Biblical Creation and Evangelism

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen  There are people who are so determined to force enthusiastic acceptance of LGTBQ+ lifestyles on everyone, they see references for it in the Bible that do not exist. The relationship between David and Jonathan is a favorite target of these people. Like making long ages for compromisers with secular science views, massive eisegesis is necessary to twist Scripture so that it indicates an erotic relationship between Jonathan and David. Interpreting the text and culture of their time with contemporary views exacerbates the problem. David and Jonathan / Rembrandt (1642) In my school days, boys would put their arms around each other's shoulders because we were "buddies." That faded from my experience and I did not see it again after we moved to another city. In the nineteenth century, men would hold hands or put their arms around each other. This showed affection and friendship , and was not tainted by suspicions of homosexuality. Indeed, I have affecti

For some reason, many professing Christians are determined to get long ages out of the first two chapters of Genesis. The word under fire is  yôm , which means literal day (or part of a day) when qualifiers are used, otherwise it can mean an indefinite  period of time. Why those people want to take the only word that can mean literal day and confuse the issue so they can have millions of years in Genesis is baffling. They take the rest of Genesis and the Old Testament at face value, relying on context, when  yôm is used. Bible and pathway, Unsplash /  Aaron Burden If God wanted to indicate long ages, there are other words available. Several popular efforts have been made to compromise with the enemies of God and make creation seem to be older than God's Word tells us. (Do they really  believe the Bible, or is it just for show?) These compromises include the " Gap Theory ," the " Framework Hypothesis ," theistic evolution, and others. One of the others is the po

For centuries, people took the Bible as written. This includes a literal six-day recent creation. For some reason, many decided to give secular science views preeminence over Scripture. Some rejected the Bible outright, others had a pretense of belief with a modified view. Something I cannot understand is why such people essentially tell God what he says and means about creation week. Do they prefer the applause of atheists for their compromises on recent creation? Some are essentially Deists, adding not only billions of years, but evolution to their pusillanimous religion. Ten Commandments section of Bible image, Unsplash  Tim Wildsmith (modified) To be blunt, sometimes when professing Christians are particularly enamored with a faulty belief, they reason like atheists. F'rinstance, the Hebrew word yom  does not always mean a literal day. Although it is used with what I call qualifiers in creation week that clearly indicate that those are literal days, some folks find when the wo

First of all, the word theory  is often used by people who simply have a conjecture or an idea they are making up on the spot. In science, a theory is a step above a hypothesis  and is expected to have an evidential basis. The Gap Theory  has nothing to do with science, but is not just an off-the-cuff speculation, either. Even though it has been refuted long ago, people zombify it and let it roam around, annoying theologians and confusing lay people. Standley Chasm, Unsplash / Stephen Mabbs There are some variations on the Gap Thing (you make my heart sing). It exists as a compromise for professing Christians to say they believe the Bible and also have deep time. The gap supposedly exists between the first two verses of Genesis, but is supported by an illegitimate reading of the text — and a heapin' helpin' of eisegesis. Now we have a gap. Want to see what's in it? Billions of years. The fall of Satan. Lucifer's Flood, which is supposed to explain geology. Ruin and reco

Years ago, the forerunner of this weblog was called A Soldier for Jesus . There was a drawing of Jesus on it. Someone accused me of being an idolater because of it. Also, I joined a Christian-based humor group on Fakebook  that prohibited posting images of Jesus because some people got upset. Probably that idolatry thing again. Where do they get such ideas? Eisegesis from the Ten Commandments in Exodus 20:4-6 and other places. I am going to be blunt here. People who sanctimoniously accuse others of being idolaters because they use images of Jesus (or God the Father, such as  Michelangelo  and  William Blake ) have no basis for their pride. They are showing ignorance of scriptural context. It's not a difficult theological context, either, because they are not even reading the rest of the verse. Jesus Pictures ( source here ) as Gallery Exhibit, PhotoFunia (cropped) Pictures can be used as a way of praising God and giving him glory, and possibly a means of focusing in worship. I hav

There are some people who call themselves "Red Letter Christians" because they think that only the words of Jesus in red letters are important. So much for spiritual growth! Such a view is not only silly, but self-refuting simply because Jesus referred to other parts of Scripture. A slightly more reasonable but still erroneous idea is that the Old Testament was fulfilled and we are living under the New Testament (Covenant), so it is not needed. As with the Red Letter view, this one shows ignorance and biblical illiteracy — a problem that too many professing Christians have in some form. Genesis 2:24-25, Pexels / Brett Jordan Related to all this is how some people mythologize and allegorize the first eleven chapters of Genesis. This is often done by people who want to believe in long ages and various compromising positions. If they would actually read the Bible without liberal spectacles to color their perceptions, they might see that these areas are treated as history through

The idea that the waters above or firmament in Genesis 1:6-8 indicated a canopy was used by biblical creationists a few decades ago, but knowledgeable creationists have mostly abandoned it [ 1 ]. The idea was promoted by Dr. Henry M. Morris, and the Institute for Creation Research still has some hints about it [ 2 ], but they were seeing problems with it in the late 1990s [ 3 ] and have pretty much put it out to pasture today [ 4 ]. I taught that idea myself. Part of its appeal is its explanatory power. RGBStock /  Sias van Schalkwyk One of the challenges of creation science material (and scientific material in generally, if you study on it) is that things change — often quickly. Theories and conjectures are modified and even rejected, but someone may own a book or video from a few years earlier that influenced their thinking. Perhaps an underinformed lecturer is spreading outdated information. So, we have to cowboy up, get informed, and make changes when necessary. Theories come and

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 creationists (O

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

We know that Genesis is actual history through archaeology and other historical records, and nothing in it or the rest of the Bible has been controverted. There have been some illogical criticisms such as, "The Hittite Empire never existed because archaeologists have not found evidence for them" (a type of argument from silence), but that was refuted . Interestingly, mockers occasionally use debunked criticisms today. The opening chapters of Genesis are not subject to archaeology, but they are historical as well. Image credit: Pixabay /  qimono I'll allow that the creation and the Flood are miraculous events, yet they are written as history. (Scoffers reject miracles out of hand because naturalism ; they presuppose their own interpretations.) There are professing Christians and other religious folks who reject the plain reading of the creation account because they elevate atheistic interpretations of modern science philosophies into the magisterial position abov

Since we are bombarded at every turn with assertions of evolution and millions of years as a fact, many Christians try to reconcile the days of Creation with long periods of time. Expressions like, "Well I  think the days are God's  days, and we can't know how long they really are!" Some are sidewinders who know precisely what is going on and deliberately corrupt God's Word. Background image credit: freestocks.org / Joanna Malinowska To be blunt, it doesn't matter what you or I think. The important thing is what God said in Scripture, and that too many professing Christians are uninformed about the Bible they claim to believe — especially at the foundation, the first chapter of Genesis. Some misquote 2 Peter 3:8, "One day is like a thousand years", which does not help much because it would make creation week six thousand years long, unhelpful for deep time. Also, the verse cancels this idea out, "...and a thousand years like one day".

There are people who believe that the constellations contain the gospel message, and it was there before the Bible was completed. Then, it became unnecessary. This is according to a woman named Frances Rolleston, whose work was published in 1865 and influenced many people. Unfortunately, he work was full of serious errors. Map of the Northern Sky with representations of the constellations / Albrecht Durer, 1515 Her books was published posthumously as a collection of notes. (I wonder if some of those were notes to herself to conduct further research, but when I do that I usually have a "look up" or "check on" phrase.) The concept of the gospel in the stars relies on spurious research and taking verses out of context. Like atheists and evolutionists, Rolleston seemed to use the scientific principle of Making Things Up™. She also took verses out of context to make this presentation. Sincere people and even good pastors have believed this false story. While it

It is a sad fact that many professing Christians do not have a solid understanding of what the Bible teaches. This tempts them to abandon good teaching so they can ride the Owlhoot Trail of false doctrines. Related to this is the opinion that origins and recent creation are irrelevant. While they are not essentials for salvation, recent creation and origins are extremely important to the gospel message. Image source: RGBStock/ rizeli53 Atheists, old earth proponents, theistic evolutionists, compromisers, and other enemies of the Word of God exploit this ignorance. They come along with sciencey pronouncements and Scripture twisting, plus a heapin' helpin' of hostility and ridicule toward those of us who believe that God means what he says (including name-calling and labels such as " YECism "). People are timorous when it comes to standing for biblical truth, and when you mix in ignorance with intimidation, folks put the blinders on and join the crowd. Incident

Addendum added later the same day as published. As any rancher worth his salt knows, you can have a hybrid animal such as a mule (offspring of a horse and donkey). It will likely suit your purpose, but critters like this are not likely to spread life. The same can be said for hybridized accounts of creation that mix the Bible and millions of years. Credit: Library of Congress/ Carol M. Highsmith archive Some folks reject the Bible's authority. We expect that from atheists and other non-believers, but there are professing Christians who also downplay the Word of God. Scripture plainly says that everything was created in six days . Instead of humbling themselves and submitting to Christ, they light a shuck out of there and head for the comfort of riding the owlhoot trail . They are degrading Scripture. Why would a supposed believer want to compromise? It seems to me that these owlhoots don't want to look like one of those people who reject deep time, so they seek the

When reading a document, it is important to understand the original intent of the authors. The goat rodeo hearings for the confirmation of Judge Brett Kavanaugh showed the lengths that some politicians will go to attain prominence for their own political viewpoints. Kavanaugh is an originalist, which means that he considers the original intent of the US Constitution when making his decisions. An interesting parallel can be made with interpreting the Bible. Credits: Left image, Freeimages /  Robert Owen-Wahl ; Right image: US  National Archives and Records Administration It seems reasonable to determine the intent of the authors. Obviously, there are some marked differences because the Bible was written by several people under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and the Constitution was written by fallible men with good intentions.  When the original meanings are abandoned, all sorts of bad judgments ensue. In the case of the Constitution, we had the Dred Scott decision and that

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

Christians are to stand on the Word of God, which is inerrant in the original autographs (2 Peter 1:20-21), and is authoritative. We can learn not only about salvation (Rom. 3:23, Rom. 6:23, John 1:12-13, Eph. 2:8-9) and how to live the Christian life (2 Tim. 3:16), but why many people choose to reject God and ride the Owlhoot Trail. Credit: Pixabay / Pete Linforth Atheists often demand, "Prove to me God exists!", and enthusiastic but uninformed Christians attempt to give all kinds of proofs. If they had spent enough time in the Bible, these Christians would have seen that there is no place where someone tries to prove God's existence. Further, they know that God is real, but suppress the truth! Have you noticed that there is more hostility in the world toward our Creator and his Word, and there is more persecution of Christians? Atheists and liberal "Christians" hate Genesis with a passion. Jesus, Peter, Paul, and others in the Bible qu

You have probably heard the story that Christopher Columbus defied the consensus of the flat earth by taking his voyage, but that is a myth . The truth is, most people believed the world was spherical, even from ancient times. Sure, there have always been a few folks who believed the world was flat, but for some reason, there has been an increase in flat earth proponents in recent years. Image credit: Pixabay / JooJoo41 Unfortunately, professing Christians are getting caught up in this, as well as secularists. In my opinion, some of those Christians want to feel superior to those of us who believe in the spherical earth because they really believe the Bible. But it does not teach this. Some atheists are milking the idea that the Bible teaches a flat earth in one of many efforts to misrepresent Scripture and especially biblical creation science. Kind of like when J. Edgar Hoover's enemies spread the discredited story that he was a crossdresser. One tinhorn is doing the ty

A plain reading of the Bible seems to make it clear that once God was done creating, he was done, period. Varieties of theistic evolutionists join the gang at the Darwin Ranch in a hoedown, dancing around what Scripture says. One group disbelieves the Bible, the other pretends to believe it a little bit. But how can anyone get around the part that says, "God rested"?  Sounds like God is done, I reckon. This post gives me an excuse to show Basement Cat resting on my e-book reader. I took the option of finding something else to read. Some people have no serious regard to what Scripture says, preferring to give current science philosophies the magisterial position above God's Word. Some people sort of baptize evolution by associating God's name with it, but that's as legitimate as baptizing the cat. They come up with some incoherent and self-refuting philosophies (click for larger): Used under Fair Use provisions for educational purposes After a couple