One of the most recent internal conflicts of the Christian faith is how much, exactly, do atheists have right about origins? Out of a desire to seem "rational" and "modern", many Christians over the past 200 years have compromised with Evolution and the like. These compromisers can often be found running around acting as if "YECs" are whack job cultists.
Recently, I found one such compromiser, ironically complaining that "some YECs explicitly teach that context doesn't matter". I decided to engage him, telling him that as what he would consider a "YEC", I teach the exact opposite: Context is absolutely vital, and I am a "YEC" (though I reject the term, favoring "Biblical Creationist") because that is what the Bible teaches in context. His response: "You're a funny guy sully. That's why I'm going to deconstruct your theological misconceptions last. Little joke there." So I said "a joke indeed. I have 3,400 years of Scriptural tradition, and the history it's based on, on my side. Adam's very blood flows through both our veins. Deconstructing my doctrines will lead right back to them. That's why I came to hold them, and why I still do."
To this, he replied "That is the problem. That is exactly the issue. The church has re-interpreted much of the OT, and even later Genesis, to take into account that it is pointing to Christ (John 5:46). But on the first 12 chapters they seem to have largely adopted the doctrine of the rabbis who opposed Christ. They have not re-interpreted the text to fit what Christ says Moses was writing about. This is most odd that the church considers them authorities since 2 Cor 3 assures us "Yes, even today when they read Moses’ writings, their hearts are covered with that veil, and they do not understand." And Hebrews 4 tells us that the gospel was preached in what Moses wrote but it did not benefit them. In these troublous times, we should take a fresh look at the text and start looking at it as Christians rather than continue with a view that the Pharisees would be quite comfortable with IMHO."
I have no intention of going through the conversation much further than this, firstly because it is his most coherent reply before he started asking me to move the conversation to other websites. But also, there is nothing in the conversation that either didn't repeat the same claims in the above comment, or that I haven't addressed before on Bible Brain. But he did make a few points in the above comment that I haven't, to my memory, directly addressed, which I believe should be directly addressed. Thus, I will proceed to break down this comment point by point:
"The church has re-interpreted much of the OT, and even later Genesis, to take into account that it is pointing to Christ (John 5:46)."
It shouldn't be surprising from someone who is literally and explicitly advocating "re-interpreting much of the OT", but this immediately contradicts his complaint that it is the "YECs" who teach against context. In advocating for a non-contextual reading of Genesis, he quotes John 5:46 out of context. Let's look at the context. Starting in verse 31, John 5 says:
“If I bear witness of Myself, My witness is not true. There is another who bears witness of Me, and I know that the witness which He witnesses of Me is true. You have sent to John, and he has borne witness to the truth. Yet I do not receive testimony from man, but I say these things that you may be saved. He was the burning and shining lamp, and you were willing for a time to rejoice in his light. But I have a greater witness than John’s; for the works which the Father has given Me to finish—the very works that I do—bear witness of Me, that the Father has sent Me. And the Father Himself, who sent Me, has testified of Me. You have neither heard His voice at any time, nor seen His form. But you do not have His word abiding in you, because whom He sent, Him you do not believe. You search the Scriptures, for in them you think you have eternal life; and these are they which testify of Me. But you are not willing to come to Me that you may have life. “I do not receive honor from men. But I know you, that you do not have the love of God in you. I have come in My Father’s name, and you do not receive Me; if another comes in his own name, him you will receive. How can you believe, who receive honor from one another, and do not seek the honor that comes from the only God? Do not think that I shall accuse you to the Father; there is one who accuses you—Moses, in whom you trust. For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me; for he wrote about Me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe My words?”"
You see, then, how the compromiser's claim is excluded! Although John 5:46 does say "For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me; for he wrote about Me" (which literally no "YEC" I've ever met has ever denied), Jesus isn't rebuking them for not reinterpreting the text, but for not believing them, even saying, in the very next verse, if you don't believe Moses, how will you believe Christ? Jesus is laying Moses down as a foundation for Himself to stand on, but if that foundation is so unbelievably shaky that it confuses thousands of years of Jews and Christians to believe a story that isn't true, right up until atheists figure out what it really means, that is no foundation at all.
"But on the first 12 chapters they seem to have largely adopted the doctrine of the rabbis who opposed Christ. They have not re-interpreted the text to fit what Christ says Moses was writing about."
As we just showed, Jesus didn't give us permission to reinterpret the text at all. Much less did Christ say "oh, by the way, that stuff about the Garden of Eden, the Great Flood, the Tower of Babel etc? Yeah, it's all nonsense, you can just reinterpret it as some sort of veiled metaphor about me." Again, to begin with, that would make it a shaky foundation. But also, it would be quite problematic. Pay attention to Deuteronomy 13:1-5: "“If there arises among you a prophet or a dreamer of dreams, and he gives you a sign or a wonder, and the sign or the wonder comes to pass, of which he spoke to you, saying, ‘Let us go after other gods’—which you have not known—‘and let us serve them,’ you shall not listen to the words of that prophet or that dreamer of dreams, for the Lord your God is testing you to know whether you love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul. You shall walk after the Lord your God and fear Him, and keep His commandments and obey His voice; you shall serve Him and hold fast to Him. But that prophet or that dreamer of dreams shall be put to death, because he has spoken in order to turn you away from the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt and redeemed you from the house of bondage, to entice you from the way in which the Lord your God commanded you to walk. So you shall put away the evil from your midst."
Long before the incarnation, the Old Testament has been clear: There is one God, His commands are immutable, and if someone tries to pull you away from Him, it doesn't matter how impressive they are, do not listen to that person. Legally, if they had done so in Israel, the penalty was death. So, the Bible says if a miracle worker talks about other gods, kill them. Jesus, according to this compromiser, came along, working His miracles, and claimed to be God.
Now he's caught between a rock and a hard place. If Jesus really was telling us to reinterpret the Old Testament just to fit Him in, that would actually mean Jesus was a false prophet, and He did deserve to die! In this case, the Gospel goes out the window. We're not following a risen savior, but a dead heretic in a religion whose God hates blasphemy so much, He kills even His own people for committing it. What do you imagine He would do to us, who are not even the children of Abraham, in such a case?
The alternative is that, as Jesus says, "...Scripture cannot be broken..." (John 10:35). In this case, we still see Jesus in the Old Testament. Because He's right there. In fact, He's there so clearly that the Jews this compromiser is so afraid of will, when the Old Testament is read to them without attribution, recognise Him quite readily. What's particularly interesting is that a Jew who is hostile to Christ is more likely to not only reinterpret the Bible to oppose Christ, but even to turn against the Rabbis of the past, who often drew some very Christian conclusions. The Jews, for example, were not always so fiercely Unitarian. Ancient Rabbis, right up until the medieval period, believed God to be multipersonal, which is "dangerously" close to the Christian view of the Trinity.
Speaking as a "YEC", I have never felt the need to reinterpret the Old Testament to fit Christ in where He isn't. In fact, the ultimate irony here is that while this compromiser attempts to erase Adam, or Noah, and apparently other figures, since he advocates reinterpreting "...much of the OT, and even later Genesis...", Moses himself is permitted to retain his historicity. Jesus, of course, is the "prophet like Moses" (see Deuteronomy 18:15-22; 34:1-12; Acts 3:17-26; 7:37), but this doesn't mean Moses was not a historical person. We don't have to reinterpret Exodus-Deuteronomy, or anywhere else Moses appears in the Old Testament, to see Christ in his writings, or in his stories, or in his prophecies, or even in his commands. There's no reinterpretation needed, and there's no reinterpretation going on. So why would we need to do so with anything, anywhere else in the Old Testament?
What's more is that the New Testament nowhere does this. In fact, every Biblical author was a very firm Biblical Creationist. Now of course, not every Biblical author directly addressed the issue of origins, and so that is a statement based on the simple fact that every Biblical author affirmed Moses, and indeed had to in order to affirm Christ. However, 100% of the time Genesis is referred back to, in any way, in the Bible, it always assumes it is historical narrative. There is, for example, Jesus' genealogy in Luke, which traces Joseph's line all the way down to "...the son of Enosh, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God." (Luke 3:38).
So at what point does Joseph's genealogy falter? In my experience, compromisers tend to stop at Abraham. He was real, then anyone before him was mythological to some degree or another. How do they decide this? I have no idea. I keep asking, they never tell me. I read their materials, they never seem to explain. I ask my fellow Biblical Creationists, or read their materials, they don't seem to know either. I guess compromisers just haven't thought through that part of their heresy yet. But Luke clearly hasn't even considered it. There's Joseph, Jesus' quite literal step father, and there's Adam, an equally literal human being who, according to previous Scriptures, was created from the dirt, not descended from monkey men. Now, again, I've gone into more detail elsewhere on this ministry, so I won't repeat myself here, but suffice to say, whenever the New Testament refers to Genesis, it always assumes its historicity.
"This is most odd that the church considers them authorities since 2 Cor 3 assures us "Yes, even today when they read Moses’ writings, their hearts are covered with that veil, and they do not understand." And Hebrews 4 tells us that the gospel was preached in what Moses wrote but it did not benefit them."
To be clear, Biblical Creationism is not based on the authority of the Jewish Rabbis. That being said, whether he likes it or not, this compromiser does accept the authority of one particular Jewish Rabbi. His name? Jesus. Jesus of Nazareth. Christ Jesus. Jesus, the Lord God of Israel. David's Lord. The same Jesus who said "...salvation is of the Jews" (John 4:22). The same Jesus who said "I was not sent except to the lost sheep of the house of Israel." (Matthew 15:24). The same Jesus who chose the Apostle Paul, from among the Jews, to write "What advantage then has the Jew, or what is the profit of circumcision? Much in every way! Chiefly because to them were committed the oracles of God." (Romans 3:1-2).
You cannot divorce the Christian faith from its Jewish roots. As Christians, we are, in effect, Jews. In fact, if we are not Jews by blood, the Bible tells us we are unnatural branches, grafted in among them to become partakers of the roots! And so we are warned, quite sternly, "do not boast against the branches. But if you do boast, remember that you do not support the root, but the root supports you. You will say then, “Branches were broken off that I might be grafted in.” Well said. Because of unbelief they were broken off, and you stand by faith. Do not be haughty, but fear. For if God did not spare the natural branches, He may not spare you either." (Romans 11:18-21).
As Christians, we don't get to act as if we're somehow better than the Jews. Nor do we get to pretend we replaced them. They gave us our books. They gave us our prophets, our Apostles, our Savior, our God! If you start running around saying "you can't believe that, a Rabbi believes that", just bin your Bible. I'll tell you this much: Even ignoring the fact that Christianity is a Jewish faith, we have a lot more in common with the Jews than the atheists.
"In these troublous times, we should take a fresh look at the text and start looking at it as Christians rather than continue with a view that the Pharisees would be quite comfortable with IMHO."
Now again, we can immediately dismiss this "fresh" look by pointing out that he is literally advocating reinterpreting the Bible. Adding "in these troublous times" really just reinforces the fact that his reinterpretation is new. So, never mind the Rabbis. He's going against the whole Church, right the way up until recent times.
But this is where he gets sloppiest, because he suggests we need not "...continue with a view that the Pharisees would be quite comfortable with IMHO." In the modern day, the Church has developed a strange allergy to the word "Pharisee". Almost as if they were the devil himself. Not that they weren't children of the devil, of course (John 8:44). But in spite of this, Jesus Himself still said "...The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. Therefore whatever they tell you to observe, that observe and do, but do not do according to their works; for they say, and do not do." (Matthew 23:2).
Jesus legitimised the Pharisees. He hated their hypocrisy. He hated their arrogance, and their vanity. He hated their substitution of their traditions for God's word. But not once did He ever say that if the Pharisees "would be quite comfortable" with a particular interpretation of Scripture, that interpretation should automatically be discarded by the Church. Instead, Jesus says "...whatever they tell you to observe, that observe and do...".
And of course, He goes on to explain what He means by "...but do not do according to their works; for they say, and do not do." It seems somewhat obvious already. Do what they say, not what they do. But He carries on clarifying anyway, and of course I encourage you to read the whole chapter, but to summarise, He criticises them for doing good works to be seen by men, loving their status symbols and the social perks they bring, corrupting their converts to do likewise, taking lofty titles for themselves like "Father" or "Rabbi", and even paying special attention to the less important matters of the law while ignoring the weightier ones, whereas Jesus says they should have kept it all.
Time and time again, whenever Jesus argues with the Jews, be they Pharisee, Sadducee, or some other sect, His problem is never that they hold a particular view of origins, or don't reinterpret Scripture. It's always that they don't believe it. He gets angry when they give it lip service.
Which is exactly what compromisers do. The Bible is, indisputably, a "young" Earth Creationist book. Now again, I reject the term. As far as I'm concerned, 6,000 years is a long time, and it only appears young when you start spouting nonsense about it being 4.5 billion years old, or however old they say it is now (being a false story, it changes frequently). But using the same logic, 4.5 billion is "young" if we compare it to 4,500 trillion. Thus, I reject the term "young" Earth Creationism. You don't get to take priority.
But I'm quite happy to let them keep the term "Old Earth Creationist", because as Biblical Creationists, we do have a weightier precedent. See, not only would the Pharisees have been comfortable with "young" Earth Creationism, they were "young" Earth Creationists! There was nothing else for them to choose from!
Although this compromiser would still call this a "problem", and argue that we should just make up a brand new interpretation for the modern day, the simple fact is the entire Church has been a "young" Earth Creationist organisation for centuries. There was, of course, some dispute. Were the days literally 6 days, or was everything created instantly? But you will literally find more references in ancient Christian writers to Christ being older than 33 when He died than to the Earth being older than 10,000 years at the time they were writing. In book 1 of Against Celsus, for example, Origen wrote "After these statements, Celsus, from a secret desire to cast discredit upon the Mosaic account of creation, which teaches that the world is not yet ten thousand years old, but very much under that..."
As many ancient pagans taught an old Earth, you will search in vain for a Christian who agreed with them. Our forerunners in the faith fought just as vehemently against Old Earth compromise as we do in the modern day. And they recognised the motives, too. They said "...reckoning by the sacred writings, we find that not 6,000 years have yet passed." (Augustine of Hippo, City of God and Christian Doctrine), but the pagans want to cast discredit upon this.
Centuries later, Charles Lyell said the same thing. He wanted to "free the science from Moses" with his "anti-Mosaical conclusions". And it is his version of the old earth that the Church finally started to compromise with. Now, I don't know about you, but if I was faced with two options: Believe a view the Pharisees would be comfortable with, or believe the bare faced lies of an atheistic snake oil salesman, I'm siding with the Pharisees every time. It's not even a contest.
But ultimately, the choice is made so much easier by the simple fact that whatever the atheists say, whatever the Pharisees believed, I am a Christian, and I live in a prosperous age, in which direct access to the Bible is unbelievably easy. And as of yet, there are no laws forbidding me from accessing it. I can sit on a park bench and study the word of the Lord, and find out exactly what He wants me to believe. And if I am diligent enough to pick up that book, it won't take me 8 pages to see what has been plain to my Judeo-Christian brethren for 3,400 years. And because I am an honest, rational, literate human being, I have exactly no motive for betraying my God by reinterpreting the text of Scripture. As a faithful, Biblically educated Christian, my only option is "Young" Earth Creationism. No other view fits the text, and no other view flows from the text, and therefore no other view fits in my heart, and no other view shall flow from my mouth.
But the comrpomiser did say one true thing: In these troubled times, we do need to take a fresh look at the Scriptures. In so doing, we do not need to reinterpret them, but instead repent of every time we have done so.