Skip to main content

How Do You View Genesis?

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen
My regular readers know that I am a biblical creationist. Now, don't panic and run off, hear me out, OK? Some of my past articles (like this one) have dealt with the problems associated with compromising with Genesis.

I need to clarify something at this point.

Many people are overwhelmed with the pressure to compromise because they are told what to think, that evolution is true, the earth is old, the universe is ancient &c. Many do not really think about it at all, but simply go with the flow. Others see the problems that occur when they tamper with a plain reading of Scripture, so they force-fit a gap between the first two verses of Genesis, invoke the "Day-Age Theory", say that the first few chapters of Genesis is allegorical and that those of us who believe that it means what it says are fringe-group nuts.

One apologist said something that angered me quite a bit. He said that he does not believe in evolution, and will not let "science" tell him how to interpret Scripture. Great! However, (you knew there would be a "however", did you not?)  he could not believe in a recent creation because it did not fit Big Bang cosmology, which he felt was sufficiently established. That angered me. Not only did he contradict himself and promptly let science philosophy influence his view of Scripture, but he did not realize that he was doing violence with a great deal more of the Scriptures. Also, he was out of touch with the fact that the Big Bang theory is not established, but disputed among scientists. I felt that he casually compromised the Bible to fit science philosophy, and that I could not trust him any longer to give me useful apologetics information. Perhaps I should not have been surprised after reading that dreadful book on the New Age that he wrote several years ago...

Some people have not casually accommodated the whims of the current trends of science. They believe that the universe is old. I would in no wise consider them incompetent or that they are not really Christians. (That is the clarification that I wanted to make, the purpose of this article.) But I would really like for them to consider the implications of their positions and how it relates to Scriptures.

Especially if these people believe that the Bible really is the Word of God, and is their final authority.

I will not stifle myself about a few basic facts:
  • Yom יוֹם means a literal day when it is with an indicator like a number, evening, morning and so on. When this happens throughout the Hebrew Scriptures, it is accepted that yom means a literal day (with very few possible exceptions). "And there was evening and there was morning, one day", has three indicators. Why should the first part of Genesis be the exception? It means literal day.
  • Some people want to say that "day" was a long period of time. Well, yom means and indefinite period of time when the indicators (such as numbers) are not there. To justify this, people will say, "The Bible says one day is with the Lord as a thousand years". Read the rest of 2 Peter 3.8, Zeke. It also says "and a thousand years as one day". Keep going, read the context. This verse is not attempting to define "day".
  • Still not convinced? Exodus 20.11 tells us outright that God made everything in six days, and rested on the seventh day. He did this as an example for us. He did not work for six thousand years and rest for one thousand years. We would have some extremely rough work weeks with that exegesis!
  • You're calling Jesus a liar. That's right, I said it! In fact, you're in a bad place with the New Testament, because the early chapters are the most quoted passages. Adam was a real person (1 Cor. 15.45, Jude 1.14) the flood of Noah's time really happened (1 Peter 3.20). Need I go on?
Do you see how one compromise leads to another, and can affect our understanding of the entire gospel message? Where is your authority? Who are you going to trust? Isaiah 40.8

I'll be back in another יוֹם or so.
Addendum:I just found this excellent article on the
subject and hand, and strongly recommend that you click here.

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

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