Skip to main content

Compromise at Square One

One thing that I have noticed with people who want to compromise (or even deny) the Scriptures is that they do a song and dance routine around what is stated. We can go back to Genesis to find a hotbed of compromise. People want to appear educated or non-fanatical, so they accommodate an ancient Earth (and ancient universe) to fit with the ever-changing whims of man-made science. They do this in several ways, but I will only discuss the two most prevalent. One way is to put a "gap" between the first two verses of the Bible. Another is to invoke the "day-age" belief.

When people are of the belief that science has "proven" that evolution is true and that the Earth is billions of years old, they interpret Scripture in light of man's word. They conveniently forget that man-made science is replete with errors, excuses, backtracking and even fraud. (I discussed a scientific principle that was believed by all, and then abandoned, here.) This raises the question of authority (a short audio about that is here), and if they believe that the Bible is really God's Word.

The "gap" concept has all sorts of silliness that I will address briefly. This allows for fossils by saying that there was a pre-Adamite race and a global flood before the time of Noah. The idea has been around for centuries, but causes many problems even though it supposedly "solves" the problem of where fossils originated. It gets impetus from the King James Version's use of "replenish the earth" (Gen. 1.28 KJV), which is better translated as "fill the earth" (Gen 1.28).

More commonly, the "day-age" belief wants to make the days of Genesis into huge amounts of time. The main "proof text" for this position is 2 Peter 3.8. This misses the point that is brought out in 2 Peter 3.9. Sometimes, Psalm 90.4 is used to support this position, but that verse is simply emphasizing how God is not subject to time.

I learned most of this next material from Ken Ham of Answers in Genesis. The word translated "day" isThe Hebrew word yom (pronounced with a long O sound, rhyming with "home"), and it can be used in different ways. One is indefinite period of time, which rules out a set "age". (Another use for yom is the daylight part of a day, so that does not get brought up in the discussion.) So what happened in Please pay attention here: The other use is literal 24-hour day. The qualifier? Well, we have several, actually. "Evening and morning, the first day". The "evening and morning" part, and a number (first, second &c.) nails it down that these were literal days, and leave no room for forcing in an age. Any other time yom is used with a number, it means literal day. Why should the first two chapters of the Bible be the exception?

If someone insists on using yom to mean "age", they have problems with other verses. For instance, "For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy" (Exodus 20.11 ESV). What did God do, make the world in six indefinite periods of time and then rest for an indefinite period of time? Also, Jesus taught that Adam and Eve were created in the beginning, not after long ages or billions of years (Mark 10.6). Christians believe that Jesus is the Creator (John 1.1, Col 1.16-17), so he should know what he is talking about. Further, the literal six day creation week never has any doubt in the rest of Scripture.

I call it the domino effect. You start compromising back in Genesis, and you have problems through the rest of the Bible. I will deal with some of these other things in later episodes. 

We have to decide who to follow, who is the authority. Does man decide what is true in God's Word? Does science interpret Scripture? Should compromise be taught from the pulpit? Not hardly!

Comments

Silly Goose said…
CBB, It tickled my soul to see your link about Islam in the sidebar!

You know that's why I got the boot?
Welcome to the party, Miss Goose.

I saw that you were, uh, disinvited from participating in a site and saw a comment about Islam. But I thought it was more than that; you told the truth (without venom) and someone figured, "I can't handle the truth". My feeling is that the Islam bit was just an excuse to add to the mix.

Islam is not only wrong, its teachings are dangerous. I am making those sites available so Christians can learn about it. If they get offended because I have the links on there, well, they would find some other excuse to be offended anyway.

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