Genesis 1:1 is an opening declaration that creates the entire spatiotemporal framework—it’s a comprehensive, foundational narrative of creation that needs no description of the method. This is why the text uses the word “created” (or “made”), rather than employing the “said” formulation that begins in Genesis 1:3 to enter into specific creative details.

Genesis 1:1 serves as a foundational logical premise. Verse 1:2 describes the initial state, and from 1:3 onward, the process unfolds. The starting point and premise are necessarily a priori: there exists a transcendent, sovereign, and eternal Creator who, at the beginning of time, created space and, through the creation of space, initiated time. God, time, and the universe—humanity could never provide such a logical premise for itself. Yet Christianity provides it from the very beginning, setting it apart from other religions and marking a fundamental divergence between Eastern and Western civilisations.

Judaism, Christianity, and Islam—these three monotheistic religions all share a “beginning-end” logic. In Christianity, spacetime has meaning, and history has a direction, moving toward God’s judgment and renewal. God’s redemptive work unfolds within history. This is also why Western civilisation, with its core Christian beliefs, places a special emphasis on “history”, as the Bible established a linear narrative structure.

The spatiotemporal views of Eastern religions lack an a priori logical starting point because human imagination is incapable of providing one. This is why Buddhism and Hinduism do not have a Genesis-style creation narrative. Instead, they present an endless cycle of cosmic and temporal reincarnation.

Hindu scriptures, such as the creation hymn in the Rigveda, contain descriptions like:

“Then neither non-being nor being existed; neither atmosphere nor the sky above.”
“Then neither death nor immortality existed; nor the signs of day and night.”
“That One breathed, without wind, by its own inherent nature. Besides it, nothing else existed.”

These verses are highly speculative, using descriptive language to imagine a formless, timeless, and spaceless state of chaos—a potential, self-existent reality. It doesn’t describe a singular act of creation but rather the unfolding or manifestation of a cyclical process. This represents the peak of human imagination, not an a priori premise. These hymns are less a record of a physical event and more a philosophical exploration of the metaphysical principles behind the cosmos.

The Buddhist view of the cosmos is also without beginning or end. It fundamentally denies the existence of a creator and any absolute starting point. Buddhism emphasizes “Dependent origination and emptiness”. All phenomena in the universe arise from the combination of causes and conditions; there is no independent, eternal entity or creator. The world cycles through stages of “formation, dwelling, decay, and emptiness”, with no absolute “beginning” and no final end, only an endless cycle of rebirth. Individual life is seen as a segment within the flow of karma. Buddhism is not concerned with the beginning or end of the universe but rather with your current position in the karmic flow and how to escape the cycle of reincarnation.

In short, the Genesis narrative is one of “creation,” while Hinduism and Buddhism present a narrative of “evolution.” The reason is simple: the former is a direct revelation from an eternal God, while the latter are human narratives that evolved over thousands of years based on human imagination, and human thought can only ever dwell within a segment of a process.

This is why Eastern religions can feel “incomplete” and even “anti-historical.” The direct product of this profoundly fragmented worldview is escapism, an abandonment of responsibility and mission in this world. Buddhism even has a strong strain of anti-intellectualism.

The firm conviction in an eternal existence and meaningful spacetime is the only ground upon which values can be established as facts. This serves as the a priori premise for all elements of modern civilisation. For example, constitutionalism means that human politics and power, including legislators and the “people” in a political sense, must be constrained by universal, transcendent values. Similarly, a society governed by the rule of law must first believe that time is meaningful. The entire context and concepts of modern law require a universally recognized absolute of time; otherwise, the law is rendered null and void. The establishment of modern science is no different; science must contemplate spacetime. Technological achievements in various parts of the world before the European Scientific Revolution were isolated and empirical. The European Scientific Revolution, however, was a fundamental shift in cognition and methodology because, within the Christian worldview, the physical world was not a realm of mystery and randomness but the creation of a trustworthy Creator.

Consequently, the Christian view of life is not just a process. Who am I, where do I come from, and where am I going—these are the essential logical premises of life that must be answered. For humanity, the absolute existence of God is the absolute prerequisite for our own existence, which must be unconditionally believed—just as Issac Newton, having established the First Mover, would not presumptuously ponder its origin, but simply proceed with this as a premise. Humanity, created by God, comes from God and ultimately returns to God—this is the coordinate system for self-knowledge. We use Christ as the origin point of our coordinate system to unleash our understanding and imagination, using various methods—philosophy, science, literature, and art—to demonstrate human value, meaning, and the human condition. This constitutes the essence of Western civilisation.

Buddhist enlightenment is unavailing because humanity is not chaos, nor is it merely the present moment. Through meditation and sudden enlightenment, one will never arrive at a universal concept of human rights. Universal education, hospitals, charities, the freedom and dignity of women, the abolitionist movement… these very practical improvements on human condition did not originate from those who practice Buddhism, despite their constant talk of “compassion.”

And with this a priori foundation, people are not trapped in a state of refined nihilism, living aimlessly and without purpose.

The Christian faith is an active, engaged faith, not a reclusive religion. The church is a form of community governance; it never builds monasteries in remote, uninhabited mountains for hermitage. This is the worldview that the Reformation sought to clarify, holding that every person is a priest, everyone has a calling, and the Christian’s mission is to manifest the glory of the spiritual kingdom in their daily life. This gave rise to the Puritan concept of a calling, which is the origin of the modern idea of a “vocation” or “profession.” The word “vocation” originally meant calling. Max Weber, in The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, explained that the birth of modern capitalism was inextricably linked to this concept of a calling.

Returning to the original philosophical and ethical views of Eastern and Western civilisations, we find that ancient Greece and ancient China were at a similar level. The evolution of the ancient Chinese concept of “Tian Dao” (Way of Heaven) was a continuous process from “divinity” to “morality” and then to “rationality.” In the Shang Dynasty, “Tian” (Heaven) or “Di” (Lord) was a supreme, personified deity that governed nature and all human affairs. With the beginning of the Zhou Dynasty, the concept of “Tian Ming” (Mandate of Heaven) was infused with moral content. A monarch could rule because he possessed “De” (virtue), which allowed him to uphold the will of Heaven and care for his people. By the Spring and Autumn and Warring States periods, with the rise of the Hundred Schools of Thought, the Way of Heaven gradually broke free from the constraints of a personified deity and morality, evolving into an objective law governing the cosmos.

Ancient Greek intellectual history also went through a similar three-stage development. While the concepts and specific paths differed, the core driving force was similar: a shift from mythological narratives to rational explanations. The central concept of this shift was “Logos.” In the era of Homer and Hesiod, ancient Greeks explained the origin of the cosmos and the world through myths. Everything was governed by the Olympian gods led by Zeus. This was similar to the ancient Chinese concept of “Tian Di” as a personified divine ruler. In the 6th century BCE, thinkers known as “pre-Socratic philosophers” began to challenge mythological explanations. They were no longer satisfied with the “will of the gods” and explored the concept of “Logos,” seeking an inherent, universal law governing the cosmos. By the time of Plato and Aristotle, the concept of “Logos” was elevated to a higher level, closely integrated with morality, ethics, and cosmic order.

But why did these original, parallel, and homogeneous civilizations develop into radically different outcomes? Why, despite the East’s brilliant past, did the system of modern civilization ultimately arise in the West? The answer is obvious: in the pursuit of truth, the East took Buddhism as its teacher, and the West took Christ as its teacher. The human narrative of the East, lacking an a priori logical premise, was trapped in the historical cycle of dynastic changes, “crossing the river by feeling the stones.” Without missionaries who risked their lives to bring the achievements of modern civilisation to China, the Chinese people and the entire Confucian-Buddhist-Taoist cultural sphere would still not know that the Earth is round. The revelatory narrative of the West, however, moved from Rome to America, with history rolling inexorably forward according to a higher will.

Finally, let’s examine the issues with Judaism and Islam—why these two other religions that share a “beginning-end” logic are not the complete truth. This requires an examination of the Bible’s textual structure.

The Bible is an exquisitely structured, cohesive, and comprehensive narrative. Its first sentence provides the a priori logical premise, and its last sentence closes the text with “Amen.” From a narrative perspective, the original Jewish texts lack a clear narrative endpoint like the Book of Revelation. This is one of the fundamental differences between the narrative theology of Judaism and Christianity. The Tanakh’s narrative concludes with the return and rebuilding of the Israelite nation. The prophets left prophecies about the Messianic age and the end times, but these prophecies are not fully realized within the text. This gives the entire narrative an “open-ended” structure. For Jews, history continues, the Messiah has not yet come, and the promises of the end times are still awaiting fulfillment. The Law (Torah) is merely guiding the people on how to live out their covenant relationship with God in this “to be continued” history. But this also means that the Tanakh is not God’s complete text.

The textual structure of the Old Testament is incredibly rich, with many symmetrical literary devices as intricate as works of art, yet its overall narrative structure is “open-ended.” This is highly unreasonable.

Christianity, by adding the New Testament to the Jewish Old Testament, centered on the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. The New Testament views all Old Testament prophecies about the Messiah as having been ultimately fulfilled in Jesus, bringing the “unfinished” narrative of the Old Testament to a climax. The Book of Revelation, as the final book of the New Testament, culminates with heavenly judgment, the descent of a new heaven and new earth, and God’s ultimate victory, providing the entire Bible with an “ultimate, closed, and perfect narrative ending.”

Now let’s look at Islam. The Quran also emphasizes that everything in the universe was created by the one true God and has a complete story. However, the Quran does not contain a sentence that corresponds exactly to Genesis 1:1 as a “beginning.” Instead, the entire text is a fragmented, interwoven narrative that emphasizes God as the sole creator and ruler. As I’ve already clearly stated, the significance of Genesis 1:1 as a narrative starting point is that it is an a priori premise for human understanding of the world, which is why God first revealed this sentence to Moses. If God had revealed “In the name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful” to humanity, it would have been an obvious case of someone presuming God’s authority.

A cohesive narrative is not a luxury; it’s a basic human need for existence. The cyclical narrative of Eastern religions, the open-ended narrative of Judaism, and the fragmented narrative of Islam all fail to provide a complete worldview and historical logic. The fragmentation of the modern world has the same root cause as these “non-cohesive narrative religions” of antiquity.

Yet this basic human need was met by God in the very first sentence of the Bible.