Biblical Creation and Evangelism

Seems like some professing Christians look for excuses to shove long ages into the plain reading of Scripture (like some atheists, who claim to reject it altogether), but the only way to get millions of years out  of the Bible is to first put them into  it through eisegesis . It's interesting that these same people claim to believe other miraculous things, especially the bodily resurrection of Jesus from the dead, but they get all het up about Genesis. Never could figure why they want to compromise on the Word of God, but I suspicion it's to look smart in the eyes of secularists. Credit: Freeimages / Viktors Kozers I reckon that it's a fair question, though to wonder about plants can accelerate from zero to fruit in such a short time. Part of their confusion may occur from expecting that plant growth then should be  like plant growth now. If you study on it, you'll realize that we're talking about creation week — the whole thing is a series of miracles in a c

Supporters of long ages are often frustrated at the way biblical creationists defend the young earth, and some even make the false claim that we claim belief in recent creation to be a requirement for salvation. To sidestep those sidewinders, we occasionally need to go on record: believers in an old earth as well as theistic evolutionists are not automatically excluded from the grace of Christ. Further, belief in recent creation is not a salvation issue, nor is acceptance of the Ussher chronology of biblical lineages. You savvy? Credit: Freeimages / Petr Wija There are folks who will call us "science deniers", but there's a problem in that the age of the earth is in no wise a proved scientific fact. For one thing, it is historical in nature, and not something that can be repeated and verified. Also, there are many different age-determining methods that yield different results. These methods rely on certain assumptions which determine the interpretations of the dat

Christians refer to something called original sin, but that expression is not in the Bible. (Some uninformed people believe that sex is the original sin, but even a cursory reading of the opening chapters of Genesis will erase that idea.) It goes back to Adam and Eve. Made at TombstoneBuilder.com Atheists and other anti-creationists point to Genesis 2:17 and say, "God said they'd die when they ate the forbidden fruit, and they didn't. Therefore, it's an allegory or just a fairy tale!" Instead of listening to sidewinders like that, people should dig a little deeper. The literal translation is, "dying you shall die". That is, spiritual death happened then, and physical death came later, as well as affecting all of creation (Romans 8:22, Romans 5:12, 1 Corinthians 15:21-22). Old Earth creationists, theistic evolutionists, and other compromisers reject the truth that tampering with Genesis affects the gospel message. A series of compromises must

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen To borrow from Chris Rosebrough (who is linked below), I'm not asking people to read this or watch the video with open minds, but to have open Bibles. My opinion and yours are not worth a whole lot, nor are our traditions. Only God's Word matters (Isaiah 40:8, Mark 13:31). Way back yonder, I was a follower of "Word of Faith" heretic Kenneth Copeland and some of his gang, but I didn't go whole hog on his teachings. Still, I accepted too much at the time. One of several things he said that I rejected out of hand was his affirmation of the "gap theory", where there are supposedly millions of years between the first two chapters of Genesis. I disremember why he wanted to use this gap eisegesis , especially since there is nothing to support it in the rest of Scripture, and I don't think there's anything about it in church history, since an old Earth is a relatively new phenomenon in liberal Christian thinking. Mrs

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen The first eleven chapters of Genesis are the most attacked section of the Bible (and with increasing intensity nowadays), and were understood to be actual history by most Christians throughout church history , until Christians began ceding science to secularists about 150 years ago . There's a good reason for understanding Genesis as written , since Jesus, Peter, Paul, and others referred to Genesis as literal history as well. Still, riders on the Old Earth Owlhoot Trail want to force in millions of years by way of the latest trends in man-made science philosophies, and tell God what he said and meant instead of taking the natural reading of Genesis. Naturally, atheists support them. The Expulsion of Adam and Eve from Paradise , Benjamin West , 1791 One area of compromise came from Scottish preacher Thomas Chalmers in 1814, who proposed a gap of long ages between the first two verses of Genesis, but the "Gap Theory" simply does not work

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! 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

Also posted at "Stormbringer's Thunder" and at "Evolutionary Truth by Piltdown Superman". This is a different kind of article for me, because it was a new experience. I pestered Chris Date to let me be on his " Theopologetics " podcast to talk about creation science. He was interested, and said he had someone else in mind so that all three of us could do the podcast. This would be great in the lead-up to " Question Evolution Day ". It was scheduled several weeks away. We got the outline of questions he was going to ask, and shared it online to create our responses. Finally, the evening of February 7, 2012 arrived. This was my first conference call on Skype, and only about the fifth time I've used it at all, so I was a bit awkward with it. Chris is experienced not only with technological things, but able to develop the interview questions to bring out the strengths of his guests. He is also serious about theology itself, and takes the Bibl