Biblical Creation and Evangelism

There are times when we need to ride up to yonder hill and get the view from up there. That is, a broad view or big picture. Biblical creationists maintain (with a little help from Occam) that the basic approach is true: Genesis is written as history. Some owlhoots read all sorts of things into the text in order to work in long ages and evolution. Creation of the World III , Mikalojus Konstantinas Ciurlionis, 1906 I have long wondered why some professing Christians insist on compromising with atheistic, ever-changing whims of man-made science philosophies. It is also an inconsistent message to say that we believe the Bible is true from cover to cover except  the early chapters of Genesis. Those, we have to interpret according to man's wisdom. Oh, please!  So when do we start believing the Bible, and when do we stop? Can we trust John 3:16-17, or is that just allegory? By the way, even if the first few verses of Genesis were allegorical, that does not mean they are untrue and

A common sentiment in love songs and starry-eyed romantics is a promise to love someone "until the end of time". They are unknowingly admitting that time itself has a beginning. There is a related idea that God was bored, sitting there doing nothing since eternity past, so he decided it was time to commence doing some creating. This view erroneously assumes that time always existed. It is fair to ask where time itself came from. Credit: Unsplash / Tim Aterbury It causes some amazement when people stop to consider that Genesis 1:1 describes time, matter, and space in one verse. All three are linked. Some secularists know this, and manufacture their own atheistic creation mythologies involving the Big Bang, the "inflation theory", evolution, and so forth. Only the biblical worldview makes sense of reality. Further, God is outside the limits of those things he created, but he steps in when he sees fit. This is difficult for us to contemplate, because were are

Christians who are grounded in the Word, make an effort to know true doctrine, and pay attention to good teaching are most likely to spot owlhoots who want to lead people on a bad trail. Nominal Christians are at a greater risk of being swayed by false teachers. However, both kinds of professing believers need to be wary of the tactics of these types so they can avoid deception. The Preacher , George Harvey, 1840 Sure, a teacher can read text from the Bible, but many will use that as a springboard for interpretations and opinions that are not justified. Some will make disparaging remarks about the first eleven chapters of Genesis, which contain the basis of all major doctrines. Then they commence to insert long ages, evolution, current trends of social justice, homosexual marriage, and other aberrations. They may even cite "authorities" who base their views on other authorities, further and further from what God's Word actually says, and people end up being fed lie

For a mighty long time, the book of Genesis was understood to be history, not allegory or anything else. Josephus, the respected Jewish historian, also recognized the straightforward reading of Genesis . One in a while, some owlhoot would try to change the literal days of Genesis into something else In the days of the Reformers, some folks tried to make the days much quicker, but most accepted literal creation days .  Later, professing Christians compromised on the meaning of the days of Genesis in order to accommodate atheistic interpretations of "science", and commenced to shoving millions of years into the text. They also began rejecting creation in favor of evolutionism, and the faith of many was shipwrecked. I suspicion that religious folks didn't want to look stupid to the burgeoning secular science promoters, and were fearful of ridicule. Did they, and do people today, want to please men, or God?  There are various attempts to marry up Genesis and atheistic

One of the main problems for Christian theology occurred when Christians ceded the proper understanding of Genesis to secular science. Not only did those owlhoots compromise on long ages, but they often included evolution as well. At this time, liberal theologians were stampeding through academia and the churches, causing a great deal of confusion and apostasy. Theologians back then had forgotten the importance of a solid foundation. Martin Luther had a different problem than we have: some people rejected six day creation because it seemed too long! (Click for larger.) In the course of events leading to the Reformation, Luther realized the importance of the foundation of Scripture itself. He also held fast to the foundation of the gospel message itself, which begins in Genesis. Our creation reformation requires rejecting compromise on biblical truth, beginning from the very first verse. Five hundred years ago in Wittenberg, Germany, an unusual scholar changed the course of hum

While it is helpful for someone to give his or her viewpoint in detail, the good stuff comes after they've finished a presentation. This can be seen in formal debates during what is sometimes called the "cross examination" period ( here is one example ), and audience questions after a press conference or something similar. Credit: Pixabay / Gerd Altmann Most of us don't commence to speechifyin' or debating very often, so how about questions in a more personal setting, without the crowds? Much better. People can ask questions to clarify meanings and positions, and even get to know the other person a little better. On social media, it gets difficult to have a good discussion with someone unless it's in private messages, else other people chime in. Greg Koukl has something he calls the "Columbo Tactic", based on the television detective, that helps you (and often the other person) get to the heart of a discussion. Two short articles on the subje

Unfortunately, cancer seems to be increasingly common, and I think it's safe to say that it would be difficult to find someone who has not encountered cancer, whether personally, through friends, or relatives. (It's tremendously ironic that John Wayne's final movie, The Shootist , was about a man dying of cancer made by an actor dying of cancer.) Many people even refer to it as "the C word". Sometimes, people worry that a rash, cough, lump, or something else is becoming cancerous. By all means, get things checked out by your doctor. Cancer cells image credit: Dr. Cecil Fox / National Cancer Institute Things were going mighty fine in Eden. Everything was created very good (Gen. 1:31), then Adam and Eve chose to listen to Satan, and brought sin into the world — and with sin came death (Rom. 5:12) and the curse. Genetic degradation began, and those wonderful repair systems within us are unable to keep up with the demand. For the Christian, we can look forward

The way some people cling to their "deep time" beliefs, sometimes including evolution, while claiming to believe the Bible is mighty disconcerting to me. They are elevating man-made science philosophies to the magisterial position and are telling God that he is wrong. Scriptural teaching begins to unravel — and that's why unbelievers attack the foundations of the Christian faith, the book of Genesis. Image credit: Pixabay / bluemorphos Now, don't get all het up, I'm not saying that every professing Christian who goes in for long ages is deliberately sabotaging the Bible or is unsaved. (If you study on it a spell, you might begin to wonder why some people attack biblical creationists and have a fervent desire to believe Earth is ancient.) What I am  saying is that many people really don't know what the Bible teaches, and the implications of forcing millions of years into the text. Especially when Jesus, Peter, Paul, and many others in Scripture believed

Adam and Eve were still new in Eden when Satan appealed to Eve's pride. "What's that you say? I can be like God? And that fruit sure looks mighty tasty..." according to my paraphrase. Even though they had direct communication with God the Creator in the very good  creation, they chose to disobey. Evolutionary philosopher Epicurus image credit: Wellcome Images   CC BY 4.0 Since mankind doesn't fancy being accountable to anyone, he has sought to disregard the authority of Scripture, even to the point of pretending that God does not exist. People are arrogant, and are passionate about human "wisdom" and their philosophies. Science is elevated to a supreme authority position, and yet it is a philosophy as well, a means of interpreting observations. Many things that have been considered scientific facts have changed through the years, and the "facts" of evolution are based on tendentious interpretations as well as conjectures asserted as scie

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

Every word of God is pure; He is a shield to those who put their trust in Him. Do not add to His words, Lest He rebuke you, and you be found a liar. — Prov. 30.5-6 , NKJV Here is something else that I cannot understand: Willful ignorance. At least, it looks like willful ignorance to me. There are some apologists for the Christian faith who are utterly brilliant and have taught me a great deal. There are also some that are brilliant philosophers of theology that I do not try to understand because I find the depths of philosophy that they practice to be tedious and impractical, and I do not want to expend the mental energy in following what they're saying. Then there are the philosophers that do great work, and I do  need to expend the mental energy to learn from them. How is it, then, that a layman like me can spot flaws in their work? I mentioned one time that a certain apologist said that he would not let science tell him how to view Scripture, and so h