Biblical Creation and Evangelism

There are Christians who insert millions of years between the first two verses of Genesis, and it is truly baffling as to why. Perhaps they want it both ways by believing in deep time like secularists but can also claim to "believe" the Bible. Or they may think evidence for a young earth is lacking. Maybe some other reason. One version is that God created everything but Satan and his minions rebelled, so God sent a global flood. Then God recreated the world. Also, some just insist on deep time without "Lucifer's Flood." Standley Chasm, Unsplash / Stephen Mabbs Biblical creationists have filled the gap (heh!) numerous times over the years, but it keeps returning. If those who believe in some kind of gap theory are attempting to impress secular folks, this backfires in a big way. It is untenable according to both secular and creation science interpretations. Worse, it requires massive eisegesis and Scripture twisting — there is no  support for this position in the...

Once again, I was woolgathering while riding. Out Folly Road, past Stinking Lake (not as bad as it sounds), and I decided to head on back. Of a sudden, I noticed a horse under a tree. Heading closer, I saw Lisa Myworries, the Winkie Guards supervisor at the Darwin Ranch sitting there. She beckoned me over and said she needed to talk. Although the Darwin Ranch up yonder by Deception Pass is infested with atheists, she believed in God. Recent creation in six days bothered her. Lisa wondered why biblical creationists have a problem with long ages. The idea of the early chapters of Genesis actually being allegorical or symbolizing long ages is understandable when coming from new Christians, sincerely-questioning unbelievers, and people who have not really thought about the ramifications before. When professing Christians who claim to believe the Bible try to force millions of years into Scripture and compromise with secular concepts, that's a very different matter. Lisa and I had a nic...

The identities of two critters in the biblical book of Job, behemoth and leviathan, cause a passel of speculation and debate. Biblical creationists point out that the detailed descriptions do not match anything living today, and compromise into evolutionary thinking has many church folks rejecting the probability that the Bible mentions dinosaurs. No, not by that word because Richard Owen did not coin it until 1842. As we have seen through history and archaeology, the Bible has been vindicated over and over. Mosasaurus trading card There are several candidates for the identity of leviathan including a crocodilian, pliosaur, and a mosasaurus. The contention is not that those animals existed, but that humans lived at the same time as they did. Worse for deep time thinking, there are fossils all over the world that had to have been buried rapidly in the Genesis Flood. No, this is not about the Loch Ness Monster. It’s not about any other claims of living creatures that resemble dinosaurs....

It is consistently baffling that many professing Christians put the authority of science above Scripture, especially regarding the age of the earth. These owlhoots are grossly inconsistent — they think science is right about long ages, but then believe the Bible about the unscientific Resurrection of Jesus. When asked why it is so important to them to elevate the ever-changing pronouncements of scientific philosophies over the word of God, they do not provide satisfactory answers. The same may be wondered about John Nelson Darby and Cyrus Ingerson Scofield. First page of Genesis, RGBStock / Billy Frank Alexander The Gap Theory is a way of inserting billions of years between the first two verses of the Bible. It is handily refuted by biblical creation ministries ( here is one example ). What is interesting is how the Scofield Reference Bible, Darby, and others were influential in promoting old Earth creation while not accommodating evolution.  On a personal note, regular reade...

An interesting expression is that some concept is not a hill to die on . This implies that the speaker does not consider the idea to be all that important, or that it is something a bit interesting but he does not have enough information or motivation to argue it. Similarly, some people say that the age of the earth is a side issue; it is not a hill to die on. While informed creationists say that belief in recent creation or the age of the earth are not requirements for salvation, they are still important  issues. Edinburgh Castle on Castle Rock, Wikimedia Commons / Scglossop1 ( CC BY-SA 4.0 ) In settlements and the military, people would want to fortify the higher ground because it was easier to defend. It could be costly for opposing forces to lead a charge up that hill. Conversely, those making the defense should be aware that they are defending the correct hill and not ignoring the importance of another hill nearby. It may be surprising, but defending the hill of the young ear...

It is a distressing fact that many professing Christians are unaware of  what  and why  they believe, and many mix in opinions and beliefs, getting results that are...truly bizarre. Others have accepted atheistic naturalism science opinions that Earth must  be billions of years old. People will believe whatever they want. For Christians, our ultimate standard of truth and authority is the Word of God. Over at Piltdown Superman , I link to numerous creation science articles that show how the science for deep time is fundamentally flawed. Such resources are shared by many folks online, but there are still professing Christians who try to shoehorn long ages into the Bible so they can have the best of both worlds. It's not just regarding origins and the age of the earth, either. People tamper with what the Bible says in order to justify things that it clearly condemns. They often take pride in that. Biblical creationists uphold the authority and inerrancy of Scripture. W...

Although unplanned, this post fits well with " Old-Earth Inerrancy Contradicts Itself ." There are quite a few professing Christians that claim to believe the Bible, but upon further inquiry, we see that they are riding the owlhoot trail — they rejected the authority of Scripture. One way to distort the truth is to blur it by putting secular science views in the magisterial position. Some go as far as to say that Jesus was wrong about creation because he did not have the enlightenment of modern science. It is easy for a Bible-believing Christian to wonder if those folks, who are married up with an old earth view, have bothered to think things through. Such a position cascades throughout all of Scripture. Some say Jesus was wrong, as were Peter, Paul, and others. This negates the Bible's trustworthiness, and also denies the Deity of God the Son, who is the Creator. Salvation become impossible! Recently, I was involved in an exchange with someone whose thinking on the age ...

The inerrancy of Scripture in the original autographs (manuscripts) is a doctrine that many professing Christians claim to believe, but we also acknowledge that there a a few copyist and other minor errors that have crept in over the centuries. Also, it is obvious that not all translations agree with each other. There are public statements on doctrine and inerrancy that have been signed by famous Christian people, and one is something that I would sign myself. However, the wording about Genesis and creation is such that theistic evolutionists, old earthers, and biblical creationists find it acceptable. Old Bible with Genesis, RGBStock /  Billy Frank Alexander Something this child has long believed should be an alarm bell is when they say they believe the Bible is without error, then turn around and say that it doesn't mean what it says on the very first page. They also have to reject evidence for recent creation, tap dance around numerous passages of Scripture (especially those th...

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 ...

There are professing Christians who falsely claim that the church fathers believed that the earth was far older than Scripture indicates, and that biblical (young age) creationists are wrong. It would be a mighty big help if they did their homework on people like Augustine. St. Augustine in his Study , Sandro Botticelli, 1490 It is important to note that Augustine did not consider his writings to be sacred writ, his views changed in some areas, and he freely admitted that his understanding was imperfect. It did not help matters much that he was unskilled in Hebrew and Greek, and he had access to weak Bible translations. He believed that everything was created in an instant (he should have consulted Exodus 20:11, 31:17). Old-earthers must reject the global Flood as well. While Augustine was in no wise a young-earth creationist as we understand the term, claims that he believed like the pagans that Earth was far older are disingenuous. Old-earthers claim Augustine as support for figurati...

There are some professing Christians who insist on finding ways of adding long ages into the Bible, but they ignore the context. While the context is frequently the surrounding verses, it can also mean culture, languages, and more. We look now at make  and create . Credit: Freeimages / Fernanda Ferrari Those owlhoots have attempted to bushwhack the plain meaning of Scripture by saying that they are different aspects of creation, and that make  means using material that was already created. Their eisegesis becomes heinous when their alleged distinction is used to give them license to add millions of years. Some even try to shove evolution into the picture. It won't work, especially when the greater context includes the New Testament. Many people who have written on Genesis 1 have attempted to make a very significant distinction between two Hebrew words found there: bara (בָּרָא, to create) and asah (עָשָׂה, to make or do). Theistic evolutionists (TEs) and old-earth creationis...

Now there is a provocative title! Believers in an old Earth, evolution, and similar things are probably clutching their pearls while expressing their outrage. Secularists (and many professing Christians, unfortunately) insist that deep time is a scientific fact . We must teach children real science, right? Credit: Flickr / Marco Verch ( CC BY 2.0 ) What is actually happening is that children (as well as the rest of us) are being given stories based on naturalistic interpretations about the past; there is no actual empirical evidence that obliges us to believe that the earth is billions of years old. Children have been enamored with dinosaurs for many years, and this has been increasing in recent years. It is not surprising to find a youngster who can rattle off the names, secular dates, locations, and more of those terrible lizards. Movies and merchandising helped fuel the interest of many people. (I wonder how many were annoyed when the Jurassic Park movies made the Velociraptors...

There are professing Christians who believe that the Genesis Flood was a local event. Worse, some say it was allegorical. Mayhaps they were not taught well, have not seriously read the Bible — or fully believe it. Denying the global Flood has serious repercussions.

While some areas of the Bible are subject to differing interpretations and even disputes, I reckon we can agree that our understanding is the problem; God is not a deceiver. While we walk by faith and not by sight, we are not conflicted by evidence. Credit: Pixnio / Maysam Yabandeh To quote the great theologian Chico Marx, "Who ya gonna believe, me or your own eyes?" Except in cases of obvious miracles, the Bible does not contain claims that are not contravened by observed scientific facts. Yet some people think the earth appears  to be old but through some kind of fideism , they believe the Bible anyway.  Yes, we need to cling to the inerrancy and authority of Scripture, but we don't need to rustle up a conflict where none exists. When someone says that the earth "looks old", what is their point of reference? The so-called scientific evidence for deep time is fraught with problems and is inferred — nobody knows  the age of a planet to use for comparison purpos...

It may be surprising, but repentance is not preached nearly as much as it should (Matt. 4:17, Mark 1:14-15, Luke 24:46-47, Acts 3:19, 2 Tim. 2:25, 2 Peter 3:9, Rev. 3:19). It applies not only to the unsaved, but to Christians who are not following the truth. How does this apply to old-earth creationists? Credit: Modified at imgflip from a graphic at FreeImages by Claudia Meyer Repentance from false beliefs is readily apparent, such as Arianism , Pelagianism , Gnosticism and Docetism , and others . These are far more significant than, say, disagreements regarding baptism. (I have to restrain myself about the war between Reformed and Arminian doctrines, each has adherents that act like cultists belonging to the One True Faith™ and essentially calling the other side heretics. Why I oughta...) There is a difference between heresies and disagreements. Learn it. One thing that many false teaching have in common is denial of scriptural authority. Theistic evolutionists are coyotes sm...

It may come as a surprise to many people that a number of those involved in biblical creation science ministries had quite different views before becoming biblical creationists. Some were atheists, others theistic evolutionists, and some like Dr. Brian Thomas held to an old earth view. Credit: StockSnap / Lauren Mancke One problem people like Dr. Thomas and others have is that they are only aware of one side. Many do not even know that other — superior — interpretations even exist, and have never heard of biblical creation science. Brian's faith in long ages was challenged by several factors. He could not reconcile the old earth narrative with observed evidence, and most importantly, he saw that secular interpretations of the facts did not fit the truth of the Bible. A student recently asked what I believe about the age of the earth. I replied that at one time I felt absolutely certain that the world was billions of years old. I even wrote a song that mentioned “the age of...

Perhaps, as some tinhorns claim, those who deny Genesis and recent creation try to appear moderate or reasonable. After all, science has proven that evolution happened and that Earth is billions of years old, right? Not hardly! Such antics are expected from those who ride for the atheism brand, but it is not fitting for professing Christians to do so. I mage credits: Original from Morguefile / JCKL8888 , then processed through PhotoFunia People who have little or no understanding of theology, even though they may have attended a church, often reject the plain reading of Genesis because evolution. Because uniformitarianism. Because science. Because they want to look intelligent in the eyes of enemies of God. Because rejection of biblical authority. People also compromise because their church leaders are liberal in their theology or have not bothered to think through how Genesis affects the gospel message. While Christians need to understand God's Word, their leaders have a gr...

It has long seemed contradictory to me that there are Christians who ride for the defense of the Bible, but then shy away from the Genesis Flood, creation, and the young earth. It appears that those Christians are not fully signed on with the inerrancy of the Word, treating biblical authority like a buffet . Credit: Morguefile / imelenchon (modified) Am I doing them a disservice by questioning their commitment to the authority of the Bible they profess to believe and defend? I'll go a bit further and also say that I think that they have a problem with pride. We want the hands at the Darwin Ranch to think we're sorta smart after all, so we cede the age of the earth and the Flood to secular views. In an older article, I asked if we shut up about creation, would unbelievers leave us alone ? I disremember where i said it, but I attended a church that claimed to believe in recent creation. They did not want to be "labeled" and kept their belief tied up out back. I...

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...

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen Wisdom itself beings with God (Prov. 1:7), and the Bible is to be the foundation for the Christian's thinking in all areas (Psalm 119:105, 2 Tim. 3:16-17, Rom. 11:33). As we have seen in several articles here and on other biblical creation sites, Genesis is the source of all major Christian doctrines . Some professing Christians as well as atheists, old earth proponents, and other anti-creationists reject the authority of the Bible and attack not only the truth of God's Word, but also the people who take their stand on it. Credit: Pixabay / Jeff Jacobs The Wisdom of the World The Christian's faith is established in God, not in the ever-changing whims of man-made science philosophies. For example, some have joyously stated that proof of the Big Bang validates the Bible, only to have the evidence pulled out from under them. If someone's faith is based entirely on secular interpretations of science, they have little to support their belief...