Friday, August 11, 2006


Dear friends,

The article below about Hugh Ross is very disturbing. I will write here a few practical comments before listing the article.

If we look at the creation account in Scripture - as well as the great flood in Noah's time [judgment on rebellious mankind], and we teach our children that these did not happen the way the Word of God says they did, our children will begin to deny the Word of God as being the Word of God. They will also dis-believe many more things in the Bible if we teach them to reject the basics.

We are not against science but on a basic and very practical notE - it would be a good idea for 'scientists' to better consider how God wants little children to understand the basics of the Creation account and the basics of the Biblical flood account. Scientificizing the Creation account to the point of rejecting Biblical truth is what is causing multitudes of 'kids' to simply reject the Bible.

Many kids would rather go along with the evolutionists because they see so many of their parents believing in evolution. Why? Because Pastors have taught it to the parents and the parents pass it on to their children. And...they get the evolution lie and the "Noah's ark is a myth" lie at school too.

If we teach our children things contrary to what God's Word says, or make it so scientific that we ruin our children's simple - childlike faith - than are we not hanging millstones around the necks of our children and ruining their trust in God from page 1,2 and 3 of the Bible?

As a Christian dad, I take the Bible at face value and I teach my kids what the Bible says, not what I want it to say. Furthermore, I understand that Satan wants to destroy all children and their precious faith in Jesus. It seems to me that one of the most devilish things in the world to tell children that the flood didn't happen and that God didn't create the heavens and the earth like the Bible says. Kids these days have enough trouble without parents undermining the Bible from page 1,2 and 3. As I recall it was the devil who challenged God's command and said to Eve, "Has God indeed said...?" (Gen 3:1). If we cannot simply believe the Bible on page 1,2 and 3, then why do we believe the rest of it?

Teaching God's Word to our kids really hits home when the 'scientists' who are Christians are telling us things contrary to the basic text of Scripture. is safer to teach your kids what the Bible says at face value than to try to explain away what it says by fine sounding scientific arguments.




(Friday Church News Notes, August 11, 2006, - The following is an excerpt from...

"A Question of Age," May 4, 2006, Institute for Creation Research:

"Dr. Larry Vardiman of ICR and Dr. Jason Lisle of AiG [Answers in Genesis] shared opinions on and evidence for the age of the earth with Dr. Hugh Ross and Dr. Fazale Rana of Reasons to Believe on April 29, 2006 in Fullerton, California. The tone of the conference was cordial throughout the day, but it was obvious that the primary topic of discussion was to be the reliability of a literal interpretation of the Bible. Ross and Rana stated many times that they 'take the Bible seriously and consistently,' but they believe it should not be read literally. Vardiman charged Ross with approaching the Bible with a preconceived scientific model and trying to fit Scripture into this model. Ross denied this allegation, but the audience had numerous opportunities to observe this approach being applied in his explanations. One of the more disturbing misuses of Scripture by Reasons to Believe was their attempt to deny that the death of animals is a result of sin. Rana argued that animals are not really alive according to the Biblical definition of life. Therefore, there is no difficulty with the multitudes of fossils being formed over millions of years before man was created. Of course all the Biblical genealogies are also considered to be inaccurate. Ross also denied the global Flood described in Genesis and even claimed that a Creation account superior to Genesis 1:1-2:3 can be found in Psalm 104. It is a violation of conventionally accepted rules of hermeneutics to use poetic passages to interpret prior narrative passages. Lisle repeatedly appealed to Ross and Rana that God's Word should be read in the most straightforward, literal manner possible recognizing that there are poetic and allegorical passages which need special consideration. However, the response by Ross and Rana was one of profound disregard for such a simplistic belief in God's revelation. It was evident to many in the audience that the old-earth position, expounded by Ross and Rana, gives little regard to God's Word and is built primarily on the theories of man. IT SEEMS EVIDENT THAT ROSS AND RANA NOT ONLY DO NOT TAKE THE BIBLE LITERALLY BUT, ALTHOUGH THEY CLAIM TO DO SO, THEY ALSO DO NOT TAKE IT SERIOUSLY."