Category: Evidences

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.

Even if there were no direct “scientific” evidence to show that the earth is as young as the Bible claims, we would need to see something very solid and convincing to shake our faith in the scriptural record. As it turns out, however, there is evidence based upon modern scientific research that is consistent with the account of creation in Genesis. Therefore, we have even more abundant reason to be absolutely confident in the Bible as the inerrant word of God.

How many times have you heard it stated as fact that the earth is four to five billion years old? Do you know how the evolutionists arrived at that number? It is obvious that none of the rocks had a date written on them, so how can one make such statements with certainty? Is there any evidence which would suggest that the earth is actually younger than four to five billion years old? When one reads the mainstream newspapers and magazines, it seems to be taken for granted that the earth is at least four to five billion years old.

Those who would attempt to harmonize the Bible and the theory of modern evolution must fit 15 billion years into the book of Genesis. They also must stretch the Genesis genealogies to accommodate an old earth demanded by evolutionists.

The biblical writers looking back on the creation account took it as a literal statement that God created heaven, earth and all therein in six literal, consecutive days with man’s creation taking place in that beginning of the creation week. Any conclusion to the contrary needs to deal with these passages as well as Genesis 1 and 2 in order to show from the contexts that such a conclusion is sustained by proper exegesis.

What is the age of the earth? How long has man been here? Archbishop Ussher (1581-1656) fixed the date of creation at 4004 BC, and Dr. John Lightfoot (1602-75) went so far as to name the day and the hour. What is the foundation of a chronology of this sort?

Does Genesis 1-2 represent the vestiges of a primeval myth of the origin of the world? Comparative features are the most potent ally of the liberal scholar.

Some people are satisfied with such an explanation. But what are the consequences of such a view? They would certainly be that all of the Bible is suspect on the same ground. That is sufficient for some people; but not the apostle Peter: we have not followed “cleverly devised fables” (muthois; “myths” 2 Pet. 1:16). The Bible is not a dependable revelation of the mind of God for man if it is subject to the false notions of the time or if mythological thinking helped to create the final product of the biblical writers in any way.

The first two chapters of Genesis contain the primary biblical information on creation. However, this portion of the Bible has been the object of numerous books and articles by various scholars which have placed interpretations upon the text that have little to do with what the original writer had in mind to say to his audience. Clearly, the meaning of any text of Scripture, as with any writing for that matter, has more to do with how it would have been perceived and understood by its original audience of readers rather than what any subsequent generation might force upon it based upon its unique presuppositions and world-views.

The student of the Bible will endeavor to determine the meaning of a statement at the time it was written and how it was understood by those addressed. This is true of any document. To properly understand, one must be able to determine if a word or a passage is being used in a literal sense or in a figurative sense.

Someone must convince me that natural revelation is a revelation of God’s “will.” That it manifests his glory, greatness, grandeur, and Godhood, I doubt not, but does it make known his will? “I trow not.”

In recent years, there has been a growing acceptance of theories which deny a literal interpretation of the creation account as a simple narrative teaching that God created the heavens and earth and all things therein in six literal, consecutive days.

Throughout the Old Testament, God’s character does not vary on this point: there are numerous examples of God’s love and mercy, and yet He never loses sight of justice. And when we get to the New Testament, we find that God is still concerned with justice; He does not ignore the problem of sin.

If it is reasonable to believe in God and the Bible, on what grounds do the atheists assert the opposite? For one thing, they claim that the Bible is riddled with contradictions. Of course, if this is so, then there is reason to doubt its inspiration. Therefore, let us ask the question, “Does the Bible contradict itself?”

The manuscript evidence for the New Testament is truly overwhelming. If we approach the subject objectively, we must admit that all of the manuscript evidence points to the genuineness and authenticity of the books. They were written when they claim to have been written, and by whom they claim to have been written. Moreover, the text we have today is true to the original documents. Any claim, then, that “the Bible has been changed”, or that “the Gospels were written generations after the fact”, is demonstrably false. Consequently, any argument or doctrine built upon such a claim necessarily falls apart. Whenever we pick up a literal translation of the Bible, we have in our hands a substantially accurate rendition of some authentic – and very important – ancient documents.

We must conclude that the people who developed the ancient Chinese written language were aware of the same account of the creation and earliest history of man that is recorded in the Bible. This is a powerful testimony to the truthfulness and accuracy of the scriptural record.