Rev. David Rives: Jesus Was a Creationist

Today’s news void was starting to bother us, but suddenly the Drool-o-tron™ went into action, alerting us with its blaring sirens and flashing lights. The blinking letters of its wall display said WorldNetDaily (WND). As expected, our computer was locked onto WND’s presentation of the latest video by the brilliant and articulate leader of David Rives Ministries.

WND’s headline is Jesus defends biblical creation account. We always assumed that to be the case, but it’s good to have confirmation from the rev and WND.

So we clicked on the video — as we know you will. The actual title for it is Jesus defends biblical creation. The rev is waging a full assault on theistic evolution, which he says is “compromised creation.” That’s bad! It’s gotta be full-blown creationism, all the way.

For backup he refers not only to Jesus (who said something about Moses), but also to the “scores of scientists” he interviews each week, and he flashes images of Danny Faulkner and Georgia Purdom from AIG, and Jason Lisle from ICR. It’s an all-star lineup! When the rev is done, you won’t want any of that yucky evolution stuff!

The rev is wearing his bible-boy suit. He’s never looked or sounded more authoritative! It’s the usual 90-second presentation, followed by a commercial. Go ahead, click on the video and take a look. He’s so gosh darned cute you just can’t resist.

As we always do with the rev’s videos, we dedicate the comments section for your use as an Intellectual Free Fire Zone. You know the rules. Okay, the comments are open. Go for it!

Copyright © 2014. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

39 responses to “Rev. David Rives: Jesus Was a Creationist

  1. Not only does the Rev dismiss science but also dismisses biblical scholarship. The preponderant thought is that Genesis and other books attributed to Moses had several authors – of course this is the work of those liberal scholars. Rives even appropriates on of Hambo’s favorite words – compromised. Hambo has his compromised Christians and now the Rev has his compromised creationists.

  2. Jesus was a creationist? Ok so what? He can believe what he wishes, just as I know that the buyBull jesus is a complete myth. So I care about jesus about as much as I care about Frodo.

  3. OK, revvie, but what would Ganesh say?

  4. You’re right! The rev has never looked or sounded more authoritative than he does in this informative video! A drooling bible-boy in a pretty suit blathering nonsense, as usual.

  5. What? Character in Bible story supports Bible story?!?
    This just in: God rumored to be theist!!!

  6. In Jesus’ day you could be a creationist and not be anti-science. Today you can’t (though there are degrees of being anti-science – YECs being the most anti-science kind of creationist).

  7. @Ashley Haworth-roberts
    Don’t forget the geocentrist creationists!

  8. I have to ask, before I make a comment. Is Intellectual Free Fire Zone an (Intellectual Free) Fire Zone or an (Intellectual Free Fire) Zone or an Intellectual (Free Fire Zone)?

    Just asking for a friend.

  9. Rikki_Tikki_Taalik

    As a recently converted “four-alarm burning in the bosom” Mormon I should mention that Joey “Magic Rocks” Smith defended the Genesis account of creation as well.

    Suck it, secular atheistic humanist materialists.

  10. You should know by now, Tundra Boy, that I make up the rules as we go along.

  11. The Curm: ” I make up the rules as we go along.”

    That’s exactly why I’m asking. Er, my friend is asking.

  12. Who cleans up the Drool-o-tron when it visits WND? It must be one helluva smelly mess.

  13. Rikki_Tikki_Taalik: Suck it!.

    Isn’t that the title of a Devo song?

  14. Tundra Boy asks: “Who cleans up the Drool-o-tron when it visits WND?”

    It doesn’t drool, you dolt! It detects drool.

  15. Oh, my mistake.
    So what was it I slipped on when I came in?

  16. So what if Jesus was a “creationist”? Darwin wouldn’t be born for another 1,700 years (roughly–we know his birthdate, but not the actual date of Jesus’ birth or death.)

    Jesus probably believed the sun revolved around the earth, too. So did everybody else in the first century. That didn’t make it true.

  17. Eric Lipps: “So what if Jesus was a “creationist”? ”

    When everyone is a creationist, being a creationist means nothing.

  18. Tundra Boy asks: “So what was it I slipped on when I came in?”

    Your catheter is loose.

  19. The Curmudgeon: “Your catheter is loose.”

    Sometimes duct tape just isn’t enough.

  20. The thing I always come back to is that liars like Rives don’t merely lie about the science. They lie about the scriptures they proclaim as unerring, too. Jesus said that Moses wrote of him. He didn’t say that Moses wrote Genesis. He didn’t say, anywhere, that the account of creation given in Genesis was historical fact.

    They also lie by implication: “SOME Christians” accept evolution, indeed. It’s not news to Rives that practically all Christians except some members of a few late and schismatic sects accept evolution. He knows that much. He says it that way so as to make it sound less. It’s a lie by partial occlusion, but it’s still a lie.

    There are no “scientific discoveries” that contradict evolution. None. Not a one. Nada. Nothing. Vacuum. To say that there are is another lie.

    I think the carpenter’s son from Galilee was indeed a creationist – everyone was, then. But none of his recorded words – if they are his words – say that much, and it’s a flat straightforward lie to say they do.

    But he did say a few things about lies and liars. Take a look at John 8:44. Guess who Jesus said was Rives’s daddy?

    Not that I believe that, either. Rives is just another shill who tells lies for a living. There’s a muckload of them about.

  21. Been waiting for an IFFZ to post this:

    GOP Columnist: The VERY Bad News FOR THE GOP in the GOP’s Midterm Victory.

    My question: Is this a realistic hope? Or just whistling past the graveyard of the impending theocratic, anti-intellectual, anti-environmental, paranoid slave economy that the current crop of Republicans would so dearly love to establish?

  22. From @Mark J’s link:

    “What are we getting from Republicans? Climate denial, theocracy, thinly veiled racism, paranoia, and Benghazi hearings. Lots and lots of hearings on Benghazi.”

    That about sums it up.

  23. A little entertainment for the Free Fire Zone: Russian News reader can’t keep a straight face while breaking the news of the death of Fred Phelps

    NB: Not completely safe for work (and not completely real, either 🙂 )

  24. Dave Luckett: “The thing I always come back to is that liars like Rives don’t merely lie about the science. They lie about the scriptures they proclaim as unerring, too. Jesus said that Moses wrote of him.”

    The irony is that, if we quote mined and invoked the ‘is/ought’ fallacy, as do every anti-evolution activist from geocentric YECs to OECs who concede common descent, we could create memes at least as fit as theirs are. It shouldn’t take much to show that Jesus was a “Darwinist.” Heck, he wasn’t even a Christian. Sure, Fundamentalists can easily rationalize all that away, of course but they’re not the ones we need to reach. For every one of them, there’s at least one other who has been reversibly misled, but just lacks the time or interest to truly digest the science side of the “debate.” Anti-evolution activists are keenly aware the memes don’t have to be correct, they just have to be “fit.” “Darwinists” know it too, but too often seem to forget it.

    Unfortunately we “Darwinists” answer to a higher authority. Some of us call it God, but even the atheists know what’s morally wrong and right.

  25. I am happy to announce that I think theistic evolution as silly as the Good Rev does. Though I suspect our reasons are a bit different.

    Douglas E recognizes the genius of The Good Rev: “Not only does the Rev dismiss science but also dismisses biblical scholarship.”
    Isn’t he brilliant?

  26. Q: Take a look at John 8:44. Guess who Jesus said was Rives’s daddy?
    A: Richard Rives?
    Why do I get an advert from Bet365 when I try to play the WND video?

  27. Megs,

    Damn I wanted to hug that Russian lady! Maybe we’re not so different after all.

  28. Holding The Line In Florida

    Of course Jesus is a creationist. Isn’t he just a manifestation of God? The trinity. He was there! He is The Creator! Just shows how much Junior knows! Silly boy!

  29. As others have stated or implied, Jesus said very little that would peg him a young earth creationist. And my favorite of their “Jesus said” quote-mines is when they quote his words “In the beginning of creation male and female he made them” and say, “See! They weren’t made millions of years later! Male and female were made in the beginning.” Then I tell them this: “But you said that Adam & Eve were made on Day #6, the END of creation! Now you say that it was at the BEGINNING of creation, which would be Day #1. Which is it?”

    As usual, the Hebrew text of Genesis explains what was going on. “In the beginning” is BARASHIT, the first word of Genesis. The Hebrew titled their scrolls based on the first word. So Jesus was simply referring to Genesis and the BEGINNING he was talking about was the beginning of human civilization and the beginnings of marriage, which was the topic Jesus was addressing at the time. Marriage, not creation.

    Once again, ya just gotta feel bad for those young earth creationists. Science never backs them up. And even the Bible never backs up what they say. Poor folk! They are solely on their own!

  30. From David Rives’ video: “Some Christians have entertained the possibility of evolution being compatible with the Biblical view.”

    Yes — “some Christians” like Pope John Paul II and Pope Francis. But of course we should listen to you, instead, Davey, because you are so much more of an expert in religious matters than the Vatican.

  31. Rikki_Tikki_Taalik

    @Tundra Boy

    Crack that whip open the Book of Mormon mister !

  32. Retiredsciguy posted an excellent quotable quote from the video. Yes, it is so important to the YEC world to drum into Rives’ audience’ head that, while it is true that many Christian finds evolution compatible with the Bible, the “the true, genuine Christ-followers like you folk know that evolution is evil and atheistic and not compatible with the Bible at all….no matter what anybody says!” [The quote marks is for my portrayal of a typical YEC spiel, not a literal quote of Rives.] Rives et al know that Biologos poses a huge threat, because if obviously GOOD Christians and the best evangelical Bible scholars keep telling people that evolution is compatible with Genesis, they might start believing it—-and then YEC ministries have no purpose because they have no fearsome, dangerous enemy to fight!

    Origins ministries, much like politicians, must have (1) an enemy to fight and fear, and (2) the urgent danger must be shouted as a warning NOW, and (3) we need true, genuine, good people to stand with us to fight that dangerous enemy that is (4) about to destroy all that we hold dear, and (5) unless you stand with us by sending us your money right now without a monent to lose, the battle is lost!

    I challenge you to find a fund raising appeal letter from a politician or a ministry which is not based on that five point outline.

  33. Bible…:”As others have stated or implied, Jesus said very little that would peg him a young earth creationist.”

    Not to defend Rives in any way, but did he specifically say that Jesus was a young earth creationist? The reason I ask is that, though Rives is not a Discoveroid, I would bet that he’s in-on-the-scam enough to choose his words carefully, an not link Jesus to a pseudoscience that was not concocted until the 20th century. But I could be wrong.

    What’s interesting is that YEC pseudoscience has been around almost a century, and ID at least 1/4 of that, and that, in the last ~20 years activists of both “kinds” have been engaged a quiet, mostly friendly, battle to get the rank and file in their camp. Yet, while OEC (meaning still Biblical literalist, not ID) activists have been all-but silent (my guess is that’s almost all the media’s doing), rank and file evolution deniers are still more OEC than YEC. Almost none are “pure IDers” of course, and the Discoveroids are fine with that. Ironically I have to root for the YEC activists in this battle, because they’ll never win over more than 20-30% of the public, while the DI’s “don’t worry about the ‘when’ questions” strategy has the potential to fool a great majority, And in a way, it already has.

  34. Taking advantage of the IFFZ:

    I often complain about that Gallup poll that shows a consistent (over 32 years) 40-45% of adult Americans answering that “humans were created in their present form in the last 10,000 years.” Other more clearly worded polls show that about half of that 40-45% also believe that the earth and universe are billions of years old. But here’s an even better question:

    “The last few popes and leaders of most other major religions all agree that God used evolution to create human bodies, but creates the soul separately at conception. Do you agree with them?”

    Note, the word “conception” (not “birth”) is crucial, for obvious reasons. I would bet that about half, maybe even more of that 40-45% would say yes, effectively changing their original answer to one of the 2 other options on the Gallup poll. People who choose the original answer tend to respect authority, often to an unhealthy degree, and would not want to disagree with religious leaders. So, as with other more clearly-worded polls, the wording actually makes them give a few seconds’ thought to their answer, many will reconsider, if only out of respect for authority.

  35. If a religious thinker says that God uses reproduction to create human bodies, OK, I guess. But evolution?

  36. So how does Rives make each video exactly 2 minutes long? Does he think there is some internet rule that the video can only be 2 minutes? The mystery deepens.

  37. @Techreseller: That two-minute limit is probably in recognition of your average cretinist’s effective attention span…

  38. @TomS:

    “Religious thinkers” who give it 5 minutes’ thought know the difference between the origins of individuals, species, and life. And if they truly believe that it’s a sin to lie, will not deliberately confuse them. The only “gray area” – and you know the Ronald Bailey hypothesis is coming – is if they truly fear that the audience can’t handle the truth. Then it may not technically be a lie, but is still nevertheless a deliberate bait-and-switch. Once they make it to that area, and very few do, they’re full-fledged anti-evolution activists. In contrast, honest, non-paranoid religious people who have no problem accepting reproduction also have no problem accepting evolution, “macro” and all – if they give it 5 minutes’ thought. Unfortunately most don’t, and few are willing to go the extra mile to encourage them.

  39. @TomS:

    Since the poll question gives people a little more time to think about it than the worthless-at-best Gallup one, but probably not enough to sort out their misconceptions about individuals and species. So a better wording is:

    “The last few popes and leaders of most other major religions all agree that God used evolution to create the human species, but creates the soul separately at conception. Do you agree with them?”

    Note that I still think that ~half will disagree, but the question will force them to admit that they’re disagreeing with authority. A small % might even be motivated to find a more fundamentalist church. Mostly those who disagree will rationalize it – with zero evidence – that the religious leaders were “bullied.”