This was part of a conversation late last night relating to my Ken Ham post. This is the same tired ole straw man which Creationists use to undermine any real conversation on the meaning of the bible. It is circular reasoning – not even spherical, really.
See, that’s a pun, because if you were truly a literalist, then you would have to have a flat earth. Just saying…
Anyway, I ‘believe Genesis’. I would charge that the person above, and Ham himself, actually do not. They instead believe that they think Genesis 1 says. They, of course, ignore Genesis 2 and the other creation accounts in the Old Testament. For them, if you do not believe in their interpretation of Genesis 1, then you are undermining the word of God. It is a straw man because their interpretation has been undermined by linguistic and other scholarly studies as well as real science. You don’t even have to believe in evolution to know that real science has utterly destroyed the idea of a 6000 year old universe/earth – unless, of course, you believe in a God Who lies.
If theological conservatism is that in which one takes the bible seriously, and believe that the meaning of the text hasn’t changed, then I charge that the real ‘biblical creationists’ are those who do not interpret Genesis 1 as Ham does. In all actually, if theological liberalism is that in which one reads their own interpretation into the text, then Ken Ham et al., are actually theological liberals.
And, as the book of Revelation says, all theological liberals are going to burn forever unless Rob Bell lets them out.