On Monday, producers, technicians, and a reporter with the national ABC–TV network visited our Creation Museum and then the proposed land for the Ark Encounter. The segment was to have aired Monday evening on World News with Diane Sawyer, but a TV producer called AiG early in the evening to inform us that due to expanded news coverage of an agreement coming out of Washington regarding tax cuts and jobless benefits for the nation, ABC’s planned story on the Ark project was bumped.
Segments were filmed Monday on the land in Williamstown, Kentucky, where the full-scale Noah’s Ark may be located. Filming was also done inside our Creation Museum. In the photo below, Patrick Marsh (left), the lead designer for the museum and the Ark project, fields questions.
Then the producer and crew, a large satellite truck, plus a correspondent and another producer (both had just flown in from New York) dashed out to the land to see the Ark property. It was 20 degrees out there, but the wind made it feel more like 5 degrees, as a shivering Mark Looy fielded questions by the ABC correspondent (Linsey Davis). They almost got stuck on the snowy terrain—the AiG van had to be pushed free by the TV crew. It was all quite an adventure, I’m told (as I enjoy a warm Australia right now).
We are still waiting for the new ABC air date. It’s possible the piece will be shown tonight (Tuesday) according to one producer. Check your local listings for the ABC affiliate station in your area that carries “World News with Diane Sawyer” and its time of broadcast. Also, see the ABC–TV news site.
The website for the Ark Encounter is ArkEncounter.com.
Compromise in the Church—From the Perspective of an AiG ScientistOur staff often has the opportunity to engage Christian leaders and encourage them to uphold biblical authority within their churches and denominations. Even our PhD scientists get involved, as was the case recently with Georgia Purdom (PhD in molecular genetics from Ohio State), who shared the following with me (and is on her blog today):
I Get Email from Compromised Christian Leaders
A few weeks ago, I wrote a blog about a new translation of the Bible known as the Common English Bible (CEB). There are numerous problems with this liberal translation, including the inclusion of the clearly unscriptural books of the apocrypha. I wrote to a friend of mine who is a member of one of the denominations that was associated with the translation of the CEB. I told him of my concerns, and he forwarded my email to a leader in this particular denomination (which is well known). Below is a portion of the email I received from this Christian leader.I would want you to know that I share some of your concerns . . . . we have always been known for our great faith in the inspiration and authority of Scripture as the inspired Word of God. It is God's word to us. You would know that our theologians and pastors are free to participate in such activities and do so quite often. I would invite you to be a partner in prayer with us as we engage the church on such matters.When I read it I couldn’t help but think that this was a disgustingly weak and compromised answer. If this Christian leader really believes in the inspiration and authority of Scripture as he states, then he should be extremely upset and willing to confront those in his denomination who were involved. No, I didn’t know that Christian theologians and pastors in this denomination were “free to participate” in activities which are clearly heretical to the Bible! If the Bible is truly “God’s word to us,” then we need to defend it unashamedly (Romans 1:16). Sadly, many Christian scholars are more concerned with receiving praise from man rather than praise from God.
Please partner in praying with me for this Christian leader and others who by compromising are leading many, many people away from the authority and truthfulness of God’s Word.
Another Compromised Christian LeaderA few weeks ago, Dr. Purdom wrote a blog about the Common English Bible:
I downloaded Genesis from their website and began to read (since I’m working for AiG, I had better start with that book of the Bible!) While there is much I could say, I will comment on just a few verses in Genesis and elsewhere.I encourage you to read Georgia’s whole blog on this topic.
The Lord God formed the human from the topsoil of the fertile land and blew life’s breath into his nostrils. The human came to life. The Lord God planted a garden in Eden in the east and put there the human he had formed. (Genesis 2:7–8, CEB, underlining mine) And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being. The LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden, and there He put the man whom He had formed. (Genesis 2:7–8, NKJV, underlining mine)
Obviously, my biggest problem with these verses is the CEB’s use of the generic term human for man. It isn’t until later in chapter 2 when God made the woman that there is any indication in the CEB that the “human” in verses 7 and 8 was male! The Hebrew word for man is adam, which is a masculine noun and in the context of these verses in Genesis clearly refers to the first man, Adam. Perhaps it was their desire to appease the evangelical feminists or be “politically correct,” but in the process they have sacrificed accuracy and ease of understanding, which is contrary to their goal.
Compromise on the authority and truthfulness of God’s Word is all too common in the church today. Read this quote (which I have commented on previously) from a book by Dr. William Dembski, a research professor in philosophy at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Texas:
The young-earth solution to reconciling the order of creation with natural history makes good exegetical and theological sense. Indeed, the overwhelming consensus of theologians up through the Reformation held to this view. I myself would adopt it in a heartbeat except that nature seems to present such a strong evidence against it. I’m hardly alone in my reluctance to accept young-earth (The End of Christianity, p. 55).This is a very typical response from many Christian leaders—something like: “I would accept a plain reading of Genesis (as a historical narrative) because that seems to make the most sense, but or except . . . I’ve decided that I am going to take man’s ideas about the past (who wasn’t there) as being more authoritative than the eyewitness account of the past given to us by God in His Word.”
On the AiG website is an article by Dr. Terry Mortenson of our staff that quotes many other compromising scholars.
Please pray for these compromised Christian leaders to realize their error, defend the authority of God’s Word, and teach others to do the same.
Thanks for stopping by and thanks for praying,