Watchman Magazine

How Much Evolution Is Too Much?

All brethren with whom I am familiar by personal discussion or reading their material affirm that God created the universe, both animate and inanimate. I think it fair to say that all brethren I know would deny Darwinian evolution which affirms the evolution of all forms of life from a single, one-celled source or a few one-celled sources arising from non-living matter. However, some of our brethren are now saying that, while they deny the animate creation evolved beyond the stated limit of “after its own kind” given in the Bible, they accept the evolving of the inanimate creation from the “big bang” 20 billion years ago.

• Continue reading

What Happens When We Mythologize Part of Genesis?

I attended a Lord I Believe Seminar back in the spring of 1996, and came away with decidedly mixed feelings. Much of the program was highly commendable. Brother Hill Roberts did a superb job of using statistical probability to show that it was impossible for life to have originated by chance. Yet, there were several aspects of the presentation that trouble me. In particular, I am concerned about Hill’s approach to the book of Genesis, especially as it relates to the issue of time and the age of the earth.

• Continue reading

And the “Lord I Believe” Seminars

“It was wonderful!” “I almost didn’t go but I am so glad I did!” “Our children will never doubt the existence of God!” It was really good!” “It was awesome!”

These and other comments were made by different Christians in Tampa, Birmingham and Florence describing a seminar on evidences called “Lord, I Believe.” This seminar is presented by Hill Roberts and others, most who are members of Weatherly Heights church of Christ, in Huntsville, AL. During the seminar, they present much good material demonstrating the impossibility of evolution, evidence of special design in creation which requires a Designer, evidence of the historical accuracy of the Bible and the resurrection of Jesus.

• Continue reading

And the “Does God Exist?” Organization

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. A more extensive review of his teachings may be found in the book, In the Shadow of Darwin ­ A review of the teachings of John N. Clayton.⁽¹⁾ The importance of such a review is seen in the connection of John Clayton with the teachings of Hill Roberts (discussed elsewhere in this issue). The teachings of Hill Roberts will at times evoke the names of men like Clayton and Hugh Ross. In Robert’s Lord I Believe seminar, the presentation titled “Tool 3: Origins” is “Adapted from John Clayton’s A Practical Man’s Proof of God“⁽²⁾ Some of the materials handed out at these seminars encourage the listener to read the top 8 books from Robert’s list. One of these books is The Source by John Clayton. Hill Roberts also promotes the “Does God Exist” ministries of John Clayton in his handout “Reaching Out to the Skeptic” and provides catalogs of Clayton’s material at some of his lectures.

• Continue reading

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.

Who is Hugh Ross?

Hugh Norman Ross is president of Reasons to Believe, Inc., Pasadena, CA. He has a M.Sc. and Ph.D. in astronomy from the University of Toronto, and he was former Minister of Evangelism at the Sierra Madre Congregational Church. As to Ross’ beliefs about creation and evolution he is classified as a Progressive Creationist.⁽¹⁾

• Continue reading

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. I have been asked by Harry Osborne to contribute an article for this special issue of Watchman Magazine covering some of the language used in the creation-evolution debate. I am happy to do my part in making others aware of this language so that we all can be prepared to discuss and challenge these issues.⁽¹⁾

• Continue reading

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.

I. Is It Possible To Interpret The Flood Described In Genesis As A Regional Flood?

Those who support the idea that the Flood was confined to Mesopotamia point out that the word “all” is not always used literally. For example, Mark 1:5 tells us that “all the land of Judea” were baptized by John in the wilderness. Of course, we understand from the context that this does not literally mean every single human in the land of Judea. So, it is reasoned, the word “all” does not need to be taken literally in Genesis 6-9, either. The claim is made that the word is used in an accommodative sense, and that only the “inhabited portion” of the earth was in view. The assumption is then made that only the region of Mesopotamia was inhabited, and the conclusion is drawn that the Flood of Noah’s time was confined to this region.

• Continue reading

Introduction

As stated elsewhere in this special issue of Watchman, Hill Roberts believes that God conceived of the plan of creation in six literal days, but then took billions of years implementing that plan. In other words, God spent six days thinking and 4.5 billion years acting. This view is reflected in Hill’s general treatment of the geologic column. When I attended a Lord I Believe Seminar in the spring of 1996 in Murfreesboro, Tennessee, it was obvious that Hill accepted the standard geologic column and tried to adapt the Biblical account of creation to it. He believes that the geologic column is a record of God’s progressive creation of life.This approach was not limited to the adult class. Our 4th grade son came home with a “Challenge Page” handout that asked students to correlate the fossil record with the Genesis account of creation. One side of the page shows the standard geologic column that can be found in nearly every evolutionary textbook. The other side of the page contained blank lines. The header says, “Can you match the fossil record with the Genesis Record?” Again, this clearly implies that the geologic column is a record of the progressive creation of life.

• Continue reading

Do They Exist?

I. Evidence of an Old Earth?

Before we embark on this inquiry, we must first note certain things about the nature of this topic. First, let us consider the possibility that the universe was created in the way the Bible describes in Genesis chapter 1. If the Bible is correct, then the first humans were created full-grown, as man and woman, not boy and girl. Therefore, if you or I were able to go back in time to see Adam and Eve on the very day they came into existence, they would not appear the same way a 1-day-old human appears today. Likewise with the animals, and the trees. If we were able to go back to the Garden of Eden, and cut down a tree, it would most likely have rings, just as if it had been there for many years. Likewise, if we were to examine a rock, it would be fully formed, just as any rock we pick up today. But it would not be millions, or thousands, or even hundreds of years old; it would be just a few days old.

• Continue reading

Which Clock Sets the Outer Limit?

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.

In a 1992 article in Time entitled “Echoes of the Big Bang,” it was boldly stated as a fact that the so-called “Big Bang” from which our universe is supposed to have been born took place about 15,000,300,000 years ago (4 May 92, p. 62). As I read further in the article looking for the evidence of this rather precise dating, I found that no proof was forthcoming. Instead, I read of unnamed “scientists” and “researchers” who have “interpreted” a unspecified set of “data” to “suggest” that this conclusion is “possibly” in keeping with their “dominant explanation of the cosmos.” That is really some concrete evidence upon which to base such firm statements! When I took a geology course several years ago, I noted the same bold claim made on the same scarcity of facts. This article is not going to be written upon the basis of a personal claim of expertise, but is intended to point to several facts from which the reader can think about the rational conclusion which must be reached about such claims regarding the age of the earth.

• Continue reading

Are There Biblical Parameters?

Introduction

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. Proponents of this viewpoint would argue that the Mid-eastern concept of time is vastly different from our western mindset. In fact, when attending a Lord I Believe Seminar back in 1996, I remember Rod Summers forcefully arguing this very point.

Yet, it is false to say the Jews had no rational concept of time. People in Biblical times were at least as intelligent as modern man, and therefore, had the ability to comprehend time in a meaningful way. From the beginning, man has been governed by time: God said, “Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night, and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years” (Gen 1:14). Therefore, as we reflect upon the issue of the age of the earth, let us examine various Scriptures that clearly indicate that the Jews could tell time.

• Continue reading

Do They Give Us A Clue?

The biblical account of creation is initially set forth in simple narrative form in Genesis 1-2. As Dan King has already noted in his excellent article looking at that text, the account shows every sign of being an historical narrative to be understood in its literal and obvious sense. Dealing fairly with the text itself demands one acknowledge that the first readers would have concluded a simple truth: God created the world and all things in it, including man, over a period of six literal, consecutive days at the beginning of time. However, this article will seek to address the view of the creation presented in other passages of Scripture as the inspired writers look back on the Genesis account of creation. In this way, we can see the divine commentary given to us to aid in properly interpreting this important and fundamental text.

• Continue reading

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? It is the assertion that the “chronologies” of Genesis 5 and 11 do not allow more than a few thousand years from Adam to Abraham. This is figured on the following basis:

The approximate dates for the life of Abraham obtained from the biblical data and archaeology are 2000 to 1700 BC. Abraham is the last generation listed in the genealogy of Gen. 11. Since this genealogy gives the age of each father at the birth of his son, we can calculate the time elapsed from the birth of Shem to the birth of Abraham as about 390 years. Similarly, Shem is the last in the genealogy in Gen. 5. Here too we have the age of each father at the birth of his son, and can calculate the time elapsed from the creation of Adam to the birth of Shem at 1,556 years. Adding the figures obtained from both, the time elapsed from Adam to Abraham is 1,946 years. This figure added to the known approximate date for Abraham results in the conclusion that Adam was created about 4000 BC or slightly more recently.

• Continue reading

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.

• Continue reading

Introduction

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 Genesis account of creation has been the subject of such “rethinking” and “reinterpreting” over the years, and this has brought into being quite a number of approaches to the narration proffered by the author of the document. Consequently, there is much controversy on the interpretation of certain features of the chapters. We shall have somewhat to say about these matters in the course of our presentation. Still, certain basic truths stand out in such a way as to be beyond controversy or quibble. Let us begin with a summary of a few of these points of general interest, and then move on to those aspects of the chapters which require further scrutiny:

• Continue reading

To the Ephesians Paul wrote: “Be not foolish, but know the will of the Lord,” (Eph. 5:17). The passage identifies two alternatives: Be foolish or understand the will of the Lord. He further wrote, “How that by revelation was made known unto me the mystery, as I wrote before in few words, whereby when ye read, ye can perceive my understanding in the mystery of Christ,” (Eph. 3:3-4). The word “mystery” simply means something not heretofore made known., (v. 5).

He declares that God chose the word method of revealing His mind to man. Whatever is characteristic of this type of communication is true of the Scriptures. Whatever strength or weakness that is inherent in this type of communication is inherent in Scripture as well. A word is simply a symbol of an idea, a vehicle of thought. Words are arranged into sentences and sentences into paragraphs and etc.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.

• Continue reading

(Author’s Note: The material below was initially written in a casual, almost haphazard fashion in response to a request from a brother in Christ. I have “doctored” it up a little, but it retains the flow of a “typing out loud” article. Now, I have been asked to submit it as part of a special study in this issue of Watchman. Fearing that it will lack the polish of other articles in this issue, I make this little apology with a not so subtle appeal for sympathy for its shortcomings.)

I am afraid I am not much help here, but let me venture a few remarks for your study and reflection. The assigned title (purposely so submitted, I imagine), needs work. 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.”

One must “search the Scriptures daily,” “proving and explaining” from the text in order to learn the “will of God” (Acts 17:2, 3; 11, 12; 28:23,24; Eph. 3:4; 2 Tim. 2:15; Titus 1:9–”as he hath been taught;” Cf. Jn. 6:44, 45; 2 Tim. 2:2; 3:14). However, the heavens themselves, by their very existence, declare the glory and handiwork of God, his eternal power and Godhead. As Whiteside observed, one may learn from nature that there is a sublime, supreme being of eternal power and Deity, but one cannot tell if he exists in a million persons or if he hates or loves or even cares about man. Such knowledge can only come from what is termed, “special revelation.” I call it, “the Bible.”

• Continue reading

The need for this special issue is apparent to anyone who has followed closely the discussions in the realm of Biblical Evidences. 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. Rather than duplicating the work of the various writers by detailing the various approaches taken in such theories, the reader will be left to examine the articles specifically dealing with those theories. Before proceeding to the rest of his special issue, please consider the following points about the nature of the issue under discussion and a few other matters.

• Continue reading

Beats there a heart so brave that it does not fear to bring up the subject of discipline in the church? Only the newest babe in Christ or somone totally out of touch with the history of local churches could fail to realize that exercising church discipline is fraught with troubles and heartaches. Strong elders shake with trepidation and mature preachers measure their job security when the necessity arises. Friendship and fellowship are tested, family ties are strained, motives are searched and suspected, wounded feelings are multiplied and churches are sometimes split in an attempt to “withdraw from the disorderly.” Of late, the additional prospect of lawsuits has a chilling effect on this action and the first step is to check with an insurance agent to be sure that liability coverage is available before the church acts to correct a wayward member. In the light of such turmoil, some are led to ask, “Who needs it?” It seems as though more harm than good can result. Perhaps it is best to leave well enough alone; it is not worth the risk; let’s just leave such matters up to God and the final Judgment. Is there some compelling reason why we must have discipline in the church? Is it worthwhile? Is the cost too great to pay? What are the reasons that faithful Christians will consider in the light of such difficulties?

• Continue reading