Category: Creation

It is granted that Bible words, like all language, have several meanings. In some places, “day” may mean an extended period of time, but not in every place. To even imply that because “day” may mean, in some passages, an extended period of time, then it may mean that in Genesis one, is to say something that is untrue. That’s just throwing up a smoke screen.

A response taking issue with the writing and message of the Open Letter to Florida College, penned by Tom Couchman.

In the past several weeks I have been asked on several different occasions by various brethren to explain my personal motivation for having a part in its writing and ultimately putting my signature to the letter. Perhaps there are others who still are curious about my own specific reasons for doing so, since it is apparent to them from the past that I have had a special affinity for Florida College and a particular affection for many of the teachers and workers who function at the institution.

This is a chronology of the events leading up to the current issues regarding the interpretation of the creation account as I know them. Since I can only attest to the things I personally know from firsthand experience, I have limited the chronology to actions I can document. For this reason, the chronology centers on my actions in this matter.

Harry Osborne’s response to Colly Caldwell’s letter and statement

The following statements reflect firm convictions of the President of Florida College and uncompromising expectations concerning instruction regarding these matters at this institution of higher learning. It also articulates what we have all committed ourselves to at Florida College from its beginning and what we will continue to teach.

C.G. “Colly” Caldwell’s Letter of June 30, 2000, mailed to the Co-Signers of the Open Letter, published from Harry Osborne’s copy of the letter

The following lines represent an open letter to brethren Hill Roberts, Shane Scott, the Bible faculty and administration of Florida College, with particular reference to…

One’s beliefs about Genesis 1 reflect to a great degree his belief about the inspiration and authority of the Bible. The doctrine of Bible inspiration declares that God supernaturally revealed to its authors the very words of God himself (2 Tim. 3:16-17). Because the Bible is God’s inspired revelation, it has authority over man. What it speaks on creation carries greater weight than the pronouncements of the educated of any age, including our own and those in the future.

Si aceptamos esta verdad, rechazaremos las teorías con respecto a la tabla geológica y no habrá razón alguna para no aceptar la sencilla verdad de la creación de todo en seis días literales como la Biblia afirma. “Sea Dios veraz, y todo hombre mentiroso; como está escrito: Para que seas justificado en tus palabras, Y venzas cuando fueres juzgado” (Rom. 3:4).

At some point, we stubborn humans are going to have to submit to the even more stubborn facts, and confess that the great evolutionary processes that our children are forced to learn in school do not exist – outside of the imagination of man. There is a God in heaven, and we ought to stop trying to explain Him away.

An Annotated Bibliography for material presented in the Theme Articles: Biblical Evidences VS Unbiblical Compromise

There is no doubt in my mind that acceptance of evolutionary concepts regarding the inanimate creation will inevitably result in acceptance of evolutionary concepts regarding the animate creation. Maybe not by the present teachers of such, but certainly by a second generation. The history of “Progressive Creationism” among the denominational world plainly shows that fact.

Science is driving modern culture, but most of us haven’t even got license plates. We are inundated with various claims of science, all of which purport to be authoritative. Yet, few people have scientific expertise. Most of us are left to wonder which claims are true and which are false.

It is a sad time in the Israel of God today. Hill Roberts and others can present this perversion of God’s Word for years, and instead of an outcry against their violence to the Scriptures, their popularity appears to be increasing. Ignorant and undiscerning brethren are dazzled by their multimedia presentation and fail to understand the consequences of the doctrine they are accepting.

The purpose of the following review of John Clayton and his teachings is not meant to be a complete look into the man and his teachings. It is only a summary of some of the errors that are taught in his materials.

For any teaching to gain a hearing, it has to have one or more proponents who are teaching or defending the view. “Old earth creationism” has several major proponents. One of the most prominent of those proponents in evangelical circles is Hugh Ross.

Words have meanings, but they often have different meanings to different people using them. Our English language is difficult to understand at times because one English word can have many different meanings. It is imperative, therefore, in any meaningful discussion to first define the terms used. Often in a debate the disputants will first define their terms. This is important for both the opponent and the audience in order to completely understand the issue. In the same way, it is important in the discussion of creation issues to define the terms beings used. A person might say, “I believe that God created the universe in six days,” and mean something completely different than what another means when he says the same thing.

There are some who insist that the account of Noah and the Flood is an exaggeration at best, and a downright myth at worst. Unfortunately, there are even some who claim to believe the Bible who insist that the Flood was a local phenomenon. They claim that the Flood was limited to the region of Mesopotamia, a region prone to flooding. In this article, we will examine this claim from two distinct angles. First, we will see what the Bible says about the Flood. Then, we will see whether there is any external evidence to support the Bible’s account.

There may be some problems in reconciling certain geologic features with the catastrophic model of geology, but far fewer than the problems that are created by adopting a uniformitarian model. Please remember that there are problems with every theory. The best theory is the one that can be explained with the fewest secondary assumptions.