Skip to main content

Posts

Compartmentalizing Creation

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen When I began doing creation apologetics many centuries ago, I foolishly tried to divorce the Bible from scientific and logical evidence. My approach was only discussing theology when necessary, keeping scientific evidence for creation separate, arguing on neutral ground. Essentially, I was compartmentalizing . Floral compartments image credit: Unsplash / Michael Aleo One big problem with the idea of neutral ground is that it is contrary to Scripture . If you ride up to the top of the hill and get the bigger picture, you'll also see that discussions of origins are metaphysical in nature. Really, they involve theology.  Have you ever noticed that folks who want both sides presented in an unbiased view so people can "make up their own minds" seldom (if ever) accurately represent biblical creation science? They are biased toward materialism, therefore favoring atheistic interpretations of evidence. via GIPHY You want equal time, pilgrim?

Evangelism and the Genesis Flood

While professing Christians claim to believe the Bible, far too many put atheistic interpretations of modern science philosophies into a magisterial position. That is, Scripture is interpreted through the spectacles of long ages. This is backwards. Credit: RGBStock / rkirbycom Some who compromise with secular views put down biblical creation with the falsehood that it hinders evangelism , so they ride for the old earth brand. (Did you ever notice that these folks usually deny the global Flood of Genesis in one way or another?) Bible believers teach the hard truth of sin, Judgment, repentance, and redemption. People may shy away from the Flood because of old earth beliefs, but also because it describes judgment against the wicked people of the day. It is referred to in the Bible, and Peter even likened the Flood to the coming final Judgment (2 Peter 3:5-6). Discussing the Genesis Flood is actually helpful in evangelism. Some Christians claim that insisting on a literal Genesi

Evolution and the Nature of God

You may have noticed that purveyors of atoms-to-astronomer evolution are very evangelistic, making efforts to destroy the faith of Bible believers. It would not surprise me if they eventually wore name badges and white shirts, rode bicycles and came to your door with the "good news" of Darwinism. Some try to tell us that God created through evolution. Original image before modication: Freeimages / Mario Alberto Magallanes Trejo Look at all the wonders and beauty around us. Mother Nature perfected everything through the magic of evolution , you know. That may sound good, but these sidewinders are deceitful. Way back in the thrilling days of yesteryear, I presented creation science talks in churches. One point I raised is that evolution is that evolution is wasteful and cruel, thought some wolves among us who profess to believe the Bible want us to embrace Darwin . Of course, atheists want to destroy our faith and have us to add evolution . No surprise there, it's w

Why Creation in the Image of God is Important

When atheists and evolutionists will say that harm to another person is wrong, they are tacitly rejecting their own worldviews and standing on the biblical worldview. According to them, man is just another evolved animal and is nothing special. No Bible-respecting person should add evolution to it. Credit: Pixabay / Gerd Altmann We are created in the image of God. This is affirmed several times in Genesis and its importance is seen many times throughout the Bible. The atheistic worldview is incoherent and full of despair by its very nature. The biblical creationist understands, however, that we are image-bearers of God, and it is being renewed in us until the final, ultimate redemption and Judgment. We are not just animals, we are different and special. Atheism views man as simply a material being like all other animals. In many ways, this is the predominant view of popular culture: man may have “evolutionary advantages” over animals in reason, communication, and some physica

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".

Gopher Wood and Noah's Ark

Something that has puzzled readers of the sixth chapter of Genesis is the use of the term gopher wood. Footnotes often say that the "Hebrew term is uncertain", and Bible translations differ — "I know what that means, Cowboy Bob! Noah commanded his sons, "Shem, you gopher water, Ham can gopher more pitch, and Japheth can gopher wood". No. Anyway, Bible translations differ. Many use the term gopher wood, and using the translations in my copy of theWord Bible Software , Coverdale (1535,) Geneva (1587), and Tyndale (1526) translated it as pine. The NIV translates it as cypress and adds the "uncertain" reference. The KJV, NKJV, NASB, HCSB, ESV, WEB all render the term as gopher wood. Credit: Wikimedia Commons /  Cimerondagert  ( CC by-SA 4.0 ) An excellent possibility is that God was not specifying a particular tree that has disappeared since then, but that Noah was to use hardwood. Getting into the Hebrew language, we see the root word tha

Trusting Bible Manuscripts

When pondering ancient texts, people wonder why we should trust biblical manuscripts. After all, we do not have the originals. We do have copies that have been passed down through time. Lots of them. In fact, there are far fewer copies of works by Plato, Caesar, and other ancient writers, and there is a tremendous gap between when they were written and the oldest manuscripts — and people trust their authenticity for some reason. What makes the Bible more reliable? Section of P-45 Greek papyrus manuscript of the Gospel of Luke, via Wikimedia Commons It has been suggested that since people tend to worship and idolize things, God has not made the originals available. That may also be the reason the body of Moses was buried by God (Deuteronomy 34:5–6). For that matter, I heard someone say that if a miracle happened on a particular spot, people would adore the spot instead of the one who performed the miracle. I'll allow that this is all speculation, but it makes sense. Biblical