Thursday, April 18, 2019

The Simplicity of Exegeting Scripture

"Ezra...simply read the Scriptures & gave a straightforward exegesis. That was enough to enable the people to understand, & this brought repentance, confession, & worship. No emotional appeals, no gimmicks, no technology, just the Scriptures—taken naturally & literally."

~HM Morris

Absolutely the biblical way. Methods reveal one's true doctrine. Evangelicalism is cluttered and distracted by all the frivolous bells and whistles to make Scripture more appealing, which means they are appealing to the flesh and they doubt the absolute and sole power of God's Word to change a life. They believe then, they must help God out. That never, ever worked out well in Scripture.

Saturday, April 13, 2019

There Is No Gap Theory In Genesis

Some are using celebrity Evangelicals to justify their Gap theory or Old Age theory and then say that there's a gap of time in Gen. 1:1-2 (by absence I guess--which how do you prove then, that's it's there?). The problem is that the source of the theories are unbelievers who value "science" as the standard of interpreting Scripture, not Scripture as the standard nor it's Author. In other words, they value the world's silly views and accreditation over that of the King of king's and Lord of lord's --who was the One Who was actually there in the Beginning.

Here are some excellent articles and excerpts:


Another often-repeated claim is that Genesis 1:2 should read, "the earth became without form and void," as opposed to the traditional understanding that when God first created the earth in verse 3, it "was without form (i.e., not yet in completed form) and void (i.e., not yet inhabited)." The verb's normal meaning, however, is simply "was," and while it may be translated "become," the context does not warrant it, and all accepted versions of the Bible use "was."
Each verse in Genesis 1, except verse 1, begins with the conjunction "and," thereby connecting each verse sequentially to those before and after. There is no hint of the passing of millions or billions of years of time between verses 1 and 2.
Gap advocates frequently turn to other portions of Scripture for support, particularly those which use the words "without form" and "void" (Jeremiah 4:23Isaiah 24:1, and 45:18 are most important). In each case, the prophet refers to a wasted state due to the judgment of sin, thereby implying that Genesis 1:2 likewise implies a condition brought about by judgment. But in each case, the context regards the land of Israel not the original earth. There is no justification for postulating long ages present in a supposed gap in Genesis.

~Dr. John Morris, ICR

Additional info here:

Some do criticize and reject Darwinian evolution, but then will still allow some other form of evolution--"creative evolution," "pantheistic evolution," "punctuational evolution," or something. Some still resort to the unscientific "gap theory" which seeks to insert the "ages" between the first two verses of Genesis. Every such group must turn to either the "local flood theory" or the "tranquil flood theory" if they are going to hold to the geologic ages, since a global cataclysm such as the Bible describes would have destroyed all evidence for the geologic ages...
The difference is this: we believe the Bible must take priority over scientific theories, while they believe scientific theories must determine our biblical interpretations.
Is the Bible God's Inerrant Word?
It all seems to us to hinge on one overriding question. Do we really believe the Bible to be God's inerrant Word or not? If the Bible is really the Word of our Creator God, then--by definition--it must be inerrant and authoritative on every subject with which it deals. This assumption leads clearly to the conviction that the creation took place in six literal days several thousand years ago. We believe this simply because God said so and said it quite plainly! And then we find also that this revealed fact will fit all the facts of science much better than the long-age evolutionary scenario does.
It is no good to say, as one evangelical leader said recently: "Well, I believe that God could create in six days or six billion years--it makes no difference." Yes it does, because it has to do with God's truthfulness! It is not a matter of what God could do. The question is what God says that He did! And what He said in writing was this, recorded with His own finger on a table of stone: "In six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day" (Exodus 20:11; see also Exodus 31:15-18)...

"But science has proved the earth is old," they still insist, "and we dare not alienate the academic community by insisting on a literal Genesis." No, "science" has not proved the earth is old! The oldest written records we have, apart from the Bible, are in Egypt and Sumeria, and these only go back a few thousand years.

End quote. 


Why The Gap Theory Won't Work by Dr. Henry Morris.

Gap theorists use this verse to establish their interpretation back into Gen. 1:1-2

“For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God Himself that formed the earth and made it; He hath established it, He created it not in vain, He formed it to be inhabited: I am the LORD; and there is none else” (Isaiah 45:18).

Morris explains:


Actually, the meaning of tohu is very flexible; it occurs 20 times and is translated 10 different ways, depending on context. In our text above, Isaiah was not writing about the initial state of the creation, but the purpose of the creation, that purpose being to provide a beautiful and appropriate home for mankind. 

The translation “in vain” was required by Isaiah’s context, just as “without form” best fits the context in Genesis 1:2. There is no conflict, since the two passages are dealing with two different subjects, and Isaiah’s message simply extols God’s ultimate and certain goal for His creation

When God first created the space/time universe, only the basic elements of the earth (Genesis 1:1) were created, with neither structure nor inhabitant, but that was not its full purpose. God had merely “created” the heavens according to this verse. But then, with great care, He formed the earth, made the earth and established the earth, and all this was done to make it ready to be inhabited by men and women who would share His image and know His love.

End quote. Bold, my emphasis.
In some cases, a sentence using hayah can make sense whether it is translated as a form of “to be” or a form of “to become,” but it still appears that a form of “to be” makes better theological or historical sense in those contexts (e.g., Genesis 13:8Judges 18:192 Samuel 7:24).
As noted above, gap theory advocates say that the earth described in Genesis 1 clashes with Isaiah’s earth, positing Isaiah 45:18 as a proof text. In effect, they say Isaiah 45:18 clashes with the history reported in Genesis 1:2. This is the question they often pose:
In Isaiah 45:18 we are told that God created the world to not be formless (lô’ tohû), yet in Genesis 1:2 we are told that the world was formless (tohû). Likewise, we read in Genesis 1:2 that earth was “void” (bohû, meaning “empty,” i.e., empty of inhabitants), yet in Isaiah 45:18 it says God created the earth “to be inhabited” (a form of yashab, meaning “to inhabit”). How can both verses be true, unless they are describing different times in earth history?
Answer: These really are two different times. Genesis 1:2 describes Day OneIsaiah 45:18 describes (the “very good”) Day Six or thereafter.
Genesis is a chronological narrative reporting how and when God created stuff and what God did with it, sequentially, to implement His intentions for creation. Isaiah, however, emphasizes why God created stuff and later developed it: Because God wanted an inhabited, orderly world....

End quote. (Bold, my emphasis.)

Other info: 
Besides the above mentioned evidence that Jesus took Genesis 1-11 as straightforward reliable history, the gospel writers record several statements that Jesus made, which are relevant to the age of the earth. Those verses, hereafter collectively referred to as the “Jesus AGE verses,” show that Jesus was a young-earth creationist. They are:
  1. But from the beginning of creation, God made them male and female.” (Mark 10:6)
  2. For those days will be a time of tribulation such as has not occurred since the beginning of the creation which God created until now, and never will. Unless the Lord had shortened those days, no life would have been saved; but for the sake of the elect, whom He chose, He shortened the days.” (Mark 13:19–20)
  3. . . . so that the blood of all the prophets, shed since the foundation of the world, may be charged against this generation, from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah, who was killed between the altar and the house of God; yes, I tell you, it shall be charged against this generation.” (Luke 11:50–51)
The key phrases that will attract our attention in these verses are “from (or since) the beginning of creation” and “since the foundation of the world.” Old-earth advocates who interact with these verses contend that in them Jesus is not referring to the beginning of the whole creation but only to the beginning of the human race, which they believe was millions of years after the creation of the universe, earth, trilobites, dinosaurs, etc. In what follows I will first present my exegetical arguments for concluding that Jesus is referring to the beginning of the world (Gen 1:1) in these verses. Then later I will come back to these texts as I interact with the writings of the few old-earth proponents who have addressed these verses with respect to the age of the earth.

End quote. Go to the link above for the whole treatment of men who hold to something other than a biblical Creation view and how they do not rightly deal with Jesus' own teaching on the age of the earth.
Scriptural Geology :Abstract:The scriptural geology (SG) movement is described by historians as a reaction among both scientists and theologians to the long-ages models being proposed by geologists in the early nineteenth centurySpecifically, it occupied the period of 1820 to 1860 after which time the movement essentially died out until revived by George McCready Price and the modern creationist movement of the twentieth centuryPossible reasons for the precipitous decline of scriptural geology after the 1850s are exploredHistorians have noted remarkable similarities between scriptural geology (SG) and the modern creationist movement (popularly known as young-earth creationism or YEC)Most of the basic issues have not dramatically changed in the last 150 years and moreA review of the more important issues in the SG movement can prove very helpful in resolving parallel issues being grappled with by YEC scholars todayOne issue that caused the most diverse opinions among SG was where to place the biblical Flood in the geological recordThis remains one of the most hotly debated issues among creationist geologists today....

End quote. Italics, original.  See the whole article linked above.
Info on Old Age theory origins here.

Insights on the Gap Theory and eschatology.

Tuesday, April 02, 2019

Observations of Today's Evangelicals In Light of Scripture

Mat 5:17  "Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish, but to fulfill. 
Mat 5:18  "For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass away from the Law, until all is accomplished. 
Mat 5:19  "Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and so teaches others, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
Mat 5:20  "For I say to you, that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you shall not enter the kingdom of heaven.

Jesus continually taught and upheld the Law and the Prophets (Matt 1:22-23;2:3,5-6,15,23:3 4:4,7,10,14-16;5:17,21,27,33,38; 8:26-27; 9:1311:4-512:3-8,17-21;13:14-15,35;). The apostles did as well. The entire Word of God is a corpus, a body, a unit of Truth. They cannot be disconnected. But it's interesting to see Evangelicals try to do so.

The prophets and the law continue to be upheld in Matthew by Jesus yet most Evangelicals ignore them. They are a unity because Jesus taught them even as He revealed more truth and enacted the New Covenant.

Evangelicals will spend two years in the Gospel of Matthew while ignoring the very things it teaches regarding the Law and Prophets starting with the sound doctrine of Creation in six literal days. Many will eisogete the parables and they all claim that the parables can have various interpretations (thus proving Jesus' point that those who don't understand the parables are under judgment--Matt. 13:16).

It's like they think His Kingdom (which is the theme of Jesus and Matthew), is merely theoretical, as they also see Creation as theoretical, but not actual. They however, war a physical/political one but it's not according  to His laws and under His rule. They deny the Millennial kingdom while trying to create a political one right now, as they attach their names to it with their rules, laws, standards, and judgments determining who's in and who's out in their man-made kingdom. Oh, they will slap on the name of Jesus to what they've created, in order to get people to follow them, but it has nothing to do with HIS holy kingdom at all. In fact, they are just modern day Pharisees. But worse, today they don't even attempt to "venerate" or "idolize" Jesus, but they do indeed venerate and idolize their own men (professors, theologians, speakers, writers, pastors).  In fact, Jesus is always competing with the rule of their celebrity theologians, traditions, coalitions, etc. Basically they are no different than the RCC which really is to say, they are no different than the Pharisees.

For today's Evangelical leaders, Scripture is too burdensome to them; too precise; too ridged. And so they use pragmatism. God's commands aren't burdensome to those in Christ nor is His rule over them a thing to fight--rather they joyfully and gratefully submit to His dominance and commands. Evangelicals instead fight both.

1Jn 5:2  By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and observe His commandments. 3  For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments; and His commandments are not burdensome.

The methods of the Evangelicals (which come by their pragmatism, not Scripture as these two are antithetical) become the standard of judging others' spirituality. Coalitions, conferences,music, programs, books, book studies (which they call "bible studies"), favoring famous Christian, etc are their measure of whether one is to be considered on a higher spiritual plane by them. But these things are all fleshly and fall short of God's precise standard of holiness.

Ironically these same Evangelicals, who find God's commands and standard to be too precise (and thus they judge most of them to be "non-essential" and therefore "agree to disagree" on them), are also the ones who will take one verse and turn it into a doctrine, or worse, claim a teaching is actually in Scripture when it isn't. For example they take David's hope of seeing his dead baby again as a proof text of all babies going to Heaven, when in fact Scripture only states that those who have repented of their sins and turned to Christ go to Heaven (what happens to babies is not taught). The other is that no where in all of Scripture do we see infant sprinkling (sprinkling is not baptizing by the way), but many claim "infant baptism"  is biblical. Yet these are the same people who will deny multiple verses that speak of God creating all things by the power of His Word, in six literal days. They also deny multiple verses about the Millennial Kingdom. These are quite the rebels and do not speak according to Scripture but merely of men.

By way of clarification, biblical salvation is by faith and trust in the biblical Lord Jesus Christ alone and repenting of all of one's sins. The result is that a truly saved person will bear HIS fruit (1 John 1). Ironically, Evangelicals have attached good works to salvation and now determine a person's salvation by whether or not they are part of "social justice", which is actually injustice and stems from Rome's Liberation Theology and Marxism.