The Bible Doesn’t Make Sense? So What?

We found this one at the website of the Institute for Creation Research — (ICR) — the granddaddy of all creationist outfits, the fountainhead of young-earth creationist wisdom. Their post is titled Biblical Creation and Intellectual Foolishness, and it was written by one of ICR’s top creation scientists — .Jake Hebert. They say he has a Ph.D. in physics, and joined ICR as a research associate the same year that degree was awarded. Here are some excerpts from Jake’s post, with bold font added by us for emphasis, and occasional Curmudgeonly interjections that look [like this]:

In a recent interview discussing his new book In Quest of the Historical Adam, philosopher and Christian apologist William Lane Craig acknowledged his biased assumptions when interpreting how the words of the Bible should be understood.

Here’s his write-up in Wikipedia: William Lane Craig. They say he’s a Discoveroid fellow, so you know what we’re dealing with. Jake says:

What prejudices his interpretation of words contrary to their plain and normal meaning is his longstanding “great fear” that young-earth creationists are correct that the book of Genesis should be understood as real history. Dr. Craig is concerned that this would require a wholesale challenge to all of modern science. [It certainly would!] However, during the interview Dr. Craig made numerous revealing claims that show that science has nothing to do with why he rejects a historical Genesis.

He rejects Genesis? How is that possible? Jake tells us:

He ridiculed clear biblical narratives that Eve was beguiled by a real “talking snake” and the “anthropomorphic” idea that God walked and talked with Adam and Eve as stories akin to ancient mythology. [Gasp!] It is important to realize that these objections have nothing to do with modern science — science cannot inform us whether God would, or wouldn’t, walk with Adam and Eve. Nor can we scientifically test the ability of Satan to possess an animal and speak through it.

Jake is correct — science is worthless in such matters. He continues:

These are philosophical objections to a literal Genesis, not scientific ones. [Science is useless in such matters!] So, it cannot be the science per se that has Craig worried. However, affirming a literal Genesis does offend modern sensibilities that consider biblical truths to be foolish (1 Corinthians 2:14). Like the Corinthian Christians, we all need to guard against the fear of appearing foolish in the eyes of the world.

Yes, a creationist would never never want to appear foolish! Let’s read on:

It’s Craig’s biases that he brings to the Bible — not anything in the Bible itself — that underlie his attack on biblical clarity, which undermines not just the first 11 chapters of Genesis but the entire Bible. [All of it?] If Craig rejects the normal meaning of Genesis 3 as real history because God walked and talked with Adam and Eve, then what does he do with Genesis 18, where God and two angelic visitors talk — and even eat — with Abraham? And what of Numbers 22:28-30 and 2 Peter 2:16, both of which affirm that the prophet Balaam was rebuked by his donkey?

Jeepers — Jake is right! If you reject one part of the bible because it doesn’t make sense, then what about all the rest of it? Here’s another excerpt:

Biblical creation has always seemed foolish in the world’s eyes, but this is not because evidence for creation is lacking. [Really?] The ranks of biblical creationists include researchers recognized as world-class scientists. [Hee hee!] Scientific and historical evidence for even the earliest chapters of Genesis are abundant [What?], and the creation-Flood model of the Ice Age is vastly superior to anything proposed by the Creator-denying scientists to which Craig eagerly conforms his understanding of Genesis 1–11.

Amazing, isn’t it? Wait ’til you see what’s coming next:

Moreover, creation researchers have published scientific evidence refuting iconic arguments for evolution and an old earth [BWAHAHAHAHAHA!], and, like evolutionists, Craig fails to engage this primary literature. Evidence for biblical creation is not getting weaker over time, it is getting stronger.

Getting stronger! And now we come to the end:

Is it really science that is keeping so many Christians from embracing a straightforward understanding of Genesis, or is it something else? [What else could it be?] Every Christian needs to guard against the sin of intellectual pride.

Jake ends with some scripture quotes warning about pride, and that’s certainly worth reading. Don’t let pride keep you from being a creationist, dear reader! That’s a mistake with eternal consequences.

Copyright © 2021. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

13 responses to “The Bible Doesn’t Make Sense? So What?

  1. I interrupt house moving to bring you this brief comment: ” and the creation-Flood model of the Ice Age is vastly superior to anything proposed by the Creator-denying scientists”; not only was the Flood responsible for the Grand Canyon, but the Call of Abraham took place in the middle of the Ice Age. Vastly superior to the alternatives, I think you’ll agree

  2. There is Biblical scholarship which isn’t dependent on scientific or philosophical criticism. Studies which build on the Documentary Hypothesis rather than the Mossic authorship of the Pentateuch.

  3. Craig isn’t the first Christian theologian who rejects a literal reading of Genesis. You can go back to St Augustine of Hippo, who lived in the 4th century.

  4. Stephen Kennedy

    Hebert claims that science can not test the ability of Satan to possess a snake and speak through it. I have two observations. First is that science can not even determine whether Satan or any other supernatural beings exist. See one of my favorite SC essays “Bring Me an Angel Detector”

    Second, nowhere in the biblical account of the temptation of Eve is there any mention of Satan. The text only says that the serpent was “cunning” and could apparently talk on his own. I thought that it was some kind of sin to add to scripture but that is what these creationists do when they claim talking snakes are the devil in disguise and Noah’s flood was marked by volcanoes, tsunamis and runaway plate tectonics.

  5. Theodore Lawry

    @Paul Braterman “the Flood was responsible for the Grand Canyon” Don’t too sure, the creationist classic Grand Canyon: Monument to Catastrophe” says the Canyon was dug by the draining of three post-Flood lakes, and several prominent creationists have endorsed this view!

  6. Well, one thing is for sure, Hebert-bo-Bebert-banana-fana-fo-Febert is not guilty of intellectual pride!

  7. @TL, agreed that the canyon results from drainage; I thought the deposits themselves were laid down by the Flood but I don’t have my Whitcome and Morris handy. Btw, ISTR they were not rigid 6,000 year people. What did they say about the Ice Age(s), if anything?

  8. chris schilling

    You don’t need science to refute the claims of Genesis. Sheer bloody common sense alone should be enough to do that. But evangelicals have been conditioned and bullied into submission through scaremongering about “sin” and “pride” to quash any natural doubts when it comes to taking mythological claims as literal or historical. And once you accept the absurd belief that the Bible is the Word of God, there’s almost no coming back — not without some heroic struggle, at least.

  9. Theodore Lawry

    @Paul Braterman The great giggle about The Genesis Flood is that it has NO evidence for a Flood! It talks about geology in general and lots of creationist topics, but actual evidence for a Global, Catastrophic Flood? There is none! As for the Grand Canyon, the TGF says only
    ““Following the Flood, while the rocks were still comparatively soft and unconsolidated, the great canyons were rapidly scoured out as the waters rushed down from the newly uplifted peneplains to the newly enlarged ocean basins.” (Figure caption page 152)
    Totally evidence-free, no details, the Grand Canyon in one sentence!

  10. If we don’t believe the prophet Balaam was rebuked by his donkey, then the intellectual pride will run amuck. Don’t go chasing intellectual waterfalls.

  11. He’s right in a first, and very limited sense: Craig assesses the Genesis creation stories as developed folktale and myth. He is perfectly in accord with the scripture to do so. There is no reason to assume that they are anything else. Nothing in scripture says otherwise, including the words of Jesus. He alluded to Genesis, but as moral precept and illustration, without affirming that the stories were literal fact.

    Steven Kennedy is completely correct to say that to identify the serpent in the Genesis story with Satan is without foundation. As Mr Kennedy says, Hebert and the fundawhackoes in general are adding to scripture, as is their wont. The evolution (!) of Satan from his appearance as God’s agent in the Book of Job to the tempter who took Jesus up to the mountain, to Lucifer, Prince of Darkness, is a fascinating one.

    Every statement Hebert makes about creationism vs science is false. There are no “creationist scientists” contesting the theory of evolution. The occasional creationist who actually works in science stays right away from it. Hebert himself is not a scientist, PhD notwithstanding.

    There are no genuine scientific papers that dispute evolution, common descent, or deep time. No papers like that have been published in any place other than the creationist noise machine.

    As for “Scientific and historical evidence for even the earliest chapters of Genesis are abundant, and the creation-Flood model of the Ice Age is vastly superior to anything proposed by the Creator-denying scientists”, it is difficult to believe that even Hebert believes that. But whether he does or doesn’t, all of those assertions – every word of them – is a lie. There is NO evidence for a virtually simultaneous universal creation. ALL the evidence of the history of the Universe, the Earth, and life is for slow development on a vast time scale. There is NO evidence for a world-wide flood, nor for a “creation-Flood Ice Age”. ALL the evidence is for local floods with natural causes, and for successive far longer ice ages, the last retreat of the ice beginning about 12K years ago, long before the Genesis stories imply.

    Those are lies from a master liar, one who has been retailing them for two decades now. They are nonetheless palpable, obvious, blatant lies, childish lies, only viable and profitable to Hebert because he is pitching to an audience who can’t and won’t seek the truth. They are thereby profitable lies, gainful lies. Profitable to Hebert and ICR,

    Satan lies, we are told. So do they. Jesus drew the clear conclusion. I would not be Jake Hebert, if Jake were correct in thinking that he will have to face Jesus some day.

  12. However, affirming a literal Genesis does offend modern sensibilities that consider biblical truths to be foolish (1 Corinthians 2:14)

    Did he just sarcastically accuse my boy William Lane Craig of being “without the Spirit”? Normally I would award points for the use of a Bible reference sarcastically. But dumb creationist don’t get no points form me. I don’t want no scrub.

  13. There is this book,
    The Bible As It Was
    by James L. Kugel
    Which documents the variations of reading of the Bible from a few centuries from the Ancient Near East, late BC to early AD, the time and culture which produced the Bible. It shows us how people understood Scripture, and it wasn’t at all “literally”.