Share 0
A- A A+
Free Email News
The Genesis Account
by Jonathan Sarfati

US $35.00
View Item
Refuting Compromise, updated & expanded
by Dr Jonathan Sarfati

US $10.00
View Item
Six Days ... Really?

US $10.00
View Item
Genetic Entropy
by Dr John Sanford

US $25.00
View Item
World Winding Down
by Carl Wieland

US $10.00
View Item

Stumped by biblical creation

BioLogos takes a cheap shot at biblical creation … and misses


Published: 24 November 2015 (GMT+10)
Jim Stump

BioLogos, an organization CMI has refuted in the past, recently came out with an attack on biblical creation through the blog of Jim Stump, their senior editor.1 In his article, Stump lists what he claims are 10 ‘common misconceptions’ about evolution. Far from clearing much of anything up, however, Stump’s comments manage to muddy the waters significantly on a range of topics, and display the fact that he is not very well informed on what biblical creationists believe. The most important and foundational of these topics is the authority of Scripture, which Stump claims to uphold while simultaneously championing completely unbiblical views. Unfortunately, it’s always easier and faster to sling mud than it is to clean it up!

Bad hermeneutics, bad theology

On the topic of biblical interpretation (‘misconception’ #9), Stump makes an honest admission: a plain reading of Exodus 20:11 shows that God created in six literal days. In attempting to justify ignoring that plain and obvious reading, Stump displays a shocking lack of understanding of the discipline of hermeneutics (interpretation), as well as basic Christian doctrine concerning the Law of Moses. He lists 1 Samuel 2:8, Deuteronomy 21:21, John 15:5, and Romans 16:16 as examples to supposedly show that we cannot rely on a plain reading of scripture, since doing so in these places would, by implication, be absurd. This argumentation is, to be frank, infantile, and totally unbefitting of someone who has a Ph.D. in philosophy. It is also a typically dishonest straw man: that creationists are blind literalists, despite our clear statements to the contrary. Stump would also do well to see what classical exegetes like Augustine and Tyndale meant by ‘literal interpretation’.

For Scripture to be of any use to us at all, we must base our reading of it on one foundational principle: words have meaning in a given context. All words represent communication between individuals, and for communication to be possible, both sides must have a common understanding of the meanings of the words being used. Thus, the goal of interpreting any text, including the Bible, must be this: to determine the intended meaning of the original author. To do that, we cannot take a ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach; to discover the meaning of any particular passage, we must look at the definitions of the words being used, as well as their context and the literary style being employed. Not every passage in the bible is literal, but by the same token, not every passage is metaphorical. Merely pointing to some other verses that are not literal does nothing to prove Stump’s point about Genesis 1/Exodus 20:11. What do any of these verses have to do with the issue at hand? Stump also doesn’t address the evidence that Genesis is a historical narrative, and that the other Bible authors and Jesus interpreted it that way.

1 Samuel 2:8, a verse often cited by skeptics to attack the Bible, does not teach that the earth is suspended on pillars. An examination of the context shows that this passage is talking about people, not inanimate objects, and thus metaphorical language is clearly being used.

When it comes to Deuteronomy 21:21, Stump misses the point by confusing the meaning of a command with its applicability today. Various Christian denominations have different views of the latter. But most agree that since we are not signatories to the Sinaitic Covenant, the civil penalties don’t apply today. Similarly, most would agree that Christians are not bound by the Mosaic food (kosher) laws today. See Is eating shellfish still an abomination? and Are we allowed to eat all animals today?

John 15:5 begins, “I am the vine … ” Not much needs to be said here. Jesus often spoke in figures of speech. Taking that verse literally is not even possible, so we have no record of anyone thinking that He had stems and leaves. Therefore by process of elimination (and common sense) we can see it was a metaphor. Jesus also spoke in parables, but they were intentionally designed to hide the truth from the unbelieving masses, while He spoke plainly to His disciples. See discussion in Biblical creation impedes evangelism?

Romans 16:16 asks believers to greet one another with a ‘holy kiss’. It’s true that most churches don’t abide by this, at least in my country. But why? Is it because Paul was being non-literal here? I see nothing in the context to suggest this was supposed to be poetic language. Paul wrote a lot of letters to people in the churches. Among those letters, there is much heavy doctrinal teaching, but there are also some side comments of a personal, non-doctrinal nature, like “bring me my cloak” (2 Timothy 4:13). I’d say most if not all interpreters would consider this statement about kissing to be in that latter category. In Paul’s time and place, kissing people as a greeting was a normal and acceptable thing to do, just as it remains to this day in parts of Europe—Paul wasn’t asking people to rebel against their cultural norms about personal space. For many modern-day Christians, a suitable equivalent would be a pat on the back or a handshake. That is, Paul was expressing the trans-cultural principle of greeting each other warmly with the cultural application of his day.

After providing this list, Stump continues:

The ‘plain reading’ of Scripture leads to picking and choosing which verses we like and which we ignore. That is not a responsible way to read the Bible.

Actually, what’s irresponsible is to list a bunch of unrelated scriptures without regard to context to try to confuse the reader about the nature of biblical interpretation. The only responsible way to read the Bible is to attempt to determine what the authors actually meant, and nowhere in his article does Stump even attempt to show any contextual reason why Exodus 20:11 doesn’t mean what it plainly says. That’s obviously because there is no textual reason to disallow a plain reading there—Stump is going with an unnatural reading so as to make it fit with his outside commitment to prevailing human opinion (evolution and long ages).

Career compromises

Another of Stump’s ‘misconceptions’ is #10: Christian scholars accept the Evolutionary Creation position out of the desire for professional advancement. He says, “I’d be interested in seeing any actual data that supports this claim. I can produce a lot of data that refutes it.” Disappointingly, he doesn’t provide any of the data he claims to have. In reality, the fact that Christian scholars buckle to peer pressure in the academic realm seems hardly controversial or worth debating. The academic realm is overwhelmingly hostile to biblical (young earth) creationism, as documented in the documentary Expelled and the book Slaughter of the Dissidents. Therefore, for a Christian, retreating to so-called Evolutionary Creation is the only way to avoid completely renouncing the faith, and it provides the consolation of the illusion of compatibility with God’s Word while allowing a person to pay lip service to Darwinism; Darwin himself would have looked on such ‘Evolutionary Creationism’ with disdain. He wrote, “I would give absolutely nothing for the theory of Natural Selection, if it requires miraculous additions at any one stage of descent.”2

Stump also laments about being forced to resign from Bethel College, affiliated with the Missionary Church denomination.3 In reality, Bethel decided on the radical idea that since it is funded by the Missionary Church, its teachers should not undermine the Missionary Church’s Articles of Faith and Practice. This includes overt biblical teaching, “We believe that the first man, Adam, was created by an immediate act of God and not by a process of evolution.” However, BioLogos resents that Missionary Church might object to paying professors who undermine its doctrines.4 There’s nothing like the sound of checkbooks snapping shut to bring colleges into line! The same thing belatedly happened with another BioLogos luminary, Karl Giberson, who taught at the ostensibly evangelical Eastern Nazarene College (ENC) for many years.

Neither of these is remotely comparable to the hounding of evolution dissenters from public universities. The denominational colleges are largely funded by their churches, so the churches have the right to set standards. Similarly, we would not object if a Christian were fired from an officially Islamic or Atheistic college for undermining the faith teachings of Islam or Atheism. However, public universities are funded ultimately by taxpayers of all faiths—e.g. Christian, Islamic, Judaic, Buddhist, Atheistic—so have no moral right to exclude dissenters from atheistic evolution.

Stump continues:

I don’t know anyone who has accepted Evolutionary Creation for reasons other than being persuaded by the evidence.

This may well be true in Stump’s personal experience, but I’d ask what ‘evidence’ Stump is referring to here. In reality, Christians are being battered by a constant onslaught of propaganda from every direction claiming the ‘evidence’ is powerfully in support of Darwinism, starting from the youngest ages and going through adulthood. But the truth is quite different, and what Stump fails to acknowledge is that evidence never speaks for itself; it must be interpreted from within a worldview. The question is, which worldview makes the most sense, both internally and with respect to the world around us? A Christian worldview, starting with the foundation of a strong commitment to the authority of Scripture, is internally consistent and it also fits the data we see around us. The same cannot be said for evolution, which is constantly being rewritten and revised to accommodate new data which don’t fit the original predictions. If the scientific community would allow the evidence to falsify their theory, evolution would have been thrown out long ago.

Equivocating on ‘science’

#7 Evolution is merely ‘Historical Science’ and therefore can’t be tested or confirmed.

… lots of ink has been spilled attempting to give a precise definition of what it is to be science … And there is no one sanctioning body who has the authority to determine what counts as real science and what doesn’t.
stockxchng boiling-water

This is utter misdirection at its worst. As usual for evolution-pushers, Stump tries to deny the clear distinction between operational science and historical science—which was affirmed by leading evolutionists Ernst Mayr and E.O. Wilson. It has nothing to do with ‘sanctioning bodies’, and everything to do with the scientific method. The Oxford dictionary defines science as,

The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.5 [emphasis added]

Observation and experimentation are key components of the scientific method, and this is the demarcation between operational science and historical science. Operational science is objective; you can directly test the boiling point of water, for example. But how would you test how long ago a particular pot of water was boiled? That would be historical science, because it deals with events in the past. You could record the temperature and the rate at which the water is currently cooling, but you would still need to rely on untestable assumptions, such as that after the pot was boiled it wasn’t further tampered with in any way, and that the surrounding air temperature hasn’t drastically changed. What untestable assumptions we’re willing to make will be hugely influenced by our overall worldview, and this means the creation scientists and evolutionists are working on drastically different sets of assumptions about the past. No wonder they come to different conclusions!

Genetics: no friend of Darwin

The new science of genetics shows even more clearly how the theory of evolution is tested and confirmed.

Stump makes the above sweeping statement while providing no factual support for it. It’s hard to imagine how he could have picked a worse topic to bring up, because genetics is actually one of the best places to look for factual disproof of evolution. The pioneering work of Dr John Sanford and Dr Robert Carter on genetic entropy has put the last nails in the coffin of a dying theory.6

In ‘misconception’ #4, Stump links to a YouTube video by a popular internet apologist for Darwinism in an attempt to show that unguided natural processes can produce new information. The video gives the standard evolutionary just-so story that gene duplication is capable of adding new functional information. In addition to having been addressed on our site (in multiple places), Dr Sanford specifically devotes time to refuting this idea in Appendix 4 of his book.7

Sawing off the branch they sit on

Something else is deeply troubling about Stump’s (false) claim that information can be added by unguided natural processes: I thought Biologos was supporting so-called ‘evolutionary creation’ or theistic evolution (God guided and directed evolution’s course); but by saying life can evolve on its own with no input from God at all, doesn’t that leave God completely out of a job when it comes to the creation of life? Why call it ‘evolutionary creation’ at all, when Stump doesn’t see any need for God’s creative input to add new information? (See also #3 below, where he apparently feels the heat energy from the sun alone is enough to account for the existence and complexity of life!)

To support our point, that internet evolutionist he cited once claimed to be a Christian, but now declares himself an atheist (cf. “I don’t believe!!!”: A young man’s tragic slide into darkness started with trying to make the Bible fit with evolution.) Nothing has changed in his videos, showing that there is not the slightest practical difference between atheistic and theistic evolution. Compare The horse and the tractor.

I cannot see how Stump’s comments are even consistent with BioLogos’ own list of beliefs, because they specifically reject the idea that God is not needed to guide and direct the process of creation.8 Shouldn’t he be saying that God is the source of the new information evolution needs to proceed, and God intervenes to counteract entropy?

Does matter spontaneously get more ordered and complex?

‘Misconception’ #3: The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics disproves evolution

We’ve shown in the past that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics (entropy) is a major problem for evolution, at least when it comes to the origin of the universe and life.9 We have also urged some caution about 2nd Law arguments. Here, Stump repeats the old canard that the 2nd Law only applies to “closed systems in which there is no external source of energy”, and since Earth is an open system, it doesn’t prevent random biological evolution.

However, it’s typical of many evolutionists that they begin lecturing on thermodynamics without even a rudimentary understanding of physical chemistry. A closed system is actually one that exchanges energy but not matter; an isolated system exchanges neither energy nor matter. An open system exchanges both matter and energy. So Stump’s argument, such as it is, should be expressed as: ‘the earth is not an isolated system but a closed system’ (actually it is indeed open because there is some matter coming in from the solar wind and meteoroids, but Stump considered only energy).

The heat energy from the sun is simply not a sufficient cause for the ordered complexity we see in life! Raw, undirected energy such as what we get from the sun only acts to hasten the disorder in a system. It by no means is capable of causing life to generate spontaneously from inanimate matter.10 Not only this, but it misses the bigger picture. While Earth is an open system, the universe as a whole, by definition, is an isolated system. Yet, according to the evolutionary scenario, the universe itself must have become vastly more ordered and complex. Absent any outside supernatural intervention, that certainly represents a contradiction of the 2nd Law.11 However, I must again stress how strange it is for BioLogos to be making this statement in the first place, since they claim to believe in divine intervention in history, including in the creation and sustenance of life. If you allow divine intervention, then the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics becomes irrelevant here, since God can intervene to act against the natural tendency to disorder. It looks like Stump is so eager to agree with secularists that he doesn’t understand he’s actually shooting down his own organization’s stance by appealing to atheistic, materialistic arguments!

Old news

‘Misconception’ #2, If we evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys around? is a genuine one that we also work to dispel in our section on bad arguments. #1, Evolution claims that we evolved from monkeys, is also addressed in the same place. It’s just mincing words unnecessarily. Any average person would probably call the alleged common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees a ‘monkey’ in popular speech.

‘Misconception’ #8, Evolution is man’s word, Creationism is God’s word

Stump starts this section with an appeasement of politically correct feminism:

First, it should be noted that there are lots of women working on evolution too.

There are a number of women working in creation as well, but did he seriously think that term meant anything other than the generic ‘man’, created both male and female in God’s image (Genesis 1:26–27)? Maybe he should look at his own evolutionary antecedents for their widespread belief in female inferiority, contrary to the high view of women expressed in the Bible from Genesis on.

Of course, the point of that ‘misconception’ is that creation is a logical deduction from the propositions in God’s written word, the Bible. We can’t derive evolution or even billions of years from the propositions of Scripture, so they must come from man’s opinions.

Final Thoughts

Overall, Jim Stump has created an article that is full of misdirection and misinformation. It’s a pity he didn’t spend time doing more in-depth research before writing this—perhaps he could have even checked to see what real creation sites like ours actually teach! It’s very disappointing to see that people are being confused and drawn into deception by this kind of pseudo-scientific writing. For those who might be tempted to accuse me of being too hard on Stump and BioLogos, I will conclude with a quote from a very early modern creationist, Dudley Joseph Whitney:

As to my being uncharitable for condemning Christians for promoting unscriptural doctrine, I need only quote from Isaiah 58:1 “Cry Aloud, spare not, and shew my people their sins.” I obey that charge. It is absurd to try to combine piety and theological orthodoxy with disbelief in Genesis.12

Related Articles

Further Reading

References and notes

  1. Stump, J., 10 Misconceptions about Evolution,, 28 September 2015. Return to text
  2. Darwin, F., ed. The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin Vol. II, John Murray, London, p. 211, 1887. Return to text
  3. Gledhill, R., Professor at Christian college resigns after it insists on anti-evolution statement,, 13 July 2015. Return to text
  4. Actually, according to Gledhill, Ref. 3, Stump doesn’t disagree with this point: “Dr Stump says he respects the right of Bethel trustees to determine policies for the college and recognises the new policy ‘reflects the will of the broader community of which Bethel is part.’” Return to text
  5. Definition of science from, accessed 11 November 2015. Return to text
  6. See Sanford, J., Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome, FMS Publications, Waterloo, 2008; and Carter, R., Ed., Evolution’s Achilles’ Heels, Creation Book Publishers, Powder Springs, Ch. 2, 2014. Return to text
  7. Sanford, J., Ref. 6, Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome, FMS Publications, Waterloo, pp. 193–198, 2008. Return to text
  8. About BioLogos,, accessed 12 November 2015. Return to text
  9. Wieland, C., World Winding Down, Creation Book Publishers, Powder Springs, 2012. Return to text
  10. Ibid. Ref. 9, pp.75–88. Return to text
  11. Ibid. Ref. 9, p. 89. Return to text
  12. Quoted in Morris, H., History of Modern Creationism, Master Book Publishers, San Diego, pp. 104-105, 1984. Return to text

Give $5 for 5. Although this article may have only taken 5 minutes to read, it could have taken over 5 hours to write. Consider a $5 donation to support our ministry efforts. Support this site

Comments closed
Article closed for commenting.
Only available for 14 days from appearance on front page.
Readers’ comments
Cowboy Bob S., United States, 28 November 2015

This is an excellent article, and shows the inconsistencies of Stump's poorly-thought out position. You probably know the old expression, "Be sure brain is engaged before putting mouth in gear". In this case, Stump appears to have left his brain in neutral several times while continuing to type.

Theistic evolutionists are like cultists and atheists, being antagonistic to the authority of the Word and finding ways to twist its plain meaning. They don't do their homework.

I appreciate how Mr. Price showed some of the logical fallacies that Stump employed, which are common among TEs. In addition to ad hominem attacks, circular reasoning and the ever-present straw man arguments, they make many assertions without giving substantiation. Instead, they manipulate people's emotions, a fact that has been clearly demonstrated many times. Mr. Price also did their homework for them — if they will bother to click the links and read the information. Many prefer prejudicial conjecture (Prov. 18:2).

Indeed, there are some owlhoots who will claim to uphold the Bible, but act in an extremely unchristian manner toward those of us who believe Scripture from the first verse. There are TEs and OECs who claim that biblical creation is a stumbling block to people who want to have faith in Christ, and it's their job to remove that stumbling block. Sounds noble, but it's the opposite of the truth! (One TE claims that the reason he hides his identity is because he publicly humiliated his former co-believers in biblical creation, so he's in fear of his life! Atheists believe his claims without evidence, but flock to attack CMI and others for practically every typo and slip-up of phrasing.)

I'm scheduling this to post on my social media, thanks for the important information.

Guy G., United States, 27 November 2015

It is curious just how much traction theistic evolution (TE) is getting these days, thanks to it's inroads into many Christian colleges. I'm to a point where I fear they preach a different gospel. While they claim to believe the same Jesus, their concept of sin, because of their abuse of Genesis 1--11, is so foreign to orthodoxy it renders salvation as something that's "nice" but not critical for us. I'm reminded of the lie that Pharaoh voiced in the movie the "Ten Commandments"...."...dying is just part of living..." No, it isn't. It's the curse that Jesus saves us from. Death wasn't part of God's plan for us. If you don't believe you're as bad as the Bible says you are, you don't [see your] need [for] Jesus.

Paul Price responds

I agree with you for the most part (see I would add only one caveat: many theistic evolutionists do not carry their views to their logical conclusion, but instead take an inconsistent stance; they understand and uphold the Gospel, but they buckle to the external pressure and feel the need to try to merge the Bible with uniformitarian, Darwinian views, without noticing (or while trying not to notice) the contradiction it creates there. We at CMI do not teach that you cannot be saved if you believe in evolution.

Franklin M., Malaysia, 26 November 2015

I am very thankful always for's very considered and thoughtful responses to objections. I appreciate the spirit of apologetics as per the charter of 1 Pet 3:15. God bless you and the ministry. May His name and His gospel be highly honored through all of you.

John Reed, United States, 25 November 2015

Good critique. However, I would encourage the author to rethink the ‘operation science/origin (historical) science’ distinction because that scheme was the inadequate response to secular positivism by Geisler, Thaxton et al., and Geisler and Anderson in the 1980s. For an option more closely aligned to the biblical worldview, see Reed and Klevberg, Creation Research Society Quarterly 50(4):237 and 51(1):39. Also, an in-depth examination of Carol Cleland's attempts to justify historical science (also by Reed and Klevberg) has been submitted to the CRSQ.

Jonathan Sarfati responds

Glad you liked the critique. Nevertheless, we at CMI still think this distinction is both cogent and easy to understand. E.g. I have explained why this distinction is reasonable in Naturalism, Origins, and Operational Science:

To explain further: the laws that govern the operation of a computer are not those that made the computer in the first place. Lerner’s anti-creationist propaganda is like saying that if we concede that a computer had an intelligent designer, then we might not analyse a computer’s workings in terms of natural laws of electron motion through semiconductors, and might think there are little intelligent beings pushing electrons around instead. Similarly, believing that the genetic code was originally designed does not preclude us from believing that it works entirely by the laws of chemistry involving DNA, RNA, proteins, etc. Conversely, the fact that the coding machinery works according to reproducible laws of chemistry does not prove that the laws of chemistry were sufficient to build such a system from a primordial soup.

Lita Cosner explains:

Does God recognize this distinction between operations and origins science? In one sense, all truth is God’s truth, so there’s no distinction at the level of correspondence with reality between historical truth and scientific truth. Nevertheless, even God recognizes the difference between natural regularity (which operations science investigates) and history (which origins science investigates). God testifies about certain unrepeatable events in the past (e.g. Exodus 20:2, 11). Neither can we know God apart from historical revelation—His acts in history (including his authorship of the Bible) accurately reflect His eternal and unchangeable nature sufficiently for us to know Him. Moreover, God can’t judge us without appealing to history—all our relevant acts will be past events from the perspective of Judgment Day. But neither can we act as we do apart from God sustaining the universe in a way amenable to operations science investigation (e.g. Genesis 8:22, Colossians 1:17). Both science and history are investigations in time—they are temporal activities that operate with respect to this creation. God genuinely interacts with us, and grounds us, in time (both immediately in miracles and witness, and mediately in ordinary providence), though He in himself is not subject to time. Therefore, He comprehends and validates the conceptual distinction between history and science essentially as we’ve made it on the website even if He is not definable by them in himself.

Don Batten refutes an objection raised by both atheist Bill Nye, who plays a science guy on TV, and old-earth compromiser Hugh Ross (it’s interesting how both raise the same tired old attacks against biblical (‘young earth’) creation, including the canard of hyper-evolution after the Flood):

One might object that looking through a telescope to view a star that is a thousand light-years away involves observing the past, because you are observing the star as it was a thousand years ago. However, the observations are of the light rays entering the telescope at that moment. What those observations might tell you about that star 1,000 years ago are inferences, however reasonable. And it is not possible to do an experiment, which requires repeated observations of causes and their effects.

But you are right that old-earth creationists first explained the difference in detail, so it’s hardly just an invention of biblical creationists as many of our critics asset. Indeed, famous evolutionists Ernst Mayr and E.O. Wilson likewise defended the distinction.

Michael J., Canada, 24 November 2015

All Stump does is play word games and blow obfuscating fog around, e.g. he can't deal with Exodus 20:11 and so he goes into tap dance mode.

Daniel P., United States, 24 November 2015

...and if secularism is not the same as a secular approach, then Stump's comment that...

"The fact that there aren't any non-Christian scientists who defend a young earth position should raise questions about what is driving [the] scientific conclusions [that are made by the YEC position]."

...should be applied as well to the fact that there aren't any secularists who defend the veracity of the Bible in any case, such as the Gospels. But Stump wants to have his cake and eat it too. If If I were a secularist, I would rightly see his claims as anything but a secular approach the Bible. But since I'm a YEC kind of Christian, I see his claims as amounting to the worst of both worlds.

Daniel P., United States, 24 November 2015

Paul Price responds: 'Stump's comment there is very revealing about his true source of authority.'

I myself assume that a long-ages position very easily is the initial position of anyone who does not actually study the evidence on its own terms to begin with.

In any case, few secular-ish scientists can be neutral on the evidence, because (1) a mind that takes a genuinely secular approach cannot, by definition of that approach, keep that approach for long, and (2) secularism is by no means a secular approach. Stump seems willing to assume that they are: he takes the body of 'secular' testimony on the evidence as essentially the *product* of an ideologically neutral position on the evidence. He assumes that we should take his own position to that effect. And yet I think he would admit, if pressed expressly thereto, that there is no case to be made to that effect.

Daniel P., United States, 24 November 2015

In Stump's blog post comments section, Stump says, "The fact that there aren't any non-Christian scientists who defend a young earth position should raise questions about what is driving [the] scientific conclusions [that are made by the YEC position]."

Stump here assumes quite a lot of things. And the fact is that many of those things are far from being the simple things that he is willing to assume them to be. One can conceive any actual set of complex things in some overly simplistic way. And one can mistake that conception as that actual set. People make such mistakes all the time.

Paul Price responds

Stump's comment there is very revealing about his true source of authority. One wonders, would Stump change his interpretation of the Bible if unbelieving scientists would start supporting a young-earth position? Obviously the answer is yes; to use his own words, Stump's comment should raise questions about what is driving the theological conclusions that are being made! Let God be true and every man a liar (Romans 3:4). Let's strive to first see what God said, and if human opinion contradicts that, we better believe God over man every time!

Dean R., Australia, 24 November 2015

So maybe sin doesn't mean sin and death doesn't mean death and day doesn't mean day etc etc. God is not a God of confusion & how many times has the evolutionary narrative & 'facts' changed & supposed evidences returned to the dust to sit in silence.

I appreciate that it takes time to grasp various literary concepts but even so, time and again God wanted His people to know He created the heavens and the earth in 6 days and rested on the Sabbath.

So what would be the interpretation on Gen 9-11 for people like Tim Kellar & Jim Stump? Would they hold to a world wide flood (40 days & nights of rain) and babel(altered language) or is there a mysterious non-literal message in there also? Even though Jesus & Peter see it as historical and consequential?

Paul Price responds

BioLogos does not take the worldwide flood of Noah literally, either. They believe it refers to a local flood, a ridiculous idea we've refuted in many places, e.g.:

R. R., United States, 24 November 2015

"For those who might be tempted to accuse me of being too hard on Stump and BioLogos [...]"

No. You did right. If anything, those that take the issue lightly and try to address everything by being 'nice' and charismatic, instead of truthful and without hesitation, should themselves feel they're not doing enough.

A lot of people consider Paul to be bold when he called Peter a hypocrite in front of all the Jews for his double-standard, yet they turn around and are quick to say how "unloving" a Christian is for doing the same today and for objectively pointing out the obvious like this.

No. Rather, we should be more than happy and willing to point out to those feel-nice Christians about the double-standard they're using and move on. We have a war to win, not a popularity contest.

That being said, it's not like anyone is trying to be gratuitously offensive. However, last time I checked, Jesus' Word was offensive to many from the beginning and He did not back down. Why should we? How do they like their 'WWJD?' now? ;)

Comments closed
Article closed for commenting.
Only available for 14 days from appearance on front page.
Copied to clipboard
Product added to cart.
Click store to checkout.
In your shopping cart

Remove All Products in Cart
Go to store and Checkout
Go to store
Total price does not include shipping costs. Prices subject to change in accordance with your country’s store.