As the book's title makes clear, Jordan doesn't think such approaches -- that pit the literary features of Genesis 1 against the plain historical and narrative sense of the text -- are viable. Rather, he thinks the people of God have been correct all along (i.e., for the past 3,000 years) in interpreting Genesis 1 as referring to the creation of the entire universe in six consecutive 24-hour days. He covers all the theories contrary to the traditional reading that are currently popular among Evangelicals and shows how none of them stand up to close scrutiny. He also shows how the presuppositions of unbelieving science make it a weak reed to lean upon, and drives home the point that modern Christians have been too credulous toward, and subtly influenced by, the constructs of unbelieving science, with the result that their worldview is partly orthodox and partly gnostic. ("Gnosticism" meaning a religious perspective that emphasizes Christianity as a religion of ideas rather than as a religion rooted in actual time-based historical events in the physical world.) If the historical factuality of Genesis 1 is suspect, then, ultimately, so is just about everything else that is said to take place in the Bible -- even, for example, the resurrection. Of course, no Bible-believing Christian wants to say *that*, but if the non-historical approach to Genesis 1 is legitimate, then there is no logical barrier to extending that approach to everything else. If all that the Genesis creation account tells us about the first Adam cannot be taken at face value, then what are we to make of statements like 1 Corinthians 15:21-22 ("For since by man came death, by Man also came the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive.") or Romans 5:12-21 ("Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned . . . where sin abounded, grace abounded much more, so that as sin reigned in death, even so grace might reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.")? Here we have core doctrines of the Christian faith that are based squarely on the historic factuality of the origin of mankind exactly as described in the Genesis creation account. Take away the historic factuality and the doctrines no longer have any basis, which is precisely why liberal and secular scholars don't believe in those doctrines. Too many Evangelicals are unwittingly trading away their birthright for a mess of respectability in the eyes of an unbelieving world, respectability which will never be granted in any case. Better that we take an uncompromising "hard line" like J. Gresham Machen, whose integrity in a previous generation won the admiration of an unbeliever like H. L. Mencken (If you haven't read Mencken's obituary of Machen in the January 18, 1937 Baltimore Evening Sun, you owe it to yourself to do a search on "Dr. Fundamentalis" and read it.)

There is happy irony, as Jordan shows, in the fact that the traditional "literal" reading of Genesis 1, which takes the whole account at face value as actual history, is also the approach best equipped to mine the full richness of the abundant symbolism and literary structures of Genesis 1. Yes, it is rife with symbols, and yes, it all actually happened just as it is written. Because God is the One at work, the Bible is fully capable of simultaneously being both symbolic and also historically accurate; there is no contradiction in maintaining both. Any reading that attempts to evade the historic factuality of the six-day creation account ends up obscuring much of the symbolism and literary structure of the text.

I decided to translate this book because gnosticism is a rampant problem in the Japanese churches, just as it is in the English-speaking world, and it is sapping the church of vitality. When something is stuck to one's face, one can be totally unaware of it until it is pointed out. The church is in such a predicament today. Gnostic tendencies unconsciously carried over from the non-Christian society around us are so thoroughly embedded in the fabric of modern Christian culture that we are largely unaware of the problem. If the Japanese translation of this book helps a few pastors and seminary students become more thoroughly biblical in their thinking, it will have been worth it.

Finally, to set the record straight: there is nothing less than respect for all of Jordan's adversaries in this book. Anyone reading pp.118-119 carefully will not conclude that Jordan denies general revelation. Jordan never denies "heavens and earth" refers to the entire physical universe; rather, he denies it is improper to treat "heavens" and "earth" separately. The other complaints against Jordan are spurious; e.g., even if Jordan had been able to locate the obscure medieval rabbis cited by Sailhamer, it wouldn't have significantly altered any of the book's conclusions. Also, argument from authority is a no-no.

Unfortunately, what he had to say wasn't worth much. He denies the concept of general revelation, since his theological system doesn't allow God to reveal himself in any medium other than special revelation. To this end, he employs painfully bad exegesis to force the Bible to say what he wants it to say. For example, he reinterprets Psalm 19 ("The heavens declare the glory of God...") to be referring to pagan beliefs about the zodiac. "Heavens and earth" aren't a merism to refer to the entire physical universe in Gen. 1:1, even though that's what it refers to everywhere else in the Bible. And "the waters above" which God separated from the waters below actually refers to the "sea of glass" referred to in the book of Revelation!

Moreover, the subtitle, "A Defense of the Traditional Reading of Genesis One," is false and misleading. It is well known, and can be easily verified, that many of the early Church fathers believed that the days of creation were millennia (for example, see the Epistle of Barnabas, written sometime between AD 70 and 135).

Sailhamer claims that the idea that Genesis 1 is only describing God's creation and preparation of the "promised land" of Israel is a position held by several medieval rabbis. Jordan was unable to locate these references, so instead of actually communicating with Sailhamer, he just assumed that he was wrong, and even makes fun of his name! I don't agree with Sailhamer's position, but come one, show some respect! The man is one of the top scholars of Semitic languages of our day. By contrast, most of Jordan's references are to articles he's written himself, and published in his own newsletter.