Looks like you are using an old version of Internet Explorer - Please update your browser
When believers attempt to add evolution and millions of years to Genesis, they lay down a foundation of death and suffering on which to build their worldview. If Christians believe the lie that Genesis cannot be trusted, they are paving the way for the trustworthiness of the gospel message to be called into question.
The Framework Hypothesis is essentially an attempt to reclassify the genre of Genesis 1 as being something other than historical narrative. Proponents have attempted to identify figurative language or semi-poetic devices in the text.
The age of the Earth does matter, and the Bible is clear about it! The age of the Earth is not important because God for some reason hates big numbers—He doesn’t. Ultimately the issue of the age of the Earth is about the authority of the Word of God versus the authority of the words of sinful men.
One popular interpretation of Genesis 1 shoehorns a millions-of-years gap between verses 1 and 2. Is this a valid interpretation?
Theistic evolution, the idea that God used evolution to create life, poses great danger to the gospel, the Bible’s authority, and the character of the Creator.
Dr. Davis Young left the day-age theory due to the eisegetical gymnastics required to harmonize the Genesis order with the order of events of long-age geology.
Satan has craftily used the same lie since the Garden of Eden, “Did God really say . . . ?” How has this lie manifested itself in our modern world?
Gleason Archer is a defender of biblical inerrancy, but he allowed himself to be intimidated by “science.”
Like so many other theologically conservative theologians, Dr. Norman Geisler has adopted two different hermeneutical principles by which he interprets Scripture. This inconsistency causes problems.
Many pastors and teachers today unfortunately no longer exhort or instruct their congregations correctly.
Clergy Letter Project founder inaugurates his “no name-calling” policy by misrepresenting creationists.
Dr. Elizabeth Mitchell, AiG–U.S., examines a special issue of the Christian Research Journal devoted to the origin of life.
The fundamental features of geological study, namely, field work, collection, and theory construction, were not developed until the 16th to 18th centuries.
Dr. Robert McCabe continues to unravel the framework interpretation of Genesis.
A Critique of the Framework Interpretation of Creation (1 of 2)
I have been asked many times as to my response to the teachings of Dr Hugh Ross—probably the world’s leading Progressive Creationist.
Imagine if a skeptic of Christianity came to your church and looked for a Christian leader to answer some questions about the Christian faith.
So could God have used evolution? It depends. For the true God, the answer is no—for He cannot lie, and He told us plainly what He did.
Several months ago, Dr. Gerald Schroeder was a guest on the Zola Levitt TV program.
Several months ago, Dr. Gerald Schroeder was a two-time guest on the Zola Levitt TV program.
The “progressive creation” view of Dr Hugh Ross on how to interpret the book of Genesis has received wide publicity and endorsement from many christian organizations and leaders.
Some of the bitterest attacks on creation science come not from declared atheists or even deists1, but from theistic evolutionists and progressive creationists.
A revolutionary new model shows that the compromises urged by Hugh Ross and others on the age of the universe are not only scripturally unsound, but scientifically uncalled for.
Many years ago a biblical scholar named Scofield produced a Bible with notes for Christians. He was probably the most influential of those scholars who tried to reconcile evolution and creation.