Biblical Creation and Evangelism

You may have noticed that purveyors of atoms-to-astronomer evolution are very evangelistic, making efforts to destroy the faith of Bible believers. It would not surprise me if they eventually wore name badges and white shirts, rode bicycles and came to your door with the "good news" of Darwinism. Some try to tell us that God created through evolution. Original image before modication: Freeimages / Mario Alberto Magallanes Trejo Look at all the wonders and beauty around us. Mother Nature perfected everything through the magic of evolution , you know. That may sound good, but these sidewinders are deceitful. Way back in the thrilling days of yesteryear, I presented creation science talks in churches. One point I raised is that evolution is that evolution is wasteful and cruel, thought some wolves among us who profess to believe the Bible want us to embrace Darwin . Of course, atheists want to destroy our faith and have us to add evolution . No surprise there, it's w

Biblical creationists have some challenges to meet in order to remain faithful to Scripture. One of those is with fundamentally flawed dating methods used by secularists as well as religious compromisers. In this case, a Triassic tumor dated to be 240 million years old. Pappochelys rosinae reconstruction image credit: Wikimedia Commons / Rainer Schoch We maintain that the Bible says what it means, and to change the plain reading to accommodate long-age owlhoots is unfaithful to the text (Prov. 30:6, 1 Cor. 4:6, Isaiah 40:8). But what of radiometric dating that puts critters back millions of years, and some of them had cancer? Despite the claims of secularists, radiometric dating has serious flaws . This includes wildly disparate results — including for rocks of known ages . Fact is, the Genesis Flood is a more rational description for what is found in geology. Compare faulty claims of deep time to Scripture, where God said his creation was very good (Gen. 1:31). It beggars r

Among the many parables that Jesus told, one was about the mustard seed. He said that it was the "smallest" seed in Matthew 13:32, which atheists and anti-creationists attack by saying that there are other seeds which are smaller, which means to them that Jesus did not know what he was talking about. Credit: FreeDigitalPhotos.net / jk1991 We expect atheists to find excuses to claim that Jesus is not God, but it is disheartening when owlhoots who claim to be Christian will also claim that he was mistaken in an effort to justify theistic evolution . No, he is the Creator, and knows what he is doing (Col. 1:16, John 1-1-3). As is the case in many instances of confusion and alleged Bible contradictions, context is vitally important. Here, we can look at not only the immediate context, but the greater context. Jesus was not giving a botany lesson, pilgrim. The parable was an illustration about the kingdom of Heaven. He would have used figures of speech. In fact, I referre

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 few years back, some atheists wanted to change their name because of the negative connotations associated with the word atheist.  One suggested term was "brights", which is fallacious because it implies that they are smarter than everyone else because they choose to reject God. That kind of whitewash will not fool people, since the negative connotations have been earned, what with the protests, persecution of Christians, trolling, and generally negative attitudes in general. Some tips given for mental health and to reduce depression is to stay away from negative people. I suggest that folks start with avoiding internet atheists. Similarly, theistic evolutionists have a deserved bad image because they prefer the magisterial view of secular science philosophies to the written Word of God. It's like they have their evolutionism wagon and slap a sign on the back saying "God used evolution", and that somehow validates their views. TEs often saddle up with the

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen People who want to slap leather with biblical Christianity may think they have some new concepts, but they are actually reworking old false teachings. This applies not only to those things that have been condemned as heresies, but the remarks of mockers and "skeptics" are often rehash hoary thinking from past centuries. Fausto Sozzini (Faustus Socinus) was cracked Derived from a public domain image at Wikimedia Commons Before I go further, I must say that I'm doing something I've done before: taking material from smarter people and adding thoughts that pertain to my own areas of study. This article was heavily influenced by Phil Johnson's series on five major heresies (linked below). I hope you'll ride the trail with me and you'll see how some things come together. There have been several times in Christian history when the faith appeared to be on its way to becoming hopelessly corrupted. God raised up faithful men to uph

It is common for people to use tropes and exaggeration to make a point, even when the original meaning has changed or been forgotten. I referred to my current employer as the Thieves Guild because they cheat employees out of their pay. People can pick up the meaning even if they are unaware that the term came from various fantasy stories, and is used in role-playing games. My wife likes to put peanuts outside for the blue jays, nuthatches, and titmouses. A few minutes ago, she did this, and told me, "I had 500 blue jays out there!" Uh, no. She was using exaggeration to add color and make her point. Writers of the Bible used expressions that were not meant to be literal (such as sunrise and sunset,  words that are regularly employed by many people who know full well that the sun does not actually rise or set). Some owlhoots are playing the "Gotcha!" game by saying that phenomenological language means the Bible has errors. This somehow gives them license to insert

Liberal theologians and compromising theistic evolution sidewinders (you can't get more liberal and compromising than an "evolutionary creationist") have bushwhacked Scripture for many years. They cannot tolerate the creation account in the first two chapters of Genesis, so they say that it was allegory or myth. But that's not enough for some folks, and they attack the doctrine of the Fall in the third chapter of Genesis. Credit: Pixabay / Activedia These compromisers are telling us that that the Fall was not in Genesis, but was added later on. One contention is that certain words were not in the third chapter, such as guilt and sin . Those words do not need to be there, since the concepts are clearly taught. Further, if you study on it, you'll see that original sin is affirmed elsewhere in Scripture, as are death and the Curse. They need death before sin so they can force in millions of years and evolution. That's eisegesis, old son, and does violenc

One of the main problems that many professing Christians have is ignorance of the Bible that they claim to believe, and this gets them into trouble. Such Christians get recruited into cults, follow false teachers, and are willing to compromise with evolutionism. Credit: Pixabay Mzlle Some are willing to say that God used evolution for creation, but do not see the theological problems this causes. A frequent way that liberal religious folks force evolution into Scripture is to say that the days of creation match up with evolution Not hardly! This shows not only ignorance of a basic reading of the Bible, but ignorance of the story of evolution as well. The two cannot be reconciled, pilgrim. A straightforward reading of the Bible indicates that God created in six 24-hour days a little over 6,000 years ago. This is the way the church has understood it for most of the church’s history, and the way Hebrew scholars have always understood it. However, with the rise of long-age claims

Previously, we examined how professing Christians disparage Jesus , and that many of those are theistic evolutionists. Another way to undermine the gospel message is to say that Adam was just an illustration and not a real man. We hear that kind of thing and worse (such as the old "book of fairy tales" nonsense) from atheistic sidewinders, but people who actually believe the Bible should be  above dismissing Adam. Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden, Johann Wenzel Peter If you study on it, you'll see that the Bible is written as history. Specific names, dates, events, and so on are provided. Mythology does not have such detail. The primary reason for Christians to reject a historical Adam (as well as special creation) is to force-fit evolutionary views into Scripture. These foolish folks cause themselves a heap of serious problems when they do this, such as needing to explain why a fictitious character is referred to as a real man in Luke's genealogy of Jesus (Lu

Almost from the beginning of Jesus' incarnation as a man, there have been strange heresies about him. Owlhoots have been trying to find ways to denigrate him and make him less that who he was when he walked the earth, and nowadays, such heresies are no longer restricted to Gnostics, atheists, and other cults; the false teachings have infected mainstream churches. Credit: Pixabay / Hans_Hofer C.S. Lewis referred to unbelievers' remarks about Jesus being a "great moral teacher" as " patronizing nonsense ", but some professing Christians are at that same level. Even though his own words, Old Testament prophesies, New Testament writers, the church fathers, and so on have made it clear that Jesus is God the Son who humbled himself and took on human form, seems that people don't cotton to paying attention. Strange when they claim to believe the Bible, but then say that Jesus made mistakes. Quite often, you can find these false claims about him from beli

Once upon a time, a guy was involved with biblical creation science. Or, as he called it, young earth creationism (YEC). He became disillusioned with it, embraced evolutionism, turned on his fellow creationists in a show of public humiliation, and refused to give his name due to "harassment" from creationists. He trolls the Web to this day promoting his new religion and hating biblical creationists while pretending to be a respected Christian "professor". His knowledge of the Bible, creation science, theology, and other matters show that he is a fake creationist. I lack belie f that he is a Christian. Modified from an image at Morguefile by cbcs But this is not about that sidewinder and his fictitious story. Instead, we're talking about Denis Lamoureux, who rejected biblical creation and embraced theistic evolution. The only way to get millions of years and evolution out of the Bible is to put them in through eisegesis. Like the character described above

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

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 Once again, I had the privilege of being interviewed on Fighting for the Faith by Pastor Chris Rosebrough of Pirate Christian Radio , and we not only had a good discussion on creation, evolution, Question Evolution Day, the folly of theistic evolution, and theology, but we also had some fun with it. He said he asked me back. Although after last year's interview he said he'd have me back, but I wonder how much of it is because I "reminded" him of it a few times. Hearing this back, I realize that really need to get a new microphone. I had a passel of notes ready to go, but only used some of them. It's just as well, I had the bit in my teeth and Chris had to say whoa more than once. (The reporter I had a phone interview with the other day also found out that I like to talk on these subjects, that went for an hour.) I had some references that his regular listeners will catch, plus a couple of Monty Python remarks. Pastor Rosebrough clarif

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen In the original article, " The Dirt on Theistic Evolution ", which I recommend reading before continuing with this one, I took theistic evolutionists to task for their inconsistencies on their claims to believe the Bible and their magisterial views of science. The creation account was the primary emphasis in that article. This time, I'm focusing on the Genesis Flood account. The Deluge / John Martin, 1834 Old-Earth creationists, theistic evolutionists, Hugh Ross, and other owlhoots who want to compromise on what Scripture plainly says for the sake of "science" need to find some way to ignore the account of the Genesis Flood. They must wedge long ages into the Word of God so it appears to agree with current atheistic interpretations of scientific evidence. Biblical creationists uphold the authority of Scripture, and tend to be skeptical of old Earth science — especially when such science is full of bad logic and atheistic presu

By Cowboy Bob Sorensen A group of scientists got together and decided that man had come a long way and no longer needed God. They elected one scientist to go and tell God that he was now irrelevant. The scientist walked up to God the Son and said, “God, we've decided that we no longer need you. We’re can clone people and do many other things that seem miraculous, so why don’t you just go on and leave us alone?” God listened patiently and then said, “All right, how about if we have a man-making contest?” The scientist said, “Okay, we can do that!” “But,” God added, “we’re going to do this just like I did when I made Adam.” The scientist said, “You got it”, and bent down and grabbed a handful of dirt. Jesus (Col. 1:16) looked at him and said, “Not so fast. Go get your own dirt.” morgueFile / Slartibartfast Aside from the arrogance of man thinking that God is not needed because we've evolved beyond the need for him (or that he does not exist at all, Rom. 1:18