Christian Apologetics Manifesto: Nineteen Theses To Shake the World With the Truth

Christian Apologetics Manifesto: Nineteen Theses To Shake the World With the Truth

By Douglas Groothuis

On this rock I will build my church,
and the gates of death will not overcome it—Jesus Christ (Matthew 16:9).

This is a manifesto to ignite the holy fire of apologetic passion and action. As did Jeremiah, we should have “fire in our bones” to communicate and commend Christian truth today (Jeremiah 20:9). This manifesto is not a sustained argument or a detailed development of themes. Rather, as a manifesto, it proclaims a short series of interrelated propositions crying out for both immediate and protracted reflection, prayer, and action. These challenges issue from convictions formed through my nearly thirty years of apologetic teaching, preaching, debating, writing, and Christian witness.

Because of (1) the waning influence of the Christian worldview in public and private life in America today, (2) the pandemic of anti-intellectualism in the contemporary church, and (3) the very command of God himself to declare, explain, and defend divine truth, I strongly advise that the following statements be wrestled with and responded to by all followers of the Lord Jesus Christ.

1. Christian apologetics involves the presentation and defense of Christianity as an integrated worldview that is objectively, universally, and absolutely true, reasonable, knowable, and existentially pertinent to both individuals and entire cultures. Apologetics involves rebutting unbelieving accusations against Christianity (2 Corinthian 10:3-5; Jude 3) as well as giving a constructive and persuasive case for Christian theism (Philippians 1:7; 1 Peter 3:15).

2. Any intellectual discipline, church practice, or teaching that minimizes or denigrates the importance of apologetics is unbiblical and must be repented of (Matthew 4:17; Acts 17:16-34; 2 Corinthians 10:3-5; 1 Peter 3:15; Jude 3). The degradation of apologetics can only lead to the further vitiation of the life of the church. “My people are destroyed from lack of knowledge” (Hosea 4:6).

3. The fundamental issue for apologetics is not how many apologists one has read, or what apologetic method one embraces (although that must be worked out carefully). Rather, the essential issue is whether or not one has a passion for God’s transforming truth—reasonably pursued and courageously communicated—and a passion for the lost because of the love of God resident and active in one’s life (Romans 9:1-3; 10:1). Like the Apostle Paul at Athens, we should both be “greatly disturbed” because of the rampant unbelief in our day. We, like that great apologist, should also be intellectually equipped and spiritually prepared to enter the marketplace of ideas for the cause of Christ (Acts 17:16-34).

4. The apologist must be convinced of the truth, rationality, pertinence, and knowability of the Christian worldview, which is derived from Holy Scripture as it is logically systematized and rightly harmonized with general revelation (truth knowable outside of Scripture). This is an intellectual goal for a lifetime as the disciple of Christ seeks to love God with one’s mind and take more and more thoughts captive to obey Christ (Matthew 22:37-40; 2 Corinthians 10:3-5). The apologist should never rest content with an ad hoc or piecemeal worldview, as is so typical of those afflicted with postmodernist pastiche sensibilities.

5. In light of (1), (2), (3), and (4), fideism—the claim that Christian faith finds no positive warrant from reason or evidence—should be rejected as unbiblical and harmful to the great cause of biblical truth (Isaiah 1:18; Matthew 22:37-39; Romans 12:1-2). Fideistic confessions such as “I just know that I know in my knower,” do little to challenge unbelief or induce unbelievers to consider the saving truth of the gospel. Moreover, members of other religions can use the same technique to attempt to support their false beliefs. This is especially true for Mormons, who rely so heavily on subjective feelings to verify objective claims. Fideism strips Christianity of its rational witness to the reality of God’s holy revelation to humanity.

6. Any theology, apologetics, ethics, evangelism or church practice that minimizes or denigrates the concept of objective, absolute, universal and knowable truth is both irrational and unbiblical. As such it must be rejected and repented of. Thus, the postmodernist view of truth as socially constructed, contingent, and relative must be rejected by Christian apologists. Anything that might be true in postmodernism can be found elsewhere in better philosophical systems. What is false in postmodernism (the vast majority of it) is fatal to Christian witness. Without a strong, biblical view of truth apologetics is impossible.

7. The work of the Holy Spirit in bringing people to saving faith should not be artificially separated from faithful apologetic engagement. Many Christians wrongly think that the ministry of the Holy Spirit is exclusively non-rational or even irrational. The Spirit is free to win and woe unbelievers in a host of ways—including dreams, angelic visitations, healings, visions, meaningful coincidences, and so on—but we must remember that He is “the Spirit of truth,” as Jesus said (John 16:13). There is no reason to separate the work of the Holy Spirit from rigorous and skillful argumentation for Christian truth. The Holy Spirit can set the redeemed mind free to argue logically and winsomely; he also reaches into the unbeliever’s soul through the force of arguments. Apologists should earnestly pray that the Holy Spirit will make them as intelligent and knowledgeable as possible.

8. All apologetic endeavors should manifest the virtues of both humility and courage through the empowering of the Holy Spirit (Acts 1:8; Galatians 5:16-26). If we have been bestowed by Almighty God with truth to defend rationally, this is because of God’s grace, not our own goodness (Ephesians 2:1-8; Titus 3:5-6). There is no room for pride, which goes before a fall. If Almighty God has bestowed us with saving truth to defend rationally, we should take it to the streets and not shrink back from appropriate encounters with unbelief. There is no room for cowardice. As Paul counseled Timothy, “For the Spirit God gave us does not make us timid, but gives us power, love and self-discipline” (2 Timothy 1:7).
Humility should not be confused with uncertainty or timidity. One may be confident in one’s worldview and defend it publicly without being arrogant. The grand apologist, G.K. Chesterton explains this perfectly and memorably.
But what we suffer from to-day is humility in the wrong place. Modesty has moved from the organ of ambition. Modesty has settled upon the organ of conviction; where it was never meant to be. A man was meant to be doubtful about himself, but undoubting about the truth; this has been exactly reversed. Nowadays the part of a man that a man does assert is exactly the part he ought not to assert himself. The part he doubts is exactly the part he ought not to doubt—the Divine Reason.

9. Apologetics must be carried out with the utmost intellectual integrity (Titus 2:7-8; James 3:1-2). All propaganda, cheap answers, caricatures of non-Christian views, hectoring, and fallacious reasoning must be avoided. Sadly, some apologetic materials are too cavalier for serious use. One should develop competent answers to searching questions about the truth and rationality of Christian faith. This demands excellence in scholarship at all intellectual levels, even the most popular. This cognitive orientation takes time, money, and sustained effort. It will not happen by watching television or by otherwise wasting our limited time. Christians must thus cultivate the virtue of studiousness in order to grow deep in their knowledge of God, the Christian worldview, and how to bring the Christian message to bear on unbelief.

10. The artificial separation of evangelism from apologetics must end. Many evangelistic methods die when those evangelized ask questions related to apologetics. Therefore, all evangelistic training should include basic apologetic training as well. The Apostle Paul serves as a model for us in that he both proclaimed and defended the Gospel in the Book of Acts (Acts 17:16-34; 19:8-10). Jesus also rationally defended his views as well as propounding them.

11. Apologetics is meant just as much for believers with doubts and questions as it is directed toward unbelievers. Therefore, Christians with doubts should not be shunned or shamed, but given good apologetic arguments (as well as pastoral care) in dealing with their intellectual struggles. When follows of John the Baptist came to Jesus with John’s questions about Jesus’ messianic identity, Jesus did not rebuke them, but provided evidence for why John should believe that Jesus was the Messiah (Matthew 11:1-11). Jude also counsels us to “have mercy on those who doubt” (Jude 22). One way to show mercy to the doubter is to build him or her by giving reasons for Christian faith. The apologetic witness of the church is strengthened tremendously when Christians gain rational assurance that their faith is indeed true and cogent.

12. Since all Christians are called and commanded to have a reason for the hope within them (1 Peter 3:15), Christian teachers, pastors, mentors and educators of all kinds are remiss if they avoid, denigrate, or minimize the importance of apologetics to biblical living and Christian witness. The commonly heard canard, “No one comes to Christ through arguments” is patently false. Many people, such as the apologists C.S. Lewis and John Warwick Montgomery, were drawn to the gospel through apologetic arguments. By God’s grace, I have been able to help unbelievers see the truth and rationality of Christianity through apologetic arguments. Well-respected Christian philosophers and apologists, William Lane Craig and J.P. Moreland concur. Not all Christian teachers are equally gifted in apologetics, and some will emphasize this discipline more than others; but none should minimize the necessity of apologetics or preach around it when the biblical text requires otherwise.

13. Those outside of the leadership positions mentioned in (12) should humbly but boldly request that apologetics be made a constitutive part of these institutions if this is not already the case and pray to that end. We must stimulate each other to love and good deed in his area (Hebrews 10:24).

14. In light of (12) and (13), Christian colleges, seminaries, and churches should incorporate apologetics into their institutional/educational life, mission, and vision. Specifically, every Christian high school, college, university, and seminary should require at least one class in apologetics for every degree in their curriculum. Sadly, this is not now the case for most institutions of Christian learning. Moreover, every discipline should be taught from a Christian worldview, since all truth is God’s truth. This has significant apologetic value in and of itself. Duane Litfin, President of Wheaton College, has written very insightfully on this practice with respect to the Christian college.
Christian education within the church, especially the junior high level and above, should become more intellectually serious and thus more apologetically oriented. Classes should be taught by thoughtful teachers who engage students to outthink the world for Christ. These settings should become more like prayerful classrooms and less like chattering religious coffee and donut centers. Along these lines, churches should invest significantly in church library that is well stocked with books on apologetics and other topics.

15. Mission agencies should insure that their missionaries are adequately trained in the apologetic issues and strategies required for their place of service. The Great Commission requires that Christ’s followers disciple the nations by teaching them everything Jesus taught his original disciples (Matthew 28:18-20). Since Jesus prized the life of the mind and defended this theology and ethics rationally, Christians should bring the best arguments for Christianity and against non-Christian religions to bear on the mission field. The nations cannot be discipled apart from the full orbed teaching and defense of the Christian worldview as it relates to all of life.

16. Because apologetics is meant to be the presentation and defense of Christianity as true, reasonable, pertinent, and knowable, competent apologists should attempt to offer their arguments in as many public venues as possible. Therefore, qualified Christian apologists should learn to become public intellectuals: thinkers who have mastered their material and are willing and able to enter public discourse and debate in a way that challenges and engages the non-Christian mind as well as galvanizes other Christians to hone their apologetic skills. Areas of apologetic engagement include the following:

  • Writing letters to the editors of newspapers and magazines.
  • Writing op-ed pieces for newspapers.
  • Calling talk radio programs.
  • Engaging in public debates and dialogues on religious and ethical issues, particularly in university campuses, where young minds are being forged for a lifetime.
  • Making apologetic contributions to interactive web pages.Writing books oriented to those outside the typical evangelical market, published by secular publishers if possible.
  • Creating apologetics tracts for specific events.
  • Any other creative outreach—drama, poetry, cinema, and more.

17. Christians should also labor to present reasons for faith in as many private settings as possible. Many who are not gifted as public speakers or writers can shine in their interpersonal Christian witness. This can include apologetic encounters such as:

  • Inviting people into one’s home for apologetic messages and discussions.
  • Giving apologetic literature to friends, family, and coworkers.
  • Writing letters to friends, family, and coworkers explaining and defending Christianity.

18. Young Christians with an aptitude in philosophy and academic pursuits in general should be encouraged that these disciplines are just as spiritual as anything directly church-related. For example, being a Christian philosopher at a secular college or university is just as godly and spiritual than being a pastor, missionary, or professor at a Christian institution (1 Corinthians 10:31; Colossians 3:17). As the Dutch statesman, theologian, and journalist, Abraham Kuyper said, “There is not one square inch of the entire creation about which Christ does not cry out, ‘This is mine!'” One may prudently apply one’s apologetic skills in these settings and extend the Christian witness.

19. All apologetics ventures—whether in writing, speaking, or dialogue—should be backed by personal prayer by the apologist and supporting prayer of the church (Ephesians 6:18; 1 Thessalonians 5:17). Certain apologetic ventures—especially those that deal with the occult and false religions—may require fasting in addition to prayer (Matthew 6:18-20; Acts 13:1-3).

May we who are redeemed through the blood of the lamb and who yearn to proclaim, explain, and defend the gospel of Jesus Christ take as our charge the Apostle Paul’s rousing conclusion to his glorious exposition of the meaning of Jesus’ resurrection.

Therefore, my dear brothers and sisters, stand firm. Let nothing move you. Always give yourselves fully to the work of the Lord, because you know that your labor in the Lord is not in vain (1 Corinthians 15:58).

A shorter version of this manifesto, featuring sixteen theses, was published in Areopagus Journal, Volume 5, no. 1 (January/February, 2005), 28-29.
For a defense of this view of biblical truth, see Douglas Groothuis, Truth Decay: Defending Christianity Against the Challenges of Postmodernism (InterVarsity Press, 2000), especially chapters three and four.
On apologetic method, see Gordon Lewis, Testing Christianity’s Truth Claims (University Press of America, 1990), Steven Cowan, editor, Five Views of Apologetics (Grand Rapids, Zondervan, 2000).
See Groothuis, Truth Decay; Millard Erickson, Truth or Consequences (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2001); Gary Scott Smith, Truth and a New Kind of Christian (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2005). For a review of Brian McLaren’s influential defense of postmodernism in A New Kind of Christian (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2001), see Douglas Groothuis, “A New Kind of Postmodernist,” The Christian Research Journal, volume 25, number 3 (2003); available on-line at: HYPERLINK “” For an incisive review of McLaren’s book, A Generous Orthodoxy (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2004), see Jeremy Green’s review in Denver Journal, available on-line at: HYPERLINK “”
G.K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy (New York: Doubleday, 1959; orig. pub., 1908), 31
See Douglas Groothuis, “Television: Agent of Truth Decay” in Truth Decay, 281-295.
On the intellectual virtue of studiousness, see Jay Wood, Epistemology: Becoming Intellectually Virtuous (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1998); James W. Sire, Discipleship of the Mind (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1990); Habits of the Mind (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2000); J.P. Moreland, Love Your God With All Your Mind (Colorado Springs: NavPress, 1997).
See Moreland, Love Your God With All Your Mind, 131-134.
On Jesus as an apologist and philosopher, see Douglas Groothuis, “Jesus: Philosopher and Apologist,” The Christian Research Journal, volume 25, number 2 (2002); available on line at: HYPERLINK “”; see also Douglas Groothuis, On Jesus (Wadsworth, 2003).
On this, see Os Guinness, God in the Dark (Crossway Books, 1996).
J.P Moreland and William Lane Craig, Philosophical Foundation for a Christian Worldview (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2003), 4-5.
Duane Litfin, Conceiving the Christian College (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2004).
For specifics on developing these kinds of values in Church education, see Moreland, Love Your God With All Your Mind, 195-197.
For specific suggestions on this, see Moreland, Love Your God With All Your Mind, 195-197.
See Darrow Miller with Stan Guthrie, Discipling Nations, 2nd ed. (Seattle, WA: WYAM Publishers, 2001).
On how to write a clear and persuasive letter to the editor, see Douglas Groothuis, “How to Write a Letter to the Editor,” The Christian Research Journal, volume 29, number 1 (2006).
On the philosophy of making and distributing evangelistic/apologetic tracts, see Douglas Groothuis, “Event Specific Evangelism” in Confronting the New Age (InterVarsity Press, 1988), 217-222.
On the spurious separation of sacred and secular, see Arthur Holmes, All Truth is God’s Truth (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1977), 1-30; Nancy Pearcey, Total Truth (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Publishers, 2004); and Francis Schaeffer, A Christian Manifesto (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Publishers, 1981).
On the meaning of fasting, see John Piper, A Hunger for God: Desiring God Through Fasting and Prayer (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 1997).


Evolution vs God Movie


Take some time to listen to this short 38 min movie. If you are an Evolutionist, I challenge you to listen. If you can answer what these Professors, students and laymen could not answer, you should make it known. This theory became obvious to all what it is, its a faith in human beings to account for their humanity and the world by ignoring God. Lets see how they do.


The Supremecy of Christ

I suggest every Christian that names the name of Christ listen to this edifying and God glorifying sermon on the Supremacy of Christ.

If you have not heard the gospel message and have despised Christianity, Christ and the bible, if you have been an enemy and hater of God and have rejected all that has been said about him; I ask you to listen to this and know this is what the good news of the bible is about and what God has done for us so that we might believe and be his children.  Don’t be a coward…listen. Don’t let your peers tell you what you should listen to, and what you should believe. There is truth out there and love out there and there is a place to find it.

Marvin Torgeson

Extra-Biblical Cosmogenies


The Biblical account of creation is so clear and so vastly superior to the ancient cosmologies there is little comparison. In some cases its clear that the biblical account was the basis of forming the new cosmogony. We also have the accounting of evil entering into the world so that we know where evil springs from and how its entrance into our world brought alienation from God. We have a clear understanding of what sin consists of, what disobedience is, what the result of disobedience to God brings…death.  Here we meet with God coming to man, not man running to God. We find God making a covering for their shame, a sacrifice for their sins, a promise to vanquish Satan and the promise that there would come a man who would bruise the head of the Devil. This accounting of human history; actual humans encountering spiritual beings and talking snakes sounds too far-fetched for this humanist-mindset that many have, but their humanist worldviews do not invalidate the necessity to confront the claims of scripture that has been shown by myriads of tests for millenia to be true and trustworthy.

Only the shallow infidel or the parroting internet atheist rages against what has been validated time and time again. Turning to every unproven assertion and ignorant philosophical proposition some people prove that its not evidence they want, they want something more, they want to live according to their own notions of life and pleasure. For them academic proofs are like specialized tooling; they have no idea how to use it; the scientific evidences or solid philosophical thought that establishes the necessity and importance of biblical truths are summarily dismissed for no other reason than the silly “Christians are stupid” jargon that’s common among them.  They are children of the immediate, the 6 minute attention span; because of this deficiency to think and reason, close investigation has no place in their lives. For others they have been like cows in the stall, or pigs in the pen, fed ideas that have no grounding universals, they are genuinely thirsty for a criteria to understand the particulars of life and give meaning to even their own education. These victims of the enlightenment live a life of insipid pleasure seeking valuing self and self-preservation above all…but they don’t even know why. For others who have not been inoculated against thinking and deadened to the invitation to reason without importing the angry bias of secular anti-theism I offer this little excursion so that one can compare stories.

The post modern mind is trying to find a new ‘thing’ because he is against everything that smacks of ‘status quo’. But the problem for the post modern mind is that he cannot recognize any ‘new’ thing. He is lost. So, what does this child of the 2010’s do? Just what the culture tells him or her to do. He or she does just what the primal urges of their sexual desires press upon them. He or she wants to find freedom from the shackles of an empty angst ridden mindset, but they have decided that the old ‘flash-lights’ don’t work any more. I beg to differ, They do work, the old ways of finding hope and life, joy and purpose exist, but it doesn’t exist in the boxed in post-modern mindset that refuses to admit objective truth.  If they don’t jettison the lie that objective truth is missing or cannot be known they will miss their chance to find out its really out there and ready to be received. Those who continue to reject transcendent objective truth will struggle in the same empty angst-ridden path. Some will revert to harming others and themselves, some will just give up and become puppets to a civilization that they know is not improving but degenerating.
The reason I offer this introduction to extra biblical cosmogonies is because the scriptures start immediately with settling some of the biggest questions the 21st century man is asking. Why are we here? What is wrong with the world? Why cant we fix it? If we look simply at the Genesis narrative we can see some valuable things that can settle universal truths that will give us the flash-light to find the path way to hope and life without chaos and destruction being the first outcome.

Written by Dr. H.C Leupold

About Dr. Leupold

On June 24, 1914. Thereupon he served as pastor of a mission, Ascension Lutheran congregation in Buffalo, and at the same time held an assistant professorship at the Martin Luther Seminary until 1922. He served as professor of historical theology at the Martin Luther Seminary from 1922 to 1929. In 1929, when the Buffalo Synod closed Martin Luther Seminary, Dr. Leupold was transferred to the Evangelical Lutheran Theological Seminary at Capital University, Columbus, Oh., where he became professor of Old Testament Theology, in which capacity he is serving at the present time. He was elected secretary of the Theological Seminary faculty in 1941. Dr. Leupold received the Bachelor of Divinity degree from the Chicago Seminary in 1926 and the Doctor of Divinity degree from Capital University in 1935.

Dr. Leupold speaking…

If at this point we append a summary of certain of the better known cosmogonies, or at least of those which have a certain affinity with the Biblical account, anyone can judge for himself whether the Biblical account in any sense seems to be a derivative.

The most famous of the non-biblical cosmogonies is the Babylonian or the so-called “Chaldean Genesis,” which created such a stir at the time of its publication in 1876 after it had been unearthed as a part of the library of Ashurbanipal at Nineveh by George Smith in 1873. The several tablets on which the account is written are in a fairly good state of preservation. The story begins with an account that is a theogony—an account of the origin of the gods—in itself already an indication of a far inferior level. The true God did not come into being by a certain process, nor were there originally several deities. Now of these various deities one stood out as particularly aggressive and ferocious, the unsubdued Tiâmat—again a decidedly inferior point of view. For the struggle that impended Tiâmat, the old mother of gods, enlists as many of the old gods as she can and a whole crew of horrid monsters. The resulting conflict for supremacy (note the low moral level even among gods) is a truly titanic struggle in which the forces of the opposition are led by the great Babylonian deity Marduk. Marduk proves himself the stronger. He prevails over Tiâmat, cleaves her into two montrous halves, the upper of which he fixes in place as the heavens, in which in turn he fixes the heavenly bodies; and the lower of which halves, on the other hand, he sets in place as the earth. Then he compounds material of his own blood for the creation of man, the chief purpose of whose creation is “that the service of the gods may be established.” This account of creation is so pronouncedly different from the Biblical account that the points of difference completely overshadow the incidental points of resemblance. To speak of a “striking resemblance between the two cosmogonies” certainly is a partisan overstatement of the case; and to go on to say that “the cosmogony of Genesis 1 rests on a conception of the process of creation fundamentally identical with that of the Enuma elis (the opening words of the Chaldean Genesis) tablets” is simply a distortion of the truth.

Of the Phoenician cosmogony it is sufficient to remark that it contains the idea of the world-egg, hatched out to produce the world. Analogous to this from this point of view is the Indian conception. The uncreated Lord appeared in chaos. The next step was to render this world visible by means of the five elements, by shining forth in brightest light and dispelling darkness. Into the water, which he creates first, he lays a germ cell. This becomes a gleaming egg in which Brahma is found, the source principle. A protracted period of hatching brings him to light. Aside from fantastic and confused elements it may well be that even this cosmogony carries within it certain echoes of the Genesis account which are all but forgotten.

The Parsee Genesis, appearing in a late book of the Bundehest, has at least this sequence of created things: 1. heaven, 2. water, 3. earth, 4. planets, 5. animals, 6. man. Nothing is said concerning the creation of light. The partial correspondence with the account of the Bible is obvious. But since this is a late book, this correspondence may have resulted from an acquaintance with the Biblical record.      Still more nearly parallel to the Biblical account is the cosmogony attributed to the Etruscans by the writer Suidas, who lived in the tenth century A. D. For the sequence runs thus: 1. heaven and earth, 2. firmament, 3. sea and water, 4. sun and moon, 5. souls of animals, 6. man. To the six items six periods of a thousand years each are assigned. Yet the influence of the Bible record is so very likely in the case of a writer of the tenth century of the Christian era that there is great likelihood that the writer’s Christian ideas will have led him to find these successive items, which another might not even have noticed in the same material. Or else the ancient Etruscan tradition had absorbed a high percentage of Biblical thought on matters such as these.

One would expect the Persian cosmogony to be radically different and in conformity with the principles of dualism. In the Avesta time and light and darkness are uncreated. These constitute the true spiritual world. They are eternal because Mazda, the god of light, is himself eternal.      Hesiod informs us how the Greeks conceived of the origin of things. First there existed Chaos; thereupon the earth; next Tartarus; then Eros (Love), the most beautiful of the deathless gods. Out of Chaos night is born. The earth begets the heavens; then the ocean comes into being. After these Saturn, father of gods, existed. The rest of the pantheon follow him.

To the Egyptians several views on the origin of the earth are to be attributed. Some regarded the god Ptah as the craftsman who built the world. Others held that it was the goddess Neith who wove its fabric. The fundamental principle from which all things take their origin was thought to be water, for in it were fancied to be the male and the female germs of life. Even the great god Ra was supposed to have sprung from it, though others believed that he had been hatched out of an egg.

We may well say that these cosmogonies are the best available outside the Genesis account. A man does not need any supernatural enlightenment to discern that not one of all these can compare even remotely with the scriptural account for depth of thought, simplicity, propriety and beauty. All the others disappoint us by their incompleteness, or by their confusion, or by their lack of sequence, or as being the embodiment of some deep-seated error. Their conception of God is most unsatisfactory and unworthy. Or if they rise to a higher level, we have reason for believing that the better element is traceable to the Bible as the source.

This finishes Dr. Leupold.

Here is the Biblical account of the creation of the Earth and the Universe as given by Moses.

Genesis 1
In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. 
And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. 
And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. 
And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. 
And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. 
And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.
And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so. 
And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good. 
And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so. 
And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good. 
And the evening and the morning were the third day.
And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: 
And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so. 
And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also. 
And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, 
And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good. 
And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.
And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven. 
And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good. 
And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth. 
And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.
And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so. 
And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. 
So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. 
And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat. 
And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.
And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day. KJV

In the simplest way, we can look at this account and understand God called what he created ‘very good’. He gave man power to govern his world, he gave food and cattle to man, fruit and seed for health and strength. We see man was made in God’s image, not evolving from slime then fish then reptile then man. God created this world to be live in and enjoyed, he charged man to go forth and multiply. Man is an image of God, with reason, wisdom, power, strength, knowledge, understanding, kindness and love. These qualities that exist in God are part of man, man has a designed intelligence, an intelligence created in order to relate to his Creator.

But we all know Genesis chapter 3 is coming soon and there we find that what man is, becomes twisted and corrupted, he is ashamed and now alienated by sinfulness. These are direct answers to life’s brutal questions, No other ideology even comes close to answering these questions, no other religions outside of Judaism and Christianity posit a personal God that created them, cares for them and provides for them. All the rest offer a human autonomy that keeps the human mind that is designed to relate to God in complete darkness about God. Complete and utter ignorance, rebellion, shameful hatred toward God…and all for what? Because the lie from the beginning is “you will be like God”. The human heart alienated from God presupposes that he is capable of providing for himself and live in harmony with one another according to his own wisdom. As we all know this has been an utter and complete failure and continues to fail every moment of every day. The only time man exists in harmony for any extended period of time is when man has accepted God’s moral standard and God’s redemptive grace through Jesus Christ.

God’s redemptive grace…that’s another post.