Thursday, September 6, 2012

Reinterpretation and Other Old-Earth Compromise Efforts

It constantly baffles me why some Christians insist that the Bible does not mean what it says back in Genesis. Some blatant compromisers like Hugh Ross and BioLogos can be seen as dangerous to the gospel. It is disheartening when a respected philosopher like William Lane Craig actually mocks biblical creationists. When people I respect, like Greg Koukl of "Stand to Reason", keep making efforts to say that Genesis does not mean what it says (as he did in his radio show on September 2, 2012, at about the 1 hour 10 minute mark), it is discouraging. Especially when I know that Koukl has a great deal of worthwhile material!

As I have said before, we are sending people a mixed message:

The Bible is true, and contains what we need for salvation and a godly life, it means what it says. You don't need to be told what to think, have a "Watchtower" magazine or Book of Mormon. Except for the first eleven chapters of Genesis. Then, we have to go with the current trends of modern science philosophies; do not go with the plain reading of the text, nononono!

But many of us do believe what the Bible says. We do not need the ever-changing whims of science philosophies to tell us what it means. Why the compromise? Why the insistence on eisegesis, forcing "deep time" into the Bible? What is the purpose of using atheistic interpretations of scientific data? If people want to let "science" tell us what we should believe, why stop at Genesis? "Science" also says that water is not turned into wine, virgins do not conceive a child from the Holy Spirit, men do not rise from the dead... Compromise begets more compromise.

Here is an article about theological tap-dancing and reinterpretations of the text that old-Earth people commit.
Since the rise of uniformitarian geology in about 1800, many in the church have capitulated to this new ‘science’. Thus they have rejected the traditional plain historical-grammatical interpretation of the creation and Flood accounts. They routinely resort to erroneous reasoning to support their compromising reinterpretation. Following are discussions of the three most common errors committed.
I urge you to read the rest of "Common errors made by deniers of a young Earth", here.