Category Archives: Evolution

Noah: A Review and Analysis


Noah – Here is a PDF version of my review for printing, sharing, etc.


This Friday, March 28th, I decided to go see the Noah movie in theaters with a good friend from my church. I had previously read reviews of the script and the analysis that many Christians leaders had given from their perspective. And as I usually do, I respect what they have to say and consider them genuine and trustworthy in their opinions, even when I disagree with their tone or some of their interpretations. But given that many people always prefer that those commenting on a film should watch it themselves, I was not going to leave myself unable to provide respectable input on a film of this magnitude.  I wanted to be able to offer people my own review and therefore decided to attend a showing of the film myself. What follows are some of the important things I took away from the film after seeing it this weekend.

First, before spoilers, I would like to say that I will leave a highlighted note below of where one should stop their reading this review – if they are intending to see the film themselves and would prefer a ‘tabula rasa’ reception of watching the film. That being said, I would like to discuss whether or not Christians should pay for a movie ticket to see this film before it comes out on Red Box for $1.50 on Blu-Ray.

Therefore, after seeing the film, I would recommend that any Christian who cares to offer a respected critique to fellow co-workers and friends should certainly attend the movie soon while people are talking about. But, if you don’t care to involve yourself in those discussions right now, no worries, just wait till you can rent it or don’t worry about seeing it at all. Second, if you feel that any retelling of an Old Testament story – that leaves something out, or even slightly implies something different – is actually evil, demonic, or heresy… you should obviously just stick with the other reviewers for your information and not harm your conscience by seeing Noah for yourself. I mean that with all sincerity, as I understand that some of my fellow brothers and sisters in Christ are not edified by watching a ‘Bible’ movie (made by Hollywood) because of the lack of consistency these movies tend to have with the text of Scripture itself. And to all you other Christians, don’t be so quick to encourage others to harm their conscience about such things!

But, other than those warnings, I would not see it a completely terrible thing to watch the movie yourself at some point in time and consider how an atheist writer and director retold the Noah story from his own perspective of trying to incorporate the Scripture’s explicit material within his own thoughts about the world, man, justice and mercy.

All of us who have read the headlines know that the writer/director, Darren Aronofsky, is an avowed atheist. He has a worldview and agenda that is antithetical to the Bible, the Gospel, and all the goodness of God that Christians uphold as the treasure of their very life and existence. Yet, it always pleases me to say that every atheist is made in the Image of God and has the Law of God written on his heart even though he suppress the truth in unrighteousness. Therefore, no matter how much Aronofsky may have wanted to make an “unbiblical Biblical movie” that was more secular than sacred… he cannot escape the common grace of God or what following the explicit data of Scripture does to his own movie making. Given those facts about Aronofsky, it was guaranteed by God’s rule that this atheist would teach some important truths about mankind and the creation by attempting to retell the story of Noah in this way.

SPOILER ALERT – A this point in the review, all parts of the movie that I can recall are now game for the rest of my analysis. If you plan to see the film and don’t want to know some of these items yet, save this or e-mail it to yourself and read what follows after you see the film.

The Good

Noah depicts the flood events of the Biblical epic as global, just like the Scripture teaches. No matter what some scholars would like to argue about the text and the science of the flood story, the whole earth is destroyed and the explicit language of the Scripture teaches that Noah is the Second Adam, leading humanity into a type and likeness of the new creation that the “Last Adam”, Jesus, is bringing about with his own life, death and resurrection (Romans 5 and 1 Corinthians 15). Any retelling of the flood that takes into account Noah as a son of Adam, in the lineage of Seth (Genesis 5), will always come away teaching that Noah restarted the human race as a new ‘Adam’ figure.

Noah depicts the wickedness of humanity with great faithfulness. There is no doubt that anyone who sees this film will come away thinking that mankind has great evil, or potential of evil, within his own heart. No matter where I might have disagreed with how the story of the flood was retold in Noah, I cannot help but acknowledge that everyone in the film was shown to be a sinner, even Noah, himself. This reminds us and teaches us that Adam’s sin corrupted all of us and that we cannot escape that corruption without the help of God in Jesus Christ through the work of the Holy Spirit.

Noah shows us, on the big screen, some of the massive weight of power and judgment that God showed all of humanity on the day the flood began. God, the Creator, repented of making mankind and decided to wipe them all out, excepting Noah and his family (Read Genesis 6 and following). Seeing the global flood in excellent CGI and artistry was powerful and moving. Men, women, children, and babies were all slaughtered by the One, Holy, Triune God as the flood waters covered the land and washed away the stain that was sinful humanity. Both the mercy (saving Noah) and the justice of God (destroying evil mankind) were displayed to everyone. And since I don’t believe God needs to be defended for His judgment and decisions, it is not as concerning to me that the movie didn’t seek to explicitly ‘preach’ an orthodox view of God’s justice in wiping out humanity. Do I wish it did? Sure, but God still doesn’t need our defense to justify His actions. He is our judge and we are not His.

The movie actually did grapple with the reality that God destroyed all kinds of people, young and old, who may not have been as evil as some other people in their day. Some, like Russell Crowe himself (who starred as Noah in the film), may come away thinking Noah wasn’t a good man or that God wasn’t very merciful… but that is the very point of the flood story! Noah was still a sinner, even though he was a ‘righteous man’ and God executed justice on humanity for all their evils. No Christian should ever try to lessen the weight of God’s judgment when proclaiming the truth of the flood events to non Christians. The flood makes the Gospel of Jesus even better news for people considering why Christians believe that God wiped mankind out in a global flood that renewed the creation and restarted the human race with the lineage of Seth, from which the Christ, Jesus of Nazareth, comes. (Luke 3:23-38) As Christians, we should never be hesitant to help others understand why we call the work of Jesus “good news” or “Gospel.”

The Bad

At this point, I will turn to the negative and unhelpful aspects of Noah.

Noah depicted several things in ways that are not very consistent with a Christian interpretation of Genesis. And while C.S. Lewis might have more heartily commended the film – because he believed Genesis chapters 1 through 11 (until you get to Abraham) were ‘true myth’ – I am reviewing this from the perspective that Moses wrote Genesis in the genres of historical narrative and that any attempt to say that Genesis involves itself with fictional accounts is simply unfounded and inconsistent with the text’s own linguistic structure. You can view my apologetics presentation here online:  Genesis as History

Noah, in its creative license, ended up leaving out some key aspects of the story in Genesis. First (in the Bible), the angelic ‘sons of God’ only came down because they found the ‘daughters of man to be attractive’ (Genesis 6). Noah claims that they came down to help mankind because they felt sorry for them because of how harsh the world was going to be after the Creator kicked Adam and Eve out of the garden. These fallen angels were also not represented correctly, though I certainly enjoyed the ‘rock monster’ effect and how it was incorporated into the story of the film. For those interested in my view, the most helpful understanding of the ‘sons of God’ passage is this: The fallen angels, attracted to women and mankind, left their places of authority and possessed men who had authority, taking for themselves many wives and raising for themselves many children that became ‘giants’ in the land – either by their greatness of power or their actual physical height and strength, or both. From them come all the ancients myths of the ‘men of renowned’ – such as Hercules, Achilles, Dionysius, Perseus, and any other culture that recounts stories of mighty men who were the product of ‘gods’ having sex with beautiful women and producing children. Unfortunately, none of these explicit citations in Genesis are addressed in the pre-flood movie world of Noah.

Noah also left out the fact that God told Noah to bring on the ark more than simply ‘two of each kind’ of animal. God also said, “Take with you seven pairs of all clean animals” (Genesis 7). This was not mentioned, which left a large gap in the explicit narrative of Genesis that addresses clean and unclean animals throughout. Even the presence of an ‘unclean’ snake/dragon in the garden is significant for a proper interpretation of the fall of mankind in Genesis chapter 3. This signifies what Adam was not doing in protecting the garden from the unclean serpent. And while I feel this was a ‘minor’ negative, it is worth noting that Noah clearly reflects the interpretations of an atheist writer who doesn’t care about what Scripture cares about. And I will also admit that you don’t usually have time to get into the clean/unclean pattern in a movie with 2 hours of runtime!

Noah most notably didn’t make clear the explanations that Genesis gives about God revealing himself to Noah and his sons. Throughout the movie, Noah was only given limited information about what God intended to do with him and his family after the flood. It was also not clear to Noah, in the film, as to whether God wanted to save him when the prophecy of the flood was first revealed to Noah in a vision. This is not the picture that Genesis paints when God clearly states (Genesis 6:9) that Noah was a “righteous man”, “blameless in his generation” and that he “walked with God”, just like Enoch did (in Genesis 5). Further, in Genesis chapter 7, Noah is told that he and his family are being saved because God had seen that Noah was a ‘righteous man.’ On the contrary, in the film, Noah enters the ark depressed and despairing of life for his family. He is depicted as believing he and his sons won’t have any more children and that God only really means to save the innocent animals, since all of man (including his kids) are unredeemable. Now, this makes for a very powerful question of “is man worth saving?” Still, it does not reflect well on the Genesis account or on God’s clarity in speaking to his chosen people with trustworthy revelation. I can only hope that those who view the film will refresh their memories of the actually account in Genesis rather than assume that God wasn’t clear about humanity’s future with Noah and his family.

The Worthy

Now, I would like to address some interesting points in the film and why I found some of them worthy of contemplation. These may or may not be significant to the overall story of Noah that Aronofsky is telling, but I found them to be important to dwell on as I watched the film myself.

First, on a fun point of interpretation, in Noah we see an old Methuselah who recounts the prophecies of his father, Enoch, the man who walked with God and was no more, because God took him to be with him at an early age (see Genesis 5). When Noah is telling Methuselah of the coming judgment on man and Methuselah says that Enoch told him the world would be ‘destroyed by fire.’ Noah proceeds to tell him, ‘No, not by fire. But by water.’ Puzzled, Methuselah moves on to help Noah figure things out, but I found this worthy of notice because it is actually a very accurate point of Biblical prophecy. You see, Jude and 2 Peter (two of the Catholic Epistles in the New Testament) explain the end of this current age in which we live. Peter tells us in 2 Peter 3 that the world is being reserved for fire, since God promised never to deluge the world with water again. Peter says that God will eventually bring a final judgment on all people throughout history at the resurrection, with the consummation of the New Heavens and New Earth. Jude, telling of similar judgments, actually refers to an apocryphal account of Enoch, the preacher of righteousness, who foretells of the second coming of Jesus to judge the world. So, Methuselah was right to mention judgment by fire as prophesied by Enoch, his father. He simply did not understand yet that the judgment by fire was not going to happen until the end of the ages, or that the flood was a type of things to come with Jesus. This is an extremely important type and anti-type that flows throughout the Scripture. Impressively enough, an atheist writer picked up on this in his research and creatively incorporated it into the film of Noah.

Noah challenges us to incorporate an interpretive consideration regarding how man’s wickedness actually affected the creation. While Aronofsky is very interested in ecological preservation and what some call ‘tree hugging’ and ‘animal worship’, the Genesis account very clearly states that man was to be the ruling caretaker over all the creation – both plants and animals. Thankfully, I felt while watching the movie that Aronofsky didn’t make as big a deal out of this as I thought he would. This leaves many Christians and viewers the opportunity to consider how they are in fact created to care for others and not abuse the world we live in. Further, Adam was given the task of expanding the garden throughout the world in Genesis chapter 1 and 2 by filling the earth with his children, but when Adam sinned and condemned all his children to working the ground in toil and sweat, man’s abuse of the creation was solidified and eventually man was rightly wiped out by the flood event. Why? For all of man’s sins – against God, other humans and the rest of creation. Aronofsky’s green interpretation might be a turn-off for some Christians, but I found it a helpful reminder to remember God’s calling for man when he created them ‘in His image.’ This still applies to all people today and Christians need to remember this, even when they have to grapple with creation-worshipping atheists.

Noah may actually accomplish one important thing – getting people to read God’s word again and consider what it actually says. Now this may be a novel expectation, but I would encourage all of my readers to read the Genesis account before they go see the movie and after they go see the movie. You should be able to critically analyze the film to find out what was ‘gotten right’ and what was ‘gotten wrong’ by Noah. Studying God’s word and seeking its judgment of us (not our judgment of it) is one of the most important acts of obedience in the Christian life. If we can be moved to learn God’s word better, then our viewing and discussions of Noah will have benefited our lives for the better and not for evil.

One important point of reading Genesis and the rest of the Bible’s commentary on Noah is to notice that some Christians are actually getting frustrated by the portrayal of Noah NOT as a preacher of repentance. Inferred in this position is the interpretation of 1 Peter 3: 18ff that says Noah was the one who preached to the ‘spirits now in prison’ by the Spirit of Christ in him. They claim he called people to repentance before the flood came. But this is actually not what I believe Peter is telling us when he talked about Jesus going “by the Spirit” to proclaim/preach to the spirits of the imprisoned. And while I’m not going to have room here to explain a full account of exegesis, the interpretive key for 1 Peter 3 is the phrase that Jesus was “made alive in the Spirit, in which he went.” I believe this is a reference to Jesus’ resurrection, and that what Jesus does in ‘preaching’ or ‘proclaiming’ to the ‘spirits now in prison’ is actually a declaration that occurred in Christ’s ascension to heaven to sit on the throne of God. This would mean that the ‘spirits’ – be they man or angelic – were being told that the God-man, Jesus, was now ruling over the creation and had done what all men before him could never do – fulfill the covenant that Adam broke, that Noah and his sons couldn’t maintain, that Abraham’s descendants rebelled against… Jesus finally fulfilled the eternal covenant by his perfect life, his death, and his resurrection on behalf of all of us who believe and obey His Gospel.

Christians shouldn’t be upset because Noah isn’t shown walking around calling for people to repent of their sins and be saved and enter the ark. By all accounts in the Bible, Noah never did such a thing, nor was he asked to do it. God judged mankind in an un-revocable way AND THEN he declared to Noah that only he and his family would be saved on the ark with all the animals (follow the flow of Genesis 6 to see it). Interestingly, this was a fundamental aspect of Noah, regardless of interpretive problems by the atheist writer and director.  Noah was shown to have no hope for saving the rest of humanity, even when they wanted to run into the ark while the rain was falling. Noah was even depicted as slaughtering any who attempted to enter the door. Regardless of the likelihood that Noah killed people, it is more consistent with Genesis than those Christians who misinterpret the 1 Peter 3 recounting of Noah and the relationship these events have to Jesus, baptism, and the resurrection. Even more, as my friend pointed out, Noah truly gives us a good consideration as to what psychological effects the flood might have had on Noah. Could Aronofsky have hit the metaphorical head of the nail by taking the entire thrust of Noah’s personal experience shown in the film to explain why he got drunk in his new garden? The entire human race was destroyed before his very eyes and only he and his family were left. If anything, this movie compels us to consider exactly how Noah could have felt, even in the face of the grace of God that saved him.


Noah is a secular film more than it is faithful to Christian interpretation of the flood story. But even with its errors and omissions, I was still able to benefit from viewing the movie on the big screen. I highly recommend that this film be seen with others and not ‘by your lonesome’. You should plan on going out after the movie and discussing your likes and dislikes, where it matched the Genesis and Biblical accounts, along with where the writer used substantial creative license. If you can’t convince yourself to pay the cash to Hollywood, don’t worry, just wait until it comes out for cheap on Red Box or Netflix and watch it then.

I certainly don’t believe we Christians should rely on movies like this to replace our own proclamation of the Gospel to the world. But since the movie has been made and many non-Christians are going to see it, I would highly suggest that you as a Christian be able to respectfully respond to others who have seen it by seeing it for yourself. This will maximize your ability to teach others what the Scriptures actually tell us about Noah and his relationship to Jesus and the Gospel. It will give you more of a hearing with others who don’t agree with you or your worldview.

Lastly, pray for other Christians and any of the opportunities this may give them to have fruitful conversations with other people, both Christians and non-Christians. We live at a turning point in American and Western history, where Christians are marginalized for their faith in Jesus and their belief that Scripture is the revelation of God and our sole guide for life and godliness. The more people can respect our worldview, the less likely they will be able to turn against us when the powers and authorities in high places seek to punish Christians for their lifestyle and worldview.

Reading Genesis as History: Implications for Science and the Age of the Universe

UPDATE: The Conference went great and as many of you might have seen below in the comments, I posted a link to my talk on “Reading Genesis as History”. The entire talk with Q&A are available for your free viewing at the following location. Enjoy!

I will be presenting at this year’s online Apologetics conference. Click on this link and see the schedule for the conference. Thursday’s (April 19th) sessions are free to the public and that is the day I will be presenting – at 8 PM EST. My topic is entitled, “Reading Genesis as History: Implications for Science and the Age of the Universe.” Please do consider attending and check out the other topics that are going to be discussed and make sure you check them out too!

What is your view of the Creation account in Genesis? (Part 3)

The following series of posts are my brief answer to this question. Today I share with you part 3 of my answer:

Part 1
Part 2
Part 3

In conclusion, there are many things that could be said about modern science and what earth geology may or may not tell us about the age of the earth. But one thing is for certain, modern science does not regard Scripture as a reliable historical source of information and thereby neglects to address the many issues of history that the Bible does clearly speak to: 1) the reality that a global flood happened around 4500 years ago that altered the planets geology and ecology in a catastrophic way. 2) Adam and Eve were the first two humans, thus making man’s fossil record is no older than 6,000 years according to the genealogy of the Bible. 3) God created every living creature according to its own kind (the study of Baraminology). This makes the evolutionary claim of a ‘tree’ of common descent – starting from a single celled organism to what we see today – completely untenable. All of this simply means that the modern scientific ‘evidence’ for an old earth has presupposed the wrong starting points and is therefore completely unreliable to tell us the age of the created universe.

Given my argumentation above, I believe that a strong case can be made for a Biblical understanding of the creation of the universe as taking place in six 24-hours days and having occurred roughly 6,000 years ago. I commend this three part series as food for thought as you continue to study the Scriptures and submit yourself to God’s worldview.

This post concludes my three part answer to the question: What is your view of the Creation account in Genesis?

What is your view of the Creation account in Genesis? (Part 2)

The following series of posts are my brief answer to this question. Today I share with you part 2 of my answer:

Part 1
Part 2
Part 3

My first contention, mentioned at the end of Part 1, pertains to human testimony and God’s ultimate revelation of the creation account from Adam to Noah to Abram to Moses. Some theories, such as the framework theory, conclude that the creation account is structured in light of the Sinaitic covenant in which Moses was writing Genesis as a ‘preamble.’ In contrast though, it has been noted by some that the book of Genesis is structured in accordance with the word ‘generation.’ This then could easily imply that writings (before Moses) were in existence as historical record in which Moses was God’s instrument of compilation. Now, I acknowledge that all of these things are theories, but it only makes good sense that God’s people would have actually had records of God’s work before Israel was constituted as a covenant nation at Sinai. With this alternate theory stated, it does not follow that the best theory of the books origin is as a mere ‘preamble’ to the Sinaitic covenant for Israel. This makes a framework theory of Genesis chapter one unnecessary because it was not strictly written as a critic of the ancient-near eastern pagan worship that Israel had seen in Egypt. Further information provided to us in Exodus clearly affirms that Israel maintained their faith in the Creator God as their cries to Him were heard. If Israel did not know of the previous covenants before Sinai, then why is it that the Hebrew midwives feared God? (Exodus 1) Why is it that God remembered his covenant with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob when the people cried out to God in their slavery? (Exodus 2) The only way to explain these things is to conclude that the information in Genesis was readily available to the Israelites well before Moses ever came on the scene. Thus, in conclusion, it does not follow that the framework theory of Genesis chapter one is the primary meaning or purpose of the creation account. Instead, we must consider the evidence that shows the Genesis creation account is a historical record of creation, just as the rest of the book of Genesis is a historical record of the genealogies of God’s people leading up to Joseph in the land of Egypt.

My second contention deals directly with the meaning of the word ‘day’ in the Genesis account. I do acknowledge that the meaning of the Hebrew word for ‘day’ can mean something other than a 24-hour period, but I intend to show that an alternate meaning of the word is not necessary or encouraged by what is written in the Genesis account of creation or the account at Sinai. First, any other scholarly reading of the rest of the book of Genesis lends itself to an understanding that God created each thing, in each day, with respect to the human concepts of ‘morning and evening.’ In other words, no one questions the other occurrences of the words ‘day’, ‘morning’, or ‘evening’ in other places within Genesis. Thus, one does not need to imagine much beyond a normal earth day cycle for the meaning of the word ‘day’ in Genesis chapter one. This is more clearly seen in what follows with chapter two of Genesis – there the seventh day may be viewed as an un-ending day in which God rested from all His labor. This understanding of the seventh day must be contrasted with the six days of creation to understand that they were in fact finite periods of time. ‘Morning’ and ‘evening’ do not occur on the seventh day. So if we cannot then conclude that the days were 24-hour earth days, what were they? Well, as another theory (the Day-Age Theory) often states – with the sun, moon and stars not appearing until the 4th day, we do not know how long the days were since we tell time based on the earths rotation around the sun, etc. But this argument fails to take into account the language of ‘morning’ and ‘evening.’ Not only does it fail to take into account the language of Genesis one, but it also fails to account for the testimony of God at Sinai where He says, in the Ten Commandments, “For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day.” The reason for this statement is not to newly structure the nation of Israel in their work week. Instead, it is to re-affirm the covenant of creation in which man was always to work six 24-hour days and then to rest on the seventh in anticipation of entering God’s un-ending rest once man had completed his work to fill the earth and subdue it. In other words, God created the world in such a way that man would understand how he was to work. This then leads me to my third point of contention.

The testimony of God in creation was given for the purpose of revealing himself primarily through mankind as His image-bearer. This means we must understand that an ‘old earth’ theory decentralized the glory of God in the creation account by opening up our minds to the idea that history went on for thousands of years before the glory of God was displayed in man as the image bearer. Note how the Apostle Paul speaks of these things, “For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God.” (1 Cor. 11:7, emphasis mine) God is not playing some hide and seek game about why and for what purpose He created the universe in six 24-hour days and rested on the seventh. Jesus himself points out that man was not made for the Sabbath, but that the Sabbath was made for man. (Mark 2:27) Thus, once again, we see the anthropocentric nature of the creation account in Genesis chapter one. An old earth makes no sense of God creating mankind as his image bearer. As many scholars know, the context and meaning of ‘images’ in the Ancient near-east would have meant that God did not place an image bearer in his creation for thousands or millions or billions of years! This is tantamount to God saying that He himself was not King of His creation! Are we as Christians really willing to say that about God?

Lastly, I would like to close by arguing my fourth point regarding the nature of the living things that God created. It is clear, from Genesis chapter two, that God created the creatures of the earth, especially man, in physically mature states. It was not as though the ‘chicken came after the egg’ in God’s account of His creation. It only stands to reason then that God would have easily created the universe in a short period of time, but in a physically mature state that could easily have the appearance of age without actually having existed for for more than 6 days.

To be continued… on Monday, Part 3 will be published.

What is your view of the Creation account in Genesis? (Part 1)

The following series of posts are my brief answer to this question:

Part 1
Part 2
Part 3

As far as my history goes on understanding the Genesis creation account, I was raised to believe in a ‘literal’ interpretation of the book of Genesis. This meant that I was taught that the creation days, in Genesis one, were six 24-hour days during which God created the entire universe. Now, it is that view that I have always believed and it is that view that I hold today. But I must note that my traditional understanding of ‘literal’ interpretation has shifted. I am very strongly convinced that we should use the word ‘literal’ to refer to the meaning that the author originally intended. Thus, I do disagree with my upbringing on the idea that a ‘literal’ interpretation always means that we are to accept the words at face value according to how we understand the space-time-matter universe today. A good example of this would be where Scripture talks about the stars falling and the sun and moon during black and not giving light (e.g. – Matt. 24:29, Acts 2:14-21). In places such as these, cosmic catastrophe language is being used ‘apocalyptically’ in order to ‘reveal’ something about a given time period where the order of things are changing and God is judging nations and peoples in righteousness. So, where does that leave us in terms of the questions of Genesis chapter one and its meaning?

I think I can safely say that most scholarly interpreters of Genesis chapter one do not categorize the language as apocalyptic language. But there are several views that do say that the language of Genesis chapter one is different from the rest of the chapters in the book of Genesis. Two of these views are the Framework Theory and the Day-Age Theory. These views will be briefly interacted with in the following paragraphs as I seek to articulate my own view of the Genesis creation account.

To start with, when defending a ‘young earth,’ or ‘young age’ view (as I prefer to say ), one must deal with several issues in order to rightly clarify and establish what the Bible teaches about the creation account – that God took six 24-hour earth days to create the entire universe. Therefore, I would like to defend four basic premises in what follows: 1) Human testimony of God’s act of creation existed before Moses wrote or compiled the information contained in the book of Genesis. 2) The meaning of the word ‘day’ in Genesis one is to be understood in light of the words ‘morning’ and ‘evening.’ 3) The creation account is uniquely anthropocentric and the rest of the Bible acknowledges this as an important key to understanding the purpose of creation with respect to mankind. 4) A physically ‘mature’ creation is the norm for the entire creation account.

To be continued… on Thursday, Part 2 will be published.

Hitchens vs. Wilson: A Collision of Lives

I have to say, I cannot wait for this to come out on DVD! Enjoy the preview, especially the music and the camera work. 🙂

Here is some more information about it:

Christopher Hitchens and Douglas Wilson squared-off in a recent series of debates over atheism. Hitchens is an atheist with an acerbic wit who thinks Christianity to be a blight on society. Douglas Wilson is a Christian who wants to show the reasonableness of the Christian faith. The video above is a trailer for a forthcoming documentary that describes the debates. (HT: Denny Burk)

Battle for the Beginning MP3 Audio by John MacArthur

Brian says:

John MacArthur‘s podcast on recently featured a series of talks entitled: The Battle for the Beginning. Although not reflecting the complete content of his series, this 20 part podcast covers the main material of his view of the Genesis creation narrative. Contrast his young-earth view with William Lane Craig‘s old-earth view (available on his podcast as well) in order to have a firm grasp of both angles. I found both the young-earth view and old-earth views very informative.

This batch will also be added to The Ultimate Apologetics MP3 Audio Page.

Part 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 |

12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20


Free Apologetic MP3 Downloads from Doug Wilson

If you’ve never heard Doug Wilson debate, now is your chance and best of all… it’s FREE! Pastor Wilson is a very important figure in the ongoing debate with the “New Atheism” that has so loudly proclaimed itself as the truth in recent years. Thankfully, Canon Press is now offering several mp3s and a new book where Pastor Wilson has debated these atheists. See the information below for what they are offering. But first, I would like to draw your attention to the free mp3 they are offering on why Doug Wilson would even attempt to debate an atheist. You can download that mp3 from my web site here or listen to it from the player in this post. Enjoy!


Here is the info about the free mp3s:

Apologetics, the Why and the How

“But in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you…” (1 Peter 3:15, ESV)

For most Christians, Peter’s words present a daunting challenge. Unless you’re a pastor, or an evangelist, or someone else similarly gifted and accustomed to preaching the Gospel, giving a defense of your faith tends to be a messy enterprise. Answers rarely come easy. Objections, on the other hand, come like a mighty river, and they’re often difficult to refute and turn aside. And often, Christian apologetics seems to be a futile exercise—we can’t argue anyone into the truth, and sometimes it looks like our efforts only make unbelievers more stubborn in their resistance to the Gospel.

Over the past year-and-a-half, Pastor Wilson has written several books attacking the “New Atheism” movement, but debating atheists is not a newfound hobby for him. Wilson has debated atheists Eddie Tabash and Dan Barker—each of them twice, no less—in the past fifteen years. And in this CRF Lecture, Why Debate an Atheist, he explains what good can come of such debates and why he has taken the time to participate in them. For those who question debates’ worth, or who would simply like to know what they can learn from them, this lecture provides answers.

To celebrate the release of Is Christianity Good for the World?, we’re offering this talk as a free MP3 download. Please visit the item page to download the talk, and please share it with your friends: it is a wonderful introduction to and defense of Christian apologetics, particularly since we face the ongoing attacks of New Atheism.

And speaking of Is Christianity Good for the World?, we have been very pleased with the reception it has received thus far. Not only has it sold well on Amazon and other online retailers, but it is also being featured on front tables in Barnes & Noble stores across the country. (Please feel free to point your friends or your blog links to not only can they see a good-sized picture of the book, but they can choose where they would like to purchase a copy.)

Stephen Colbert hands a monkey plate to Ken Miller

Notice the dichotomy that Miller brings to the forefront by claiming the Bible is a spiritual document and therefore cannot address scientific ideas. This may seem true at first glance, but it is only a bad ploy that many evolutionists use to snuff out the Bible’s claims about the creation account. It is true that the Bible is not a sciencetific document and that the Bible is not trying to give scientific details about the creation. BUT, please note the BUT…

The Bible is an historical document. This is very important for people to understand. If we do not ackowledge that the Bible records accurate historical material about the creation account, then where does that leave us with the rest of the 66 books of the Bible? You don’t have to be a scienctist to record the fact that God made the world in 6 days… I mean, come on people!

On the point of creation/evolution, the Bible has much to say about this in terms of the historical record. Both modern evolution and Biblical creationism are addressing the issue of history and where man came from. Therefore, on that point, the two must either agree or one of the two be proven wrong and thus a lie.

If evolution is true, then man is not made in God’s image. If evolution is true, then we humans are not special creatures made to rule the creation by reflecting God’s glory into it.

Here’s the video:

[HT: Christendom]