left unrecognisable.

If most of the sedimentary layers that rest on the earth’s surface were formed as a result of this catastrophic event, then how could we possibly know where the Garden of Eden was located? In a modern flood, land erosion occurs in one area, with the water moving and redepositing the sediments in another area. Because of the sheer size of the flood in question, we can assume that the effects of this were far more intense, and certainly global. No place on the Earth’s surface could have remained untouched.

We have no hope of logically pinpointing the original location for the Tigris, the Euphrates or Eden after the surface of the earth was completely restructured under water damage.

2) Guarded Entrance

“So He drove out the man; and He placed cherubim at the east of the garden of Eden, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to guard the way to the tree of life.”

This last sentence of Genesis 3 tells us everything we need to know about our quest to find Eden.

After the expulsion, Genesis tells us that God placed one of his angels at the entrance to Eden, in an attempt to keep humanity from re-entering. If the flood did not stop us from entering the garden, this precaution certainly would.

Even if we can determine the general location for the garden, the physical parameters of it, and can authenticate its existence, how can we get there?

Put simply: we can’t.

God has ensured that we cannot precisely locate or enter this garden of paradise. It has become the forbidden fruit for all humanity.

For fallen humans, Eden exists only with the pages of the Bible.

If you enjoyed this article, please subscribe or sign the petition to establish Creation Day as an officially recognized holiday. To sign, go here

Lenspiration photos courtesy of James Staddon

www.lenspiration.com

Can Humanity Actually Save the Earth?

Can humanity save itself? That is a real thought provoking question in the face of all the challenges the human race is facing today, and because of the fact that we are full of activities that are capable of destroying the earth instead of saving it.

Most of the simple things that we do daily are actually consuming earth’s resources; when you buy a new car for example, many materials taken from the earth has gone into the manufacturing of the car, and also for the number of years that you will use it, you will be emitting environmentally hazardous gases into the atmosphere.

The same thing happens when you use electricity, when you buy a package of food, or just any other product that you need for yourself. They are all sourced from the earth, and they have no means of being replenished back into the earth because they are being removed at a fast rate.

A child born in the U.S will consume nothing less than 45,000 pounds of metal in his lifetime through all kinds of products and materials he would be exposed to. The same experience is obtainable at various degrees in other parts of the world.

The dangerous results that this kind of living is bringing to earth is that we are gradually altering our environment, although in a negative way; by deforestation, releasing of harmful gases to the atmosphere, poisoning the rivers, destroying massive natural habitats, polluting the oceans, and altering the chemical composition of our atmosphere.

The unfortunate thing about this evil trend is that we are turning back to destroy the very earth that is helping us to live, the source of everything we use for our existence, how sad.

In the face of the problems listed above, human population keep increasing by leaps and bounds making the fast depleting resources of earth grossly inadequate for the population available.

The more you look at this disturbing trend, the more you will see the hopeless situation we are in, hence the answer to the question, can humanity save itself is no.

If we cannot save ourselves, then who can save us? If science, technology and other human inventions have failed then where lies the solution that we need.

The answer is in God. The word of God has rightly said in John 15:5

I am the vine, you are the branches; he who abides in Me and I in him, he bears much fruit, for apart from Me you can do nothing. NASU

We are not sufficient of ourselves, our sufficiency is in God. There is no way we can forsake our creator and expects to achieve the right results we desire. The God who created the earth also created its inhabitant. If there is anyone who has the blueprint of the earth, and the user manual for successful living on it, that person is God.

God is the only one who can teach us how to live successful on earth; He can provide solution to the problem of depleting resources we are experiencing now, for the earth is of the Lord and the fullness thereof.

Just like when Adam was doing the will of God in the Garden of Eden, and everything in the Garden was in perfect harmony and peace, without scarcity or dearth of any resources, the earth can enjoy abundant supply of resources if we recognize the maker and accept Him as the Lord and Savior.

Many may see it as a joke when we talk about God because He is invisible, many may laugh because we are living in a generation where technological advancement has made man to record astounding achievements seemingly without the help of God, but no one can deny the fact that we have serious problems that we are combating with, which technology cannot solve, and as a matter of fact, technology has succeeded in bringing its own problems as well.

God said in His word:

If they hear and serve Him, They will end their days in prosperity and their years in pleasures. But if they do not hear, they shall perish by the sword and they will die without knowledge. Job 36:11-12 NASU

The question now is which is better, to continue to live in rebellion to God with attendant ever increasing environmental problems threatening to destroy us, or to obey Him and enjoy His abundance?

Going for the latter will bring the much desired positive change that the earth’s inhabitants want. This was what the proponents of the Day if Creation had in mind when they came up with the project, that we need to set aside a special day for recognizing the one who gave us the earth, and who supplies the needs of the inhabitants, you can be part of the project now and save the earth.