Category Archives: Genesis

The Bible and Science

Posted on by
Reply

Science confirms the Bible (1:30:13):

The Top 10 Questions about Genesis (58:45):

Do you believe in the Bible? Then what about carbon dating? Do you believe in the Global Flood? Then how did Noah get all of the animals on the Ark? Are you a Christian–then what do you do about all of the ‘Ape Men?’ In this fast-paced video lecture, Ken Ham gives answers to these and other commonly asked questions that skeptics lodge concerning Genesis and Creation, such as ‘Where did Cain get his wife’ and ‘Where did all of the races originate?’

Genesis 1:1

Posted on by
Reply

Science is observation.

All observations can be categorized in 5 very broad areas:

Time
Force
Action
Space
Matter

In the beginning
God
created
the heavens
and the earth.

Genesis 1:1 is the most complete scientific observation ever.

Genesis 3:15

Posted on by
Reply

Creation04Genesis 3:15 “I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and her offspring; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel.”

From an article by Nicholas T. Batzig found one of the leading Southern Presbyterian theologians of the 19th Century, set down 8 points of interpretion of Genesis 3:15 in his biblical-theological masterpiece “Discourses of Redemption.” In short, Robinson was seeking to highlight what our first parents could have known from the first preaching of the Gospel (what he called “the Gospel creed”) when he wrote:

Thus it will be seen, on careful analysis of these words, and deducing the truths embodied by implication in them, that they set forth these eight points of the gospel creed.

1. That the Redeemer and Restorer of the race is to be man, since he is to be the seed of the woman.

2. That he is, at the same time, to be a being greater than man, and greater even than Satan; since he is to be the conqueror of man’s conqueror, and, against all his efforts, to recover a sinful world which man had lost; being yet sinless, he must therefore be divine.

3. That this redemption shall involve a new nature, at “enmity” with the Satan nature, to which man has now become subject.

4. That this new nature is a regeneration by Divine power; since the enmity to Satan is not a natural emotion, but, saith Jehovah, “I will put enmity,” &c.

5. This redemption shall be accomplished by vicarious suffering; since the Redeemer shall suffer the bruising of his heel in the work of recovery.

6. That this work of redemption shall involve the gathering out of an elect seed a “peculiar people” at enmity with the natural offspring of a race subject to Satan.

7. That this redemption shall involve & perpetual conflict of the peculiar people, under its representative head, in the effort to bruise the head of Satan, that is, “to destroy the works of the Devil.”

8. This redemption shall involve the ultimate triumph, after suffering, of the woman’s seed ; and therefore involves a triumph over death and a restoration of the humanity to its original estate, as a spiritual in conjunction with a physical nature, in perfect blessedness as before its fall.

Such, then, is the gospel theology here revealed, in germ, through the very terms of the curse pronounced upon the destroyer of the race. It will be seen that here are all the peculiar doctrines of salvation, by grace, which every Christian accepts, who exercises the faith which is unto salvation. And in the broader and higher sense of the terms, Moses, as truly as Mark at the opening of his evangel, might have prefixed to this third chapter of Genesis the title, “The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ the Son of God.”

Preaching when unbelievers are present

Posted on by
Reply

When it comes to how we preach when unbelievers are present to hear us (which I assume is any time we preach), there is a big difference between the approach of Ken Ham (of Answers in Genesis) and that of well known pastor, Andy Stanley (son of Charles Stanley).

For the record, I am 100% with Ken Ham on this.

Ken Ham:

Last week as I was giving a presentation I said, ‘In 2 Corinthians 11:3, Paul said….”. Then I stopped myself and said I wanted to reword this because of shocking trend I see in the church. I see more and more people looking on the Bible as just the word of humans–but it is not! As Paul says in 1 Thessalonians 2:13 “…you welcomed it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which also effectively works in you who believe.”

So I reworded my statement to make the point this way–“God, through Paul in 2 Corinthians 11:3 instructed us that…”

I had a few people comment to me about this because they are also noticing that increasing numbers of Christian academics/church leaders treat the Bible as if it is just the fallible words of men the somehow contain some ‘truth’ about God!

When I read this Christian Post article I’ve linked to, this reinforced for me that this is a problem in the church. I always warn that news articles don’t always give accurate accounts–though the Christian Post in the past has given quite accurate accounts of interviews with me etc.

We are waiting on the videos to become available so we can watch this particularly presentation by Andy Stanley for ourselves. But the way it is written here makes me very concerned indeed.

I am reminded of God’s Word in Luke 16:31–“But he said to him, “If they do not hear Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded though one rise from the dead.’ ”

And God’s Word in Luke 24:27 concerning Jesus: “And beginning at Moses and all the Prophets, He expounded to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself.”

We also need to remember : “So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.” (Romans 10:17)

And also: “For the word of God is living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.” (Hebrews 4:12)

I do give a talk that a Christian cannot give up our starting point of God’s Word when witnessing to non-Christians. There are only two starting points–God’s Word or Man’s Word. (Light or Darkness; For or Against Christ). There is no neutral position. When one gives up God’s Word as the starting point, then one has already lost the argument.

And we also need to remember that the ONLY INFALLIBLE RELIABLE WITNESS WE CAN TRUST IS GOD! And yes–He was a witness to the creation of Adam and Eve!

It is because increasing generations do not believe the history in Genesis concerning a literal Adam and Eve and a literal Fall that they do not understand what sin is, that they are sinners (as we are all descendants of Adam) and that is why God’s Son stepped into history to become our relative to pay the penalty for our sin. The gospel message comes from God’s Word and is rooted in the history concerning a literal first Adam and a literal “last Adam.”

Here’s the newspaper account of Andy Stanley’s message to pastors where he outlines his approach.

Why do you believe what you believe?

Posted on by
Reply

I came across a short but in my opinion, immensely helpful article just now by Dr. R. C. Sproul, Jr. entitled “The Problem with (some) Young Earthers.” I don’t just like it, I love it. Well done R.C., Jr:

The Problem with (some) Young Earthers

It is a subtle, but important distinction. I approve the desire to think God’s thoughts after Him. I fear though that I am sometimes tempted to approve God’s thoughts only when they agree with mine. A few weeks ago during a Question and Answer time at Ligonier’s annual conference I honestly answered a question as to my views on the age of the earth. I’m a young earth guy. Have been for twenty years. Though there were other young earth guys on the panel, and all the gentlemen on the panel are in my judgment fine, godly men, I found myself humbled by the enthusiastic support of the young earthers in the crowd, as if I had taken some sort of odd, bold and prophetic stand.

Despite my respect for those with whom I disagree on this issue, it is difficult not to fear that those on the other side weigh the Bible too lightly, and what they are hearing in His revelation through His creation too heavily. I know they don’t intend that. They may not even be guilty. But I am at least guilty of finding it less than easy to maintain toward them a presumption of their innocence.

What troubles me more, however, is when my comrades within the young earth camp (and please let’s all remember that these “camps” are all together within the walls of the kingdom) make the same kind of mistake. I fear that too many of us embrace young earth creationism not because of the dependability of the Bible, but because of the fine scientific work of those in the young earth camp.

I’ve seen and been blessed by the work of several “creation” ministries. Insofar as they are about the business of thinking God’s thoughts after Him, all I have is praise. Indeed I suspect my concerns reflect not those who produce pro-young earth teaching, but those who receive such teaching. If a stunning slide show about Mount Saint Helens persuades you that the Bible is true, that’s a problem. If a compelling video about the Great Flood convinces you there was a Great Flood, that’s a problem. The problem is your ultimate allegiance is to stunning slide shows and compelling videos.

Of course because the Bible is true we should expect His revelation in creation to match right up. Because there was a world-wide flood we should expect to find evidence of a world-wide flood. But we should not conclude that there was a world wide flood because our studies affirm such. Instead we’re supposed to believe the Bible.

Now it may well be that we young earthers are the geo-centrists of our day. It may well be that the best, most faithful understanding of Genesis is a Framework view, or some other view that requires an old earth. In short, I could be wrong. Geology, however, biology, astro-physics will not be how I come to know I am wrong. It would take the Bible to do that.

God is true wherever He speaks, whether in His Word or His world. Both natural and special revelation are inerrant and infallible. Only one of them, however, is clear, forthright, straightforward. Before we wrestle over this vexing issue, may we all learn to agree with two things. First, whatever the Bible teaches, that is what we are going to believe. And second, we are going to believe it because the Bible teaches it.

The Authority of the Word of God

Posted on by
Reply

I believe… the account of origins presented in Genesis is a simple but factual presentation of actual events and therefore provides a reliable framework for scientific research into the question of the origin and history of life, mankind, the earth and the universe. The days in Genesis do not correspond to geologic ages, but are six consecutive twenty four hour days of Creation. The various original life forms (kinds), including mankind, were made by direct creative acts of God. The living descendants of any of the original kinds (apart from man) may represent more than one species today, reflecting the genetic potential within the original kind. Only limited biological changes (including mutational deterioration) have occurred naturally within each kind since Creation.

The special creation of Adam (the first man) and Eve (the first woman), and their subsequent fall into sin, is the basis for the necessity of salvation for mankind. Death (both physical and spiritual) and bloodshed entered into this world subsequent to and as a direct consequence of man’s sin. The great Flood of Genesis was an actual historic event, worldwide (global) in its extent and effect and much (but not all) fossiliferous sediment originated at that time.

In other words, I believe the Bible, even from the very first verse.

Here is Ken Ham of Answers in Genesis, a man on fire, defending the Bible’s authority at a time when much of the church lies in compromise.

We need a new Reformation in our day. Here’s why:

Two Kinds of Science

Posted on by
Reply

From the Answers in Genesis website:

We could simply tell you there are two main types of scientific research—operational and historical—but we’d rather show you. And to do that, we want you to take part in a short experiment. (Don’t worry. You won’t even have to move from your seat.)

Imagine that a friend points to a building and asks you to tell them about it. Being the inquisitive individual that you are, you immediately set out to describe the building in as much detail as you can.

The first part of your investigation is pretty straightfoward. You climb to the top and drop down your measuring tape to find that the building is exactly 1,453 feet and 8 9/16 inches from the ground to the tip of the broadcast tower—that includes over 100 floors and an observatory. You put the building on your scales and find it to be 365,000 tons.

“That’s great,” says your friend. “But when was it built?”

Measurements alone can’t tell you that part. You could make an educated guess, of course, but there’s really no need. After all, you have an eyewitness account.

After a quick Internet search, you hand your friend the complete history of this amazing historical monument — otherwise known as the Empire State Building in New York City.

Two Kinds of Science

While our experiment above was fictional, the two methods used for uncovering data aren’t. Some bits of information can be gleaned simply be examining things with your senses—such as the height and weight. Other people can then check your results by making measurements of their own. We often call this operational science (also called observational science—for obvious reasons).

But some research requires either making educated assumptions about the past by examining evidence in the present (historical or “origins” science)—or finding a primary source of information. While our assumptions could be accurate, it’s always better to start with an eyewitness account. Otherwise, our assumptions could lead us in the wrong direction.

For example, some geologists take present-day rates of radiometric decay and rock formation and imagine that the rates have always been the same. That’s why they think the earth is so old (it’s not). But we can’t zip back in time to test this for accuracy.

What we can do, however, is check our historical research against a trustworthy eyewitness account. But what about for the history of the earth? Does something like that exist? You bet—and this amazing compendium of history isn’t hard to find. Just pull out your trusty Bible.

A Trustworthy Source

The Bible often gets attacked as being antiquated and anti-science. But that’s not the case. In fact, using the Bible as a framework allows us to understand why science is even possible and to make sense of the past from a solid foundation.

Starting from the Bible, given to us by the Creator of all things, we know when we’re on the right track (Hebrews 4:13; Colossians 2:2–3).