Skip to main content

Posts

Showing posts with the label Eisegesis

The Barrier to Adding Long Ages to the Bible

For centuries, people took the Bible as written. This includes a literal six-day recent creation. For some reason, many decided to give secular science views preeminence over Scripture. Some rejected the Bible outright, others had a pretense of belief with a modified view. Something I cannot understand is why such people essentially tell God what he says and means about creation week. Do they prefer the applause of atheists for their compromises on recent creation? Some are essentially Deists, adding not only billions of years, but evolution to their pusillanimous religion. Ten Commandments section of Bible image, Unsplash  Tim Wildsmith (modified) To be blunt, sometimes when professing Christians are particularly enamored with a faulty belief, they reason like atheists. F'rinstance, the Hebrew word yom  does not always mean a literal day. Although it is used with what I call qualifiers in creation week that clearly indicate that those are literal days, some folks find when the wo

Filling the Gap Theory

First of all, the word theory  is often used by people who simply have a conjecture or an idea they are making up on the spot. In science, a theory is a step above a hypothesis  and is expected to have an evidential basis. The Gap Theory  has nothing to do with science, but is not just an off-the-cuff speculation, either. Even though it has been refuted long ago, people zombify it and let it roam around, annoying theologians and confusing lay people. Standley Chasm, Unsplash / Stephen Mabbs There are some variations on the Gap Thing (you make my heart sing). It exists as a compromise for professing Christians to say they believe the Bible and also have deep time. The gap supposedly exists between the first two verses of Genesis, but is supported by an illegitimate reading of the text — and a heapin' helpin' of eisegesis. Now we have a gap. Want to see what's in it? Billions of years. The fall of Satan. Lucifer's Flood, which is supposed to explain geology. Ruin and reco

Jesus Pictures and — Idolatry?

Years ago, the forerunner of this weblog was called A Soldier for Jesus . There was a drawing of Jesus on it. Someone accused me of being an idolater because of it. Also, I joined a Christian-based humor group on Fakebook  that prohibited posting images of Jesus because some people got upset. Probably that idolatry thing again. Where do they get such ideas? Eisegesis from the Ten Commandments in Exodus 20:4-6 and other places. I am going to be blunt here. People who sanctimoniously accuse others of being idolaters because they use images of Jesus (or God the Father, such as  Michelangelo  and  William Blake ) have no basis for their pride. They are showing ignorance of scriptural context. It's not a difficult theological context, either, because they are not even reading the rest of the verse. Jesus Pictures ( source here ) as Gallery Exhibit, PhotoFunia (cropped) Pictures can be used as a way of praising God and giving him glory, and possibly a means of focusing in worship. I hav

Distinguishing Between "Make" and "Create" in Genesis 1

There are some professing Christians who insist on finding ways of adding long ages into the Bible, but they ignore the context. While the context is frequently the surrounding verses, it can also mean culture, languages, and more. We look now at make  and create . Credit: Freeimages / Fernanda Ferrari Those owlhoots have attempted to bushwhack the plain meaning of Scripture by saying that they are different aspects of creation, and that make  means using material that was already created. Their eisegesis becomes heinous when their alleged distinction is used to give them license to add millions of years. Some even try to shove evolution into the picture. It won't work, especially when the greater context includes the New Testament. Many people who have written on Genesis 1 have attempted to make a very significant distinction between two Hebrew words found there: bara (בָּרָא, to create) and asah (עָשָׂה, to make or do). Theistic evolutionists (TEs) and old-earth creationists (O

The Fall of Man and Animal Death

It has been a month ago today that we had to make that awful trip to the vet and put an end to the suffering of Basement Cat, but I still get misty. When the box with her ashes arrived, I was upset all over again. When I was drifting off to sleep that night, I "heard" her meow like she often did at bedtime. When did animal death enter God's very good creation? Animals suffer and die, and it hurts those of us who love them so much. Biblical creationists maintain that death entered the picture with the Fall of Man. After all, God does not approve of the mistreatment of animals (Prov. 12:10), and he even providing for birds (Matt. 6:26). For some reason, professing Christians who insist on exegeting huge amounts of time into the Bible concoct weird interpretations of Scripture — some even say that death is a good thing! Also, suffering and death are, to some owlhoots, a part of God's creative process through evolution. Such absurdities are inconsistent with God, ou

The Days of Genesis One

Since we are bombarded at every turn with assertions of evolution and millions of years as a fact, many Christians try to reconcile the days of Creation with long periods of time. Expressions like, "Well I  think the days are God's  days, and we can't know how long they really are!" Some are sidewinders who know precisely what is going on and deliberately corrupt God's Word. Background image credit: freestocks.org / Joanna Malinowska To be blunt, it doesn't matter what you or I think. The important thing is what God said in Scripture, and that too many professing Christians are uninformed about the Bible they claim to believe — especially at the foundation, the first chapter of Genesis. Some misquote 2 Peter 3:8, "One day is like a thousand years", which does not help much because it would make creation week six thousand years long, unhelpful for deep time. Also, the verse cancels this idea out, "...and a thousand years like one day".

Recent Creation and the Gospel Message

It is a sad fact that many professing Christians do not have a solid understanding of what the Bible teaches. This tempts them to abandon good teaching so they can ride the Owlhoot Trail of false doctrines. Related to this is the opinion that origins and recent creation are irrelevant. While they are not essentials for salvation, recent creation and origins are extremely important to the gospel message. Image source: RGBStock/ rizeli53 Atheists, old earth proponents, theistic evolutionists, compromisers, and other enemies of the Word of God exploit this ignorance. They come along with sciencey pronouncements and Scripture twisting, plus a heapin' helpin' of hostility and ridicule toward those of us who believe that God means what he says (including name-calling and labels such as " YECism "). People are timorous when it comes to standing for biblical truth, and when you mix in ignorance with intimidation, folks put the blinders on and join the crowd. Incident

Making Hybrid Creation Stories

Addendum added later the same day as published. As any rancher worth his salt knows, you can have a hybrid animal such as a mule (offspring of a horse and donkey). It will likely suit your purpose, but critters like this are not likely to spread life. The same can be said for hybridized accounts of creation that mix the Bible and millions of years. Credit: Library of Congress/ Carol M. Highsmith archive Some folks reject the Bible's authority. We expect that from atheists and other non-believers, but there are professing Christians who also downplay the Word of God. Scripture plainly says that everything was created in six days . Instead of humbling themselves and submitting to Christ, they light a shuck out of there and head for the comfort of riding the owlhoot trail . They are degrading Scripture. Why would a supposed believer want to compromise? It seems to me that these owlhoots don't want to look like one of those people who reject deep time, so they seek the

The Length of the Seventh Day

People riding for the Long Ages brand will tell you that an old earth was accepted by people until young earth creationists rode into down. That is the opposite of the truth. People accepted recent creation until Christians and Jews began compromising with secular science. One bit of trickery that these four-flushers use is to say that the seventh day of creation week is not an actual day. Credit: Pixabay /  Kai Kalhh As to  why  some professing Christians want to cede to secularists and insist that Earth is billions of years, I suspect it's because they want to look intelligent in the eyes of secularists. The only way to get millions or billions of years out of the Bible is to shove them in there first and commence to saying, "Lookie what I found!" Not hardly! This effort to change the obvious meaning of the seventh day requires massive eisegesis and ripping verses out of context (while ignoring others altogether), but doing so also does damage to other areas of S

Genesis as History: Short Form

There are times when we need to ride up to yonder hill and get the view from up there. That is, a broad view or big picture. Biblical creationists maintain (with a little help from Occam) that the basic approach is true: Genesis is written as history. Some owlhoots read all sorts of things into the text in order to work in long ages and evolution. Creation of the World III , Mikalojus Konstantinas Ciurlionis, 1906 I have long wondered why some professing Christians insist on compromising with atheistic, ever-changing whims of man-made science philosophies. It is also an inconsistent message to say that we believe the Bible is true from cover to cover except  the early chapters of Genesis. Those, we have to interpret according to man's wisdom. Oh, please!  So when do we start believing the Bible, and when do we stop? Can we trust John 3:16-17, or is that just allegory? By the way, even if the first few verses of Genesis were allegorical, that does not mean they are untrue and

Enoch, the Bible, and the Flat Earth

You have probably heard the story that Christopher Columbus defied the consensus of the flat earth by taking his voyage, but that is a myth . The truth is, most people believed the world was spherical, even from ancient times. Sure, there have always been a few folks who believed the world was flat, but for some reason, there has been an increase in flat earth proponents in recent years. Image credit: Pixabay / JooJoo41 Unfortunately, professing Christians are getting caught up in this, as well as secularists. In my opinion, some of those Christians want to feel superior to those of us who believe in the spherical earth because they really believe the Bible. But it does not teach this. Some atheists are milking the idea that the Bible teaches a flat earth in one of many efforts to misrepresent Scripture and especially biblical creation science. Kind of like when J. Edgar Hoover's enemies spread the discredited story that he was a crossdresser. One tinhorn is doing the ty

Compromising Genesis and Deep Time

For a mighty long time, the book of Genesis was understood to be history, not allegory or anything else. Josephus, the respected Jewish historian, also recognized the straightforward reading of Genesis . One in a while, some owlhoot would try to change the literal days of Genesis into something else In the days of the Reformers, some folks tried to make the days much quicker, but most accepted literal creation days .  Later, professing Christians compromised on the meaning of the days of Genesis in order to accommodate atheistic interpretations of "science", and commenced to shoving millions of years into the text. They also began rejecting creation in favor of evolutionism, and the faith of many was shipwrecked. I suspicion that religious folks didn't want to look stupid to the burgeoning secular science promoters, and were fearful of ridicule. Did they, and do people today, want to please men, or God?  There are various attempts to marry up Genesis and atheistic

Genesis and the Fall of Man

Liberal theologians and compromising theistic evolution sidewinders (you can't get more liberal and compromising than an "evolutionary creationist") have bushwhacked Scripture for many years. They cannot tolerate the creation account in the first two chapters of Genesis, so they say that it was allegory or myth. But that's not enough for some folks, and they attack the doctrine of the Fall in the third chapter of Genesis. Credit: Pixabay / Activedia These compromisers are telling us that that the Fall was not in Genesis, but was added later on. One contention is that certain words were not in the third chapter, such as guilt and sin . Those words do not need to be there, since the concepts are clearly taught. Further, if you study on it, you'll see that original sin is affirmed elsewhere in Scripture, as are death and the Curse. They need death before sin so they can force in millions of years and evolution. That's eisegesis, old son, and does violenc

Unravelling the Bible from Genesis

The way some people cling to their "deep time" beliefs, sometimes including evolution, while claiming to believe the Bible is mighty disconcerting to me. They are elevating man-made science philosophies to the magisterial position and are telling God that he is wrong. Scriptural teaching begins to unravel — and that's why unbelievers attack the foundations of the Christian faith, the book of Genesis. Image credit: Pixabay / bluemorphos Now, don't get all het up, I'm not saying that every professing Christian who goes in for long ages is deliberately sabotaging the Bible or is unsaved. (If you study on it a spell, you might begin to wonder why some people attack biblical creationists and have a fervent desire to believe Earth is ancient.) What I am  saying is that many people really don't know what the Bible teaches, and the implications of forcing millions of years into the text. Especially when Jesus, Peter, Paul, and many others in Scripture believed

Does God Continue to Create?

A plain reading of the Bible seems to make it clear that once God was done creating, he was done, period. Varieties of theistic evolutionists join the gang at the Darwin Ranch in a hoedown, dancing around what Scripture says. One group disbelieves the Bible, the other pretends to believe it a little bit. But how can anyone get around the part that says, "God rested"?  Sounds like God is done, I reckon. This post gives me an excuse to show Basement Cat resting on my e-book reader. I took the option of finding something else to read. Some people have no serious regard to what Scripture says, preferring to give current science philosophies the magisterial position above God's Word. Some people sort of baptize evolution by associating God's name with it, but that's as legitimate as baptizing the cat. They come up with some incoherent and self-refuting philosophies (click for larger): Used under Fair Use provisions for educational purposes After a couple

ETWN is not Roman Catholic Enough?

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen When translating the Latin Vulgate version of the Bible, Jerome had an easy -to-make but serious "oops" with Genesis 3:15, the protoevangelium , the first prophesy of the redemption of man. Most Bibles render it, "... he shall bruise you on the head (or, crush  your head), and you shall bruise him on the heel". But Jerome made it say, "... she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel", as found in the  Douay-Rheims Roman Catholic Bible . The Virgin and Child (The Madonna of the Book) - Sandro Botticelli, 1480 Where can I get a hat like they have? That mistranslation fits in well with Roman Catholic mythology where Mary is the co-redemptrix along with Jesus , which is a blatant violation of Scripture . Although the Vatican's Neo-Vulgate corrected the error , Catholics still managed to force-fit poor Mary into the text, since she gave birth to Jesus. If you study on it for a spell, you'll see th

Pre-Adam Men and the Gap — Heretics Twisting Genesis 1

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen To borrow from Chris Rosebrough (who is linked below), I'm not asking people to read this or watch the video with open minds, but to have open Bibles. My opinion and yours are not worth a whole lot, nor are our traditions. Only God's Word matters (Isaiah 40:8, Mark 13:31). Way back yonder, I was a follower of "Word of Faith" heretic Kenneth Copeland and some of his gang, but I didn't go whole hog on his teachings. Still, I accepted too much at the time. One of several things he said that I rejected out of hand was his affirmation of the "gap theory", where there are supposedly millions of years between the first two chapters of Genesis. I disremember why he wanted to use this gap eisegesis , especially since there is nothing to support it in the rest of Scripture, and I don't think there's anything about it in church history, since an old Earth is a relatively new phenomenon in liberal Christian thinking. Mrs

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! 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