Skip to main content

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!


Even though a young Earth was taught throughout church history, many Christians want to go against the plain teachings of Scripture. It's not difficult to see that the Bible does teach a recent creation, and compromise at the beginning leads to serious problems in scriptural understanding.
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 of Scientism. But science views keep changing, and a good understanding of science will show that there's a whole passel of circular reasoning and cherry-picked data to support long ages. But why stop there? "Science" has shown that there are no virgin births, nobody can change water to wine, people are not raised from the dead, and so on. Keep on compromising, throw away your Bible and watch videos of cats (here's one of a cat chasing a bear up a tree). Don't disunderstand me, no respectable (and knowledgeable) creationist says that believing in a literal, recent creation is a "salvation issue". However, we do contend that it's not consistent and does violence to the text, as I indicated. For example, dealing with what Jesus said about six-day creation is difficult for those people, and they come off sounding like they really don't believe the Bible at all.

When Christians began to give science over to the materialists, one consequence was rampant compromise on Genesis, despite the fact that church history shows recent creation being the established view. Even though material from owlhoots like Hutton, Lyell, Darwin and others was unscientific and sometimes dishonest, Christians were buffaloed into believing that "science" had "truth" above the pain teachings of Scripture.

One accommodation for deep time was around 1814 when the Gap Theory was introduced. It was discredited, but people brought back this zombie of bad theology. The strange concept shoved millions of years between the first two verses of the Bible. In addition, it included a pre-Adamite race of hominids, the rebellion of Lucifer, a flood wiping out all life back then, plus the misuse of the word "replenish" in Genesis 1:28 KJV. One simple problem is that God told Adam and Eve to replenish (correctly translated, "fill", Genesis 1:28) the Earth, but how can it be refilled when it was never filled with humans in the first place? Just a thought. The Gap Theory involves mistranslations, eisegesis, Scriptural saddle swapping, and much more. I recommend reading "From the beginning of the creation — Does Genesis have a ‘gap’?"

Some people will complain that we need to allow for "other interpretations" of Genesis. Why should we? Sure, people have a right to their opinions, but if they study on it, they should see that the only way to get millions or billions of years out of Genesis is to put them in there to begin with, and then commit massive eisegesis. That leads to a domino effect of compromise throughout the Bible, making Peter, Paul, Jesus and the others into deluded fools or liars! Listen up, Pilgrim: If you want to be a consistent Christian, you should know who Jesus is, and also what he believed about creation. Unless you have not only a low view of Scripture and its authority, but also a low view of Jesus, then we can't help you.


Comments

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

A Cowboy Bible?

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen Before I get going on this, I'd better clarify something, even though many of my regular readers (and podcast interview listeners) know: my "cowboy" moniker is not earned. It's a nickname I picked up a few years ago, and it shows my cowboy attitude. I don't know nothin' 'bout no hayburners; tell me to saddle up a horse and ride, I'd probably get kicked, fall off, and land in poo. So, I need a guide. Yes, I lived in the West — the west side of Michigan. Anyway, being a cowboy at heart has helped me get things done. My father had a cowboy attitude as well, which is something I learned from testimonials at his funeral. Anyway, adding some Western-style lingo in posts and articles adds color and personality, I reckon, even though I usually have a conversational style for the most part. Assembled from components at Clker Clip Art A while back, I was looking for cowboy Bibles and came across the " Simplified Cowboy Versio

Poor Excuses for Rejecting Creation

So often with various kinds of conversion experiences where people get all worked up about something — then the excitement cools. Books are untouched on the shelves, no interest in lectures (videos or otherwise), but they have a smattering of knowledge. Image source before modification: Pixabay /  Spencer Wing This is especially sad when someone believes in Jesus Christ but then falls away (Matt. 13:18-23). In a similar way, someone can become excited about biblical creation science but get discouraged and distracted by philosophies, intimidated by militant atheists, harassed by college professors, teased by friends, and so on. There are some who claim to be "former creationists" that have saddled up to ride with the Old Earth brand (or even with professing atheists), but when they have discussions with knowledgeable creationists, it is discovered that they only had superficial knowledge of biblical creation science. Worse, their theology (which is intertwined with it) is als