Blog

by Steve Risner

“Who is in authority here?”
-Kyle Reese, father of John Conner (from The Terminator)

When discussing creation and the Biblical worldview, quite frequently a number of side issues are brought up. These most often are concerned with the age of the earth, evolution, the global Flood of Noah’s time, death before sin and a few others. These questions are answered differently, I think, when we're talking with unbelievers rather than talking with believers who do not hold a view that is derived from Scripture. Today, my focus is with believers who do not accept what the plain teaching of the Bible on creation is. For the atheist or unbelievers, I believe the primary concern is their need for a Savior. For a believer who just has details about creation and various other related topics wrong, they have found their Savior, so the conversation is a little different. I hope that makes sense.

One major difference in the conversation would be the Bible. I firmly believe we should use the Bible whenever possible, but the atheist will not accept its teachings no matter how obvious or clear the truth is. A believer, however, should view the Scriptures with more respect and hold the Bible up as the absolute highest authority there is, period. Because of this, there is literally no leg for the old earth creationist or theistic evolutionist to stand on—at least no Biblical leg. This is a difference in the labels attached to these groups. Old earth creationists focus on the age of the earth, claiming it's really old. Theistic evolutionists focus on evolution. But the group most often hated (or at least disliked immensely) is misnamed “young earth creationists.” You see, what is often called by others a “young earth creationist” isn't so. I'm often called this, but I don't care about the age of the earth beyond what Scripture tells us. So, the name is incorrect, and I don't accept it at all. I'm concerned with the Bible—the Word of God. That's it, really. I find other sources of information interesting and even helpful at times, but ultimately, the Bible shapes my worldview and I can show anyone how this is done if they'd like. My point is, the name “Biblical creationist” is exactly right because I and so many others are concerned with upholding the teachings of the Bible. Creationist tales that don't reflect the teachings of the Bible are not Biblical, hence, they cannot claim to be derived from the Bible. They are anti-biblical.

In reality, it only makes sense for an atheist to accept or even want to believe that the earth is billions of years old (although no amount of time will allow for what they claim happened—the evolution of the universe and life on earth). It's truly a major tenet of atheism. I understand why they believe in and likely want desperately to be true the Big Bang that they claim happened some 14 billion years ago or so. But, again, this is a major cornerstone of the atheist faith. But how could anyone who accepts the Bible's teachings about Jesus Christ accept such major tenets of atheism and incorporate it into their faith? What's at the foundation here? How could atheism have more truth found in its origins myth than the Bible—the long-standing, overwhelmingly held belief in a 6 day creation some 6000 or so years ago?

Many mistakenly believe that the age of the earth is settled. Science has proven the earth is billions of years old and the universe is several times older than this. But the truth is that science cannot tell us the age of any fossil or rock. It cannot tell us about one time past events no one was around for or understands the conditions of. It's simply not possible. What is commonly reported and held up as fact is someone’s beliefs on the subject. There just happen to be many more who believe the atheists' interpretation of the data than that of the Biblical creationist. Of course, this has no bearing on the truth whatsoever. But it's a fact. Many (often without question or thought) have accepted what atheism claims is the origin of the universe and earth as well as life on earth. This should not be for more reasons than one.

First and foremost, it contradicts the very clear and consistently taught history presented in the Bible. I don't mean only Genesis; I mean the whole Bible. Every New Testament author references Genesis in some way. Every last one. If the creation of everything that is was important to every single author—most if not all knew Christ personally in the flesh—then it seems reasonable that creation is an important topic to the Lord. The Bible teaches that God created the heavens, earth, sea and all that is in them in 6 days and rested on the seventh. This must mean 6 normal, 24-hour earth days because it's the basis for our week. This is stated in Exodus 20:11 and Exodus 31:17. Obviously, the timeline in which He created everything is of great value to God because He included it not only in the written Word of God but He Himself inscribed it with His own finger in stone for the Hebrews to know, including it in the 10 Commandments. Then, using the timelines that we are given in Genesis and through the Old Testament to the Exile (which has a well-accepted date of 586 BC), we find that Adam was created on the 6th day which happens to be about 4150 BC. You can read a more detailed explanation of that here.

There is little wiggle room here and since nearly every major Christian doctrine is founded in a natural reading of Scripture, there is no excuse for simultaneously accepting what the Bible says about man's condition and his need for a Savior and believing in the foundational tenets of the atheists' origins myth. They do not work together. The Bible's narrative on creation as well as on the Flood and the history it contains contradict the origins myth of atheism. The Bible doesn't just give us a children's tale about creation in Genesis, but the narrative is confirmed throughout the Old and New Testaments, even mentioned by Jesus Christ Himself. He confirmed the people mentioned in the lineages found in Genesis 5 were real people. The line of Jesus seemed important to the New Testament authors as well since two of them included as historically significant many of the people mentioned in Genesis 5.

There's no way around the fact that this timeline was intended to be taken literally and the years noted with each person can only be so we can account for the years since Adam's creation. Why else would they be included? Why would years be included not just in the lineages but also relating to the Exodus, when Jacob went to Egypt, etc.? The timeline of creation mattered to these authors. The reality of sin and when it first occurred mattered. The blood sacrifice, as described in Genesis first, mattered to them. Sin bringing death to the creation mattered—in fact it was a major idea presented in great detail by Paul. The reality of the Flood and its global nature as a consequence for sin seemed to be noteworthy to Jesus and Peter.

So, creation isn't a side issue, although it's true that understanding it or accepting it are not necessary for salvation. But the reality here is that many—including formerly well-known evangelists like Charles Templeton—lose their faith or reject the Bible or Jesus Christ simply because the humanist origins myth has been explained to them as something it's not—a proven fact. Once this presentation has infiltrated a person's belief system, the first victim is the Bible. “If we know the earth is 4.5 billion years old and that it developed over a very long period of time before life evolved, then the Bible must not actually mean what it says.” This is the problem. When confronted with evidence that seems to contradict a very clear teaching (and a teaching widely accepted for thousands of years) found in the Bible, the first questions I would ask is, “Does the data actually contradict the Bible? Do we know for certain this data has been interpreted correctly? Are there alternative explanations that can easily align with the Bible's historical account?” The truth of it is, there is no evidence that contradicts the Bible's account of creation, and I mean none. There are many different interpretations of the data and only some of them contradict Scripture.

For the unbeliever, it makes sense that they would willingly choose interpretations that don't jive with Scripture. They don't want the Bible to be true. However, for a believer, would it not be the more consistent and honest approach if we were to accept first and foremost what the Bible says, and then see how the world reflects that? Some may suggest this is biased and not the way we search for knowledge, but those people are not followers of Christ and don't believe His Word. The truth is, no one views evidence without bias. It's very difficult to do and hardly anyone has done it. So if a believer who claims to respect the Bible—they will claim they hold it in high regard—chooses to accept an interpretation of the data that contradicts the Bible thereby forcing them to reinterpret very plain, very clear, and very obvious portions of Scripture, what they've done is place an authority over that of Scripture. They've decided they can know things outside of God's Word and, in fact, in place of God's Word.

If you think this is not true, please tell me how I've erred. The tired argument of, “Well, that's your interpretation” is nonsense. We're not talking about something obscure or hard to draw conclusions on. We're not talking about things eluded to but not solidly spoken of in the Bible. We're talking about an exceptionally clear narrative on something that happened that is spoken of in detail throughout Scripture. Let's be honest about it and call it like it is: the old earth creationist and theistic evolutionist has determined that “science” has said one thing and that thing is not in line with the Bible, so the Bible must be wrong. He or she may not say it like that or even disagree with that statement as I've written it, but the truth is it is exactly what they've done. You cannot come up with deep time or evolution or anything like either of those things from the Bible. Not at all. Again, if I'm incorrect, show me from the Bible. Show me how the old earth or theistic evolution worldview is drawn from Scripture and I'll happily show you how my worldview—the Biblical worldview—is drawn from it.

Secondly, as I've indicated above, the data can easily be interpreted to fit the Biblical model. We are talking about history. It's historical facts that are in contention here, not science. Science cannot tell us the age of fossils or the earth or rocks. It simply can't. Our worldview can interpret the data based on the belief that the earth is billions of years old or closer to 6000 (or whatever we decide, really), but the science cannot confirm it because that's not how science works. One time past events no one was around for and no one understands the conditions of cannot be confirmed scientifically.

This will be a first in a series of posts concerning anti-Biblical ideas of creation and the Bible.

This forum is meant to foster discussion and allow for differing viewpoints to be explored with equal and respectful consideration.  All comments are moderated and any foul language or threatening/abusive comments will not be approved.  Users who engage in threatening or abusive comments which are physically harmful in nature will be reported to the authorities.