I Was the 16-Year-Old Godfather of “Answers in Genesis”


The significance is that they can’t deal with the science, so they try to defame the messenger. They have to know that there are millions of Christians worldwide who accept evolution.[quote=“Mervin_Bitikofer, post:39, topic:37070”]
Added edit: And just for extra measure: Replace the foundation of the “good side” with Jesus Christ so as to remove any implications that it is Genesis, or even worse, certain limited interpretations of Genesis that are counting as “God’s Word”.

I would agree. In all theological debates between Christians that is the foundation they all share, and so it should be pushed more to the forefront.

(Mervin Bitikofer) #42

That is an accurate response to the message; I agree --and share in your response too. They don’t, and would take issue with our dismissal of that worldview. From their point of view, the cartoon makes perfect sense, from foundation all the way up to the “balloonery”.


I don’t disagree with your sentiment, but is it actually true?

Like I said, they have to know that there are millions of Christians who accept evolution. They have to know that Christians who accept evolution have the same view on morality that the Christians at AiG do. They have to know that the cartoon is simply false, and yet they put it forward anyway. You have to wonder if they think they are telling the “good lie”, the lie that will keep people away from science.

(Mervin Bitikofer) #44

It think it’s true that they sincerely think that way.

I’m sure nearly all of said Christians [if they get out much in the world of communication] are aware of Christians who don’t think similarly, but they would probably think in terms of “compromised Christians”. Yes – maybe they are saved, but “only as one escaping through flames” so to speak. In other words: “barely”.
Atrocious theology? Yes. Biblical support? I think not --not when scriptures are read as a whole. Sincerely held to be true by legions of well-meaning believers? Empirically undeniable I would say.

They would say that all these legions of evolution-accepting Christians are Christian despite their acceptance of evolution and have simply followed the misled masses, becoming themselves misled. History does reveal instances where the masses (and experts!) were wrong, so they hearken back to any such precedent to bolster the plausibility. They may suspect they are wrong in the backs of their minds (who among us doesn’t harbor any doubt?). But I think they will not own any charge put toward them of malice or deceit in all this.

(James McKay) #45

And where, pray tell, does the Bible tell us that a Literal Six Day Young Earth Creation is the foundation of our faith?

The foundation of our faith is Christ, not the age of the earth or non-evolution. We’re Christians, after all, not Adam-and-his-pet-dinosaur-ians.

(Jonathan) #46

I would agree with you on that, @jammycakes. However, the Bible being the word of God, it is unwise to dismiss the claims of Genesis, just as it would be unwise to “dismiss” any other portion of scripture. What I fear is that, as soon as one portion of scripture is dismissed, other portions may follow. And once the scriptures are done away with, sorry to say, anything goes.

(Christy Hemphill) #47

It’s my personal pet peeve when people equate interpreting Genesis as something other than a literal blow by blow of recent history with “dismissing” it. Dismissing it is saying, “This is worthless to me, so I don’t need to pay any attention to it.” That’s not what you really think we do, right? Because it’s not what evolutionary creationists do with Genesis at all. All Christians need Genesis 1-11 to inform their doctrines of creation, marriage, sin, salvation, and to understand the preamble to God’s covenant with Abraham. If you look at the articles this site has published and the threads on this forum, a huge percentage of them are dedicated to engaging with Genesis. No one is dismissing Genesis and saying, “Let’s move on to something more relevant and interesting.”

(Jonathan) #48

I see…If you do not interpret it as literal, how do you interpret it?

(Christy Hemphill) #49

As theologically instructive.

(Jonathan) #50

So…You interpret it as a parable of sorts?

(And I know that I have discussed this to death [and back to life again ;)], but the theological issues are what keep giving me pause about BioLogos…Perhaps I should start a new topic?)

(Christy Hemphill) #51

No, parables are their own genre and they are clearly made-up stories that illustrate one didactic point. Genesis 1-2, Job, Noah, Jonah, these are theological narratives. They are stories designed to tell us true things about our reality. Who we are, who God is, what God expects of us, how we are supposed to relate to God and others, what to do when we suffer, how we will be saved from judgment.

By stories I don’t mean, “mere myths” or “mere fiction” or “accounts that aren’t true.” Or anything that can be “dismissed” as not essential or unimportant. I don’t think we need to insist Adam and Eve or Jonah or Job or Noah were not “real people” or that their stories are not histories of some form. But I think the historicity and factuality of the events of their lives is secondary to the deeper truths we are supposed to grab hold of in hearing their stories. Stories are pictures that allow us to grasp things that are ethereal and difficult to express. I think we live in a culture that is obsessed with facts, so we tend to conflate truth with facts, but there are other ways to express truth than with facts. Most wisdom literature from other cultures expresses the deepest truths and philosophy using something other than lists of facts, so it’s not weird that Israel would too.

(Jonathan) #52

Would people still feel the need to interpret Genesis as anything but literal if it were not for evolution? This seems to put science on a level equal to or above the word of God, and if that is so, I am really not comfortable with that…I see your point, though.

(Christy Hemphill) #53

I think it follows from good exegesis. Plenty of OT experts who write commentaries proposed non-literal interpretations with no reference or personal commitment to evolution. The idea that a non-literal interpretation is driven by science not the text itself is a misconception.

(Jonathan) #54

I was just reading the “common questions” page, so I was reading about that literally one second before you posted ;).

(Christy Hemphill) #55

Glad I’m doing a good job towing the party line. :wink:


That’s “toeing the line.” From the Royal Navy’s practice of having sailors stand inspection with their toes (no shoes) on the line between the deck planks.

Carry on.

(Andrew M. Wolfe) #57

Yes, I mean, the problem of Cain’s wife has been around since the very earliest interpreters, right?

(Christy Hemphill) #58

I was wondering where the expression came from as I typed it. “Towing” did not seem to make much sense, but idioms often don’t. But you learn something new every day, thanks. I’m always up for an etymology lesson. :slight_smile:

(Phil) #59

I think people have been interpreting Genesis as something other than literal since it was written, a couple of thousand years before evolution was an idea. You can read Augustine, and while he may have looked at it as based on literal events, the meaning he derived from it was the symbolic nature and metaphor it contained. In fact, is there any meaning you derive from the physical events apart from the deeper spiritual meaning of those verses? is not the real message the revelation of God about his nature, our relationships, his provision of salvation from our sin?

(Jonathan) #60

I’ve learned myriad new things through my participation on this forum, so I echo this sentiment.[quote=“AMWolfe, post:57, topic:37070”]
Yes, I mean, the problem of Cain’s wife has been around since the very earliest interpreters, right?

Adam and Eve had “other sons and daughters” so, logically, Cain would have married his sister. [quote=“Christy, post:58, topic:37070”]
I was wondering where the expression came from as I typed it. “Towing” did not seem to make much sense, but idioms often don’t.

I had the reply box open and everything, but it then occurred to me that I had no idea what that post meant…! So I didn’t post at all. To post, or not to post…That is the question. Lately, I have been haunted by the ghosts of posts that I typed up, but didn’t actually paste onto the forum. Did I already post that? Or did I not? One can only wonder…:wink: