Creation and Change: Genesis 1:1-2.4 in the Light of Changing Scientific Paradigms

I first encountered the title of this book while reading Dr. John MacArthur's excellent book, THE BATTLE FOR THE BEGINNING, in which MacArthur deals with attacks on Genesis 1-11. While Dr. MacArthur's book was more devotional and pastoraly in its defense of Genesis 1-11, Dr. Kelly's book is more scientific as well as theological. The book is not easy reading but I do commend Kelly for his ability to explain complex argument for creation based on a literal reading of Genseis 1-2. Dr. Kelly makes no secret in the book that he holds to a literal 24 hour creation view when it comes to Genesis 1-2 and yet he is able to show much evidence to support this view. Overall this is an excellent resource for disciples who want to dive deeper into Genesis 1-2. Dr. Kelly not only interacts with his text but he shows the errors of those who fail to uphold the inerrancy and authority of Scripture by seeking to not have a literal reading of the days of Genesis 1-2.

Dr. Kelly's reverent scholarship shines in this thought-provoking and persuasive case for a straight-forward interpretation of the Genesis account of creation. His exegesis is solid, shunning speculation, and by plain teaching of profound biblical truth he opens a door to glorious meditation on God's greatness and goodness. The scientific elements may lay the ax to the root of unsound presuppositions held by evolutionists and induce a major paradigm shift when duly considered. Thank you, Dr. Kelly, for this satisfying contribution to the debate and this precious gift to Christians committed to a high view of Scripture and reason. About me: 48 years old, former electrical engineer, now a Reformed Baptist pastor for about 20 years.

Dr Kelly thoroughly documents from grammar and history that the correct interpretation of Genesis is the correct one. I'm amazed that some people can read this book and still claim that the young-earth view is some kind of 1960s novelty.WRONG -- as Dr Kelly shows, it's the billions-of-years interpretation that's the novelty. No-one had thought of this before some conservative exegetes felt the need to harmonise with the views of Hutton and Lyell in the first half of the 19th century. Even allegorizers such as Origen and Augustine recognised that Genesis allows only for Earth to be thousands of years old. Dr Kelly cites people such as Basil the Great and Calvin to prove his point. Critics also ignore the 19th Century Scriptural Geologists, documented by Dr Terry Mortenson's Ph.D. thesis at Coventry University, UK, outlined on the Answers in Genesis site.

The main thesis of Dr Kelly's book is that the author of the Hebrew text of Genesis 1:1-2:4 can only have intended to write a straightforward, historical account. Although many modern theologians claim that Genesis is poetry, it has none of the hallmarks of Hebrew poetry, such as parallelism. Dr Kelly backs this up by sound linguistic analysis. He quotes an earlier authority as saying:'the man who says "I believe that Genesis purports to be a historical account, but I do not believe that account" is a far better interpreter of the Bible than the man who says, 'I believe that Genesis is profoundly true, but it is poetry.'Also, Dr Kelly painstakingly documents the history of interpretation of Genesis, and shows that the almost uniform view throughout the church era was that it was intended to mean what it said. Long age and theistic evolutionary interpretations were invented only after long ages/evolutionary views became fashionable. That is, the interpreters were trying to read things from outside Scripture into the text. So they ceased to regard Scripture as authoritative, so were effectively if unwittingly contradicting Christ, e.g. John 10:35. Instead, they regarded man's (fallible) interpretation of nature as authoritative. How can anyone be a consistent follower of Christ if he denies what Christ believed about Scripture, including Genesis 1 and 2 (see Matthew 19:3-6, Mark 10:2-9)?Dr Kelly quotes not only evangelicals, but liberals like the 19th century exegete Prof. Marcus Dods, who wrote that any interpretations of Genesis 1:1-2:4 that deny the straightforward meaning were 'futile and mischievous', and that they:'do violence to Scripture [and] foster a style of interpretation by which the text is forced to say what the interpreter desires.'Dods also said,'if, for example, the word "day" in these chapters does not mean a period of twenty-four hours, the interpretation of Scripture is hopeless.'We can see the results in seminary after seminary -- when one generation denied the plain meaning of the creation account, the next generation or two denied the plain meaning of the accounts of Christ's bodily resurrection and virginal conception.Dr Kelly is highly qualified to write about the theological aspects of Genesis -- he is Professor of Systematic Theology at Reformed Theological Seminary, Charlotte, North Carolina. Although he is not a scientist himself, he augments his case with examples of design in biology expounded by people like the biochemicst Dr Michael Behe. The main materialistic argument against Behe has nothing to do with real science, but an a priori rejection of a Designer. Behe, although not a biblical creationist, has faced the same sort of academic arrogance, argument from authority and chronological snobbery faced by defenders of biblical creation. It's not surprising when it comes from the most dogmatic atheists, defending their materialistic faith. But it's even worse if

Dr. Doug Kelly's book "Creation and Change" is an excellent treatment of the exegetical and scientific issues surrounding Genesis 1:1-2:4. Kelly stresses that the interpretation of the Scriptures should be governed by the text, not by presuppositions imposed upon the text by the interpreter. He stongly makes the point that time and matter do not define God's creative capabilities, rather they are, in fact, defined by Him. In passing, I had the privilege of having Dr. Kelly for a class in seminary. He is a wonderful classroom teacher as well as a gifted author.