Skip to main content

Posts

Was the Genesis Flood Tranquil?

There are people who propose that the Genesis Flood was a local event, or even tranquil. People who say this are attempting to accommodate secular geology (evolution and millions of years) while still trying to maintain a religious appearance. Also, I reckon the are unfamiliar with floods in the first place; even draining a basin gives them a small-scale glimpse of water power. Water Drain image credit: FreeDigitalPhotos.net / Teerapun The global Flood was anything but tranquil, and Scripture makes it clear in numerous places that it was global. After all, it was a judgement of God. The Ark was also a type of Christ, and that also indicates the extent of the Flood. I've put forward the question, "In 2 Peter 3:2-4, Peter talks about the Genesis Flood. Then he talks about the coming Judgement by fire. Will that be a local event?" Not hardly! Have you ever thought about what Noah would have been able to see when he came off the Ark? Did he walk down the Mountains of

Despair in an Atheistic Worldview

I know of someone who attempted suicide, became a cripple, and now blames God for his condition and other problems. He also hates biblical creationists. The Christians worldview is the foundation for most of Western civilization. Because of that, he has his wheelchair and gets his needs met. Most importantly, the God he rejects has offered him salvation and eternal life. Credit: RGBStock / Sanja Gjenero Now think of the large-scale tragedies in life. There are wars, hurricanes, earthquakes, diseases, and more. In an atheistic worldview, there is no reason to grieve or even provide assistance for others, since death is just another aspect of the human experience. Evolutionists believe that death is a means to developing current lifeforms. The old, infirm, sick, depressed, and others have a duty to die and get out of the way for the fit to move forward. The religion of Secular Humanism is atheism dressed up and looking respectable like, but it is deceitful and inhuman ; people wil

Evidence for the Resurrection without the Bible?

It is a fair question to ask if there is evidence for Jesus, especially his Resurrection, from non-biblical sources. Is there corroborating evidence from various historical accounts? Maybe some forensic evidence? However, such questions can often an attempt to demand evidence but the inquirer is not interested in biblical information. US Air Force photo by Tech. Sgt. Shane A. Cuomo (Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents by the US Department of Defense) Some folks don't seem to ponder on some things, and forget that almost instantaneous satellite news didn't exist back then. We're talking about an event that happened over 2,000 years ago. Another is that Jerusalem was a jerkwater town in the Roman empire. Other information may have existed, but it's turned to dust by now. More than those details, however, is that the Bible is historically reliable. We get names, dates, details, eyewitness accounts, and more. People don't seem to have felt a need

The Gospel is Incomplete without Creation

When discussing Creation, atheists and other anti-creationists will ridicule it since they do not approve of viewpoints that do not include Darwin. It's who they are and what they do. It is indeed unfortunate that many professing Christians will file Genesis under "nice story" or "allegory" (and even say that God used the Big Bang for creation — which shows their ignorance of both Genesis and evolution.) In reality, Genesis is essential to a proper understanding of the gospel. Credit: Unsplash / Aaron Burden No, we are not saying that believing in creation is essential to salvation, but it is a gospel issue . If you read the Bible carefully, you will see that creation is proclaimed all the way through to the end (see Rev. 14:6, 3:14, for example). What we believe controls what we think, and therefore, what we do. Christians need to have a high view of Scripture, which is God-breathed (2 Tim. 3:16 NIV). Rejecting creation leaves the gospel incomplete. M

Demons and Secular Science

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen Materialists contradict themselves by claiming that there is no God, spirits, or anything supernatural, and then they try to explain the soul and their version of free will (which is impossible from an evolutionary worldview ). Ironically, atheists have their own miracles of sorts, but they deny God.  Sure, we see some self-styled ghost hunters on television attempting to obtain electromagnetic, infrared, and other readings of supposedly haunted places. Those do not amount to much. Can secularists ride the trail and scientifically study demons, which they believe do not exist? Kind of difficult with their materialistic presuppositions and bad logic, such as, "Since there are some fakers, there are no spirits at all". I can show you some angry atheopaths that have blasphemed each person of the Trinity, and are demonically possessed. Credit: Pixabay / Pete Linforth The Parkland school shooter, Nikolas Cruz, said he had a demon telling him to k

Intellectualizing God out of the Bible

Some folks spend too much time in secular edjamakation centers and get into a habit of intellectualizing too many things. That is, they commence to pondering the minutiae of many things, and making a mighty great mess of it all instead of starting with the plain intent. A certain tinhorn named Dr. Jordan Peterson does that very thing with the Bible — especially Genesis — and unfortunately, he has many followers. Credit: Freeimages /  Sar Castillo I'll make no apology that he's not the kind of guy I'd like to have lunch with. From excerpts in his books it's easy to see that he's condescending and rejects the God of the Bible. He labels people who believe in creation, the global Flood, even the historical account of the Mosaic writings as fundamentalists.  Like so many other labels, it has become vague and has many connotations nowadays , and is primarily used to stir up negative emotions.  Peterson doesn't tell us how he  defines a fundamentalist. But then

Would Paul the Apostle Debate Modern Evolutionists?

Speculative questions can be as useful as a hole in a milk bucket, as you can spend a lot of time working at them, but not much get accomplished. You get a "what if" and a "yeah, but" added now and then, and folks get a mite overwrought. On the other hand, if handled properly, though, thought experiments can be interesting and productive. Uncle Albert Einstein liked them , after all. So, let's see if we can make use of the question about whether or not Paul the Apostle would debate modern evolutionists if he rode into town today. Made at Break Your Own News , background image St. Paul Preaching in Athens , Raphael, 1515 Paul was enthusiastic, to say the least. He would reason, discuss, debate, and so on at the drop of a hat, and he'd drop his own hat if nobody else did. Okay, the last part is an exaggeration, but I don't reckon it's too far afield. However, how would he deal with evolutionists? Would he try to "out evidence them"

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

Non-Human Persons, Pro-Life, and Evolutionary Thinking

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen One aspect of the extreme environmentalist movement is to give "rights" to animals, even going so far as to call them non-human persons.  Naturally, vegans also saddle up to ride for this brand, which is primarily based on evolutionary thinking. Professing Christians are also joining in. Christians and creationists need to think logically, and not fall for emotional manipulation tactics, nor get their values from worldly thinking. Ham the chimpanzee in the biopack couch for the MR-2 suborbital test flight Credit: NASA (usage does not imply endorsement of site contents) Be wary of word games, because not only do extremists use loaded, emotion-provoking terminology, but they redefine words. It is interesting that just before I wrote this, I saw a Star Trek: The Next Generation episode called "Lonely Among Us". Commander Riker told someone , "We no longer enslave animals for food purposes". Enslave? A slave is a person , not a

Roses for Afghanistan?

Poppies are nice to look at, but the plants have chemical properties that can be lethal. Opioids are processed from them, and some are for good purposes. Unfortunately, the opium poppies in Afghanistan are mainly used for heroin. Follow the money: people who foolishly use heroin are ultimately funding the sidewinders of Islamic terrorism! With any drug trafficking comes violence and criminal activity. What's a poor Afghani farmer to do who wants to put food on the table? Personally, I'd find something else to do that doesn't involve the deaths of many people. Damask rose image credit: Wikimedia Commons /  Kurt Stüber  ( CC BY-SA 3.0 ) Enter the Damask rose. It is native to Afghanistan, appeals to the eye and nose, is more profitable than poppies, a renewable resource, is a source of employment, and more. God has given us all sorts of things for us to use. We can use them through biomimetics , or use them directly — if we know how. Our creator gave us minds and expects

External Pressures and Internal Changes

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen Over at Piltdown Superman, I've been posting material from ICR on engineered adaptability and the continuous environmental tracking model. Essentially, Charles Darwin supposed that organisms change because of external "pressures", a concept that his followers cling to even today. They don't cotton to the notion that critters adapt (without evolving into something else altogether) through internal mechanisms (see " Targeted Changes and Engineered Adaptability " if you want to see an example). The Master Engineer built in the ability to make changes. Modified from a Library of Congress photo (usage does not imply endorsement of site contents) Let's take this biological concept into another area — and flip it. People have been blaming others for their actions for a very long time. Go back to Eden, and see that Eve blamed the serpent, Adam blamed Eve and God ("the woman you gave me"). This happens all the time. J

The Mystery of the Trinity

Although orthodox denominations bearing the name of Christ have their differences in some doctrines, they tend to historically agree on major articles of faith. (With the increase in apostasy, that may not be happening so much nowadays.) One of the most common areas of agreement is the Trinity: The Father is God, Jesus is God, the Holy Spirit is God. And yet, there is only one God! Trefoil (Trinity) symbol image credit: Pixabay / Philip Barrington People get bothered when a theological question is given the response of, "It's a mystery". That is often an excuse for someone who does not know what he or she claims to believe, or maybe does not want to actually look for an answer. This is devastating to children. However, there are times when mystery really is the best explanation. We are not expected to fully understand everything about the eternal Creator God, our Redeemer, you know. We cannot fully understand the Trinity. Some owlhoots and cultists deny the exis

The Bible Affirms the Genesis Flood

Unfortunately, many professing Christians (including pastors) have not given serious thought to the Genesis Flood. Many accept atheistic interpretations of science philosophies, accepting millions of years and evolution. This makes it more difficult to present the gospel message because of the compromise involved. Also, accepting deep time usually means rejecting the Genesis Flood. This leads to a series of biblical errors and, ultimately, rejection of Scripture. The Animals Entering Noah' Ark , Jacopo Bassano, 1570s I have pointed out several times that when people say that the Flood was local or tranquil (or never happened at all), they are calling Peter, Paul, Jesus, and others wrong or even liars. They said it was a real historical event. Peter likened the Flood to the end times, and Judgment by fire — will that be a tranquil, local event also? Not hardly! When you claim to believe the Bible but doubt the Holy Spirit's divine inspiration, you have some serious problem