Watchman Archives

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.

It is assumed that our readers understand that earlier forms of discipline should have been expended before actually withdrawing from a brother or sister. Such things as Bible study, gospel preaching, personal appeals, prayers and much patience should characterize faithful brethren seeking to “restore” the fallen (Galatians 6:1). But having done all these things, let us not fail to trust God’s way to the final measure: withdraw from the disorderly. Trust God that this is the best way and do not question nor seek to circumvent the counsel of God. Souls hang in the balance — and ours may be included.

Christians need to realize that the Bible is anti-worldly, as brother Franklin wrote. It is against doing things which seem right unto man (Prov. 14:12). It is against using the tools of men, science or otherwise, to attract the lost to the Lord (1 Cor. 1:18-2:5).

Paul defended the truth against the Judaizing teachers of his day. In doing so, he did not establish a creed; he defended the truth. Peter refuted the Gnostics and in doing so had nothing to do with the establishment of a creed. When men today defend the truth of God against false teachers, they are not establishing a creed. They are defending the truth. It is amazing to me that those who hold the truth on the institutional issues are the ones today accused of creed making. It is the advocate of that false doctrine who has introduced a doctrine from man, not the defender of truth.

No one will seek for mercy and forgiveness until and unless one pleads guilty to the indictment of God’s law which pronounces us as sinners, violators of His law. The condemnation of the law should prepare us with heartfelt desire for the cleansing of the blood of Jesus and the forgiveness and pardon which our Heavenly Father offers us in the good news, the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ (Isaiah 55:6-7; Romans 1:16-17; 3:19-28; 4:20-25; 5:9-10). Grace abounds by forgiving us of all sins – all as to kind(s) and all as to number(s).

The Bible plainly shows that the central error of the Pharisees was their supplanting of God’s word with their human traditions. Now, as we examine some claims being made in our time regarding modern “Pharisaism”, we ask the question, “Who are the Pharisees today?”

God’s word reveals that we are to “count the cost.” (Luke 14:25-33) of serving Him. The cost is our all; our everything (Matthew 10:34-39). If we do not give up everything to him, we are not worthy of Him. There is no relationship, no belief, or circumstance that will allow us to say that His will is too much! Christ is our life and we shall surely know that it was worth it all in serving Him.

My friends, we are going to be judged by the Law of God. We cannot blame God because we are dull of hearing or because we say that His Word is beyond our ability to grasp. It is ME, not God, who is responsible to know the Truth and be made free. Every one of us are responsible to have our “…senses exercised to discern good and evil” (Hebrews 5:14).

If all men (including alien sinners) are under the law of Christ, then all men (including aliens) are under Christ’s law on marriage, divorce and remarriage (Matt. 19:9). That would mean that those who violate that law (by putting their mate away and marrying another) are living in adultery.