Skip to main content

What About Other Views of Genesis?

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

When biblical creationists take a stand for the plain reading of Genesis (historical-grammatical exegesis), some people get on the prod and want to throw down. Those are the ones who belong to cults, the Old Earth Creationists, Progressive Creationists, others — and especially theistic evolutionists. (For extensive material on theistic evolutionists, see "Waterless Clouds, Wandering Stars"). I'm puzzled as to why people who call themselves Christians want to compromise on what God's Word plainly says in order to accommodate atheistic interpretations of man-made science philosophies. I'm also amazed that compromisers team up with haywire atheists in attacking us; it gets mighty difficult to tell the atheists from those "Christians" at times!


Even though a young Earth was taught throughout church history, many Christians want to go against the plain teachings of Scripture. It's not difficult to see that the Bible does teach a recent creation, and compromise at the beginning leads to serious problems in scriptural understanding.
My e-book reader and an actual paper book.
"Science has proven that the Bible is wrong, Genesis must be an allegory, and science — "

Yeah, yeah. Hooray for the religion of Scientism. But science views keep changing, and a good understanding of science will show that there's a whole passel of circular reasoning and cherry-picked data to support long ages. But why stop there? "Science" has shown that there are no virgin births, nobody can change water to wine, people are not raised from the dead, and so on. Keep on compromising, throw away your Bible and watch videos of cats (here's one of a cat chasing a bear up a tree). Don't disunderstand me, no respectable (and knowledgeable) creationist says that believing in a literal, recent creation is a "salvation issue". However, we do contend that it's not consistent and does violence to the text, as I indicated. For example, dealing with what Jesus said about six-day creation is difficult for those people, and they come off sounding like they really don't believe the Bible at all.

When Christians began to give science over to the materialists, one consequence was rampant compromise on Genesis, despite the fact that church history shows recent creation being the established view. Even though material from owlhoots like Hutton, Lyell, Darwin and others was unscientific and sometimes dishonest, Christians were buffaloed into believing that "science" had "truth" above the pain teachings of Scripture.

One accommodation for deep time was around 1814 when the Gap Theory was introduced. It was discredited, but people brought back this zombie of bad theology. The strange concept shoved millions of years between the first two verses of the Bible. In addition, it included a pre-Adamite race of hominids, the rebellion of Lucifer, a flood wiping out all life back then, plus the misuse of the word "replenish" in Genesis 1:28 KJV. One simple problem is that God told Adam and Eve to replenish (correctly translated, "fill", Genesis 1:28) the Earth, but how can it be refilled when it was never filled with humans in the first place? Just a thought. The Gap Theory involves mistranslations, eisegesis, Scriptural saddle swapping, and much more. I recommend reading "From the beginning of the creation — Does Genesis have a ‘gap’?"

Some people will complain that we need to allow for "other interpretations" of Genesis. Why should we? Sure, people have a right to their opinions, but if they study on it, they should see that the only way to get millions or billions of years out of Genesis is to put them in there to begin with, and then commit massive eisegesis. That leads to a domino effect of compromise throughout the Bible, making Peter, Paul, Jesus and the others into deluded fools or liars! Listen up, Pilgrim: If you want to be a consistent Christian, you should know who Jesus is, and also what he believed about creation. Unless you have not only a low view of Scripture and its authority, but also a low view of Jesus, then we can't help you.


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Andy Stanley, Frank Turek, and Bad Theology

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen Andy Stanley has been disappointing some people, and causing quite a few to be alarmed by his opposition to the authority of Scripture. (Note: Do not be confused.  Charles  Stanley is his father, senior pastor of First Baptist Church in Atlanta, Georgia, and heard on In Touch Ministries . I've found most of his teachings to be doctrinally sound, and he upholds the inerrancy and authority of the Bible.) Unfortunately, megachurch director Andy Stanley has been saying things that are destructive to the truth, including recommending the false teaching of theistic evolution. Gray wolf image credit: US National Park Service While shooting from the hip can be a good thing, someone claiming the title of pastor should reign himself in . Stanley was disrespectful of small churches, then apologized later . In another instance, " What  did he just say?", Stanley may have used a very bad word in a sermon. When the segment was legally posted on YouTube

Disappointment with Young Earth Creation

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen  First, a note for anyone who is curious. The usual format: introduction with some of my thoughts plus links for useful information, excerpts of featured articles, then links to keep reading. I put my name on it and call it an article when I have more to say. This one will be different. I will reference older articles, then add some thoughts that I hope will prove helpful. There is more following the excerpt and link. So, does anyone remember Ken Keathley? Medal image manufactured at Custom Medal Maker Several years ago, Ken Keathley renounced young earth creationism to accept an old earth view. Apparently, he was disappointed by people in the young earth community. No kidding? Taking Friendly Fire This is where I'm going to open up and get personal with both of my readers. Ken Keathley is not the only one who has been disappointed, and in addition, I've been deeply hurt by the young earth community. Things I have posted on social(ist) media have been &qu

Evaluating Truth Claims in Genesis

Some people try to dismiss Genesis as myth containing spiritual truth using elements from the pagan neighbors of the Hebrews. Others say it is misunderstood, as if the Creator of the universe was unable to communicate with us. With closer inspection, we see that Genesis is a historical narrative. Credit: RGBStock /  Billy Frank Alexander The idea that the early chapters of Genesis are mythological should not be accepted by professing Christians, as there are serious problems that result. (One of these is that Jesus, Peter, Paul, and others referred to these chapters as literal history, so by denying this, one is calling them liars!) Also, there are repercussions with the gospel message. Read some classical mythology, then come back to Genesis and see the difference. Myths are vague and have a different flow, but the Bible is precise. Indeed, even the sequence of creation days is specific — a day itself is defined. Interestingly, many translations have in Genesis 1:5 less accurate by us