Evangelical Study Bibles: A Last Evaluation and Warning concerning evolutionary compromise

Evangelical Study Bibles: A Last Evaluation and Warning concerning evolutionary compromise (simply: why they don't believe in a literal 24-hour, six day creation week and a young earth)

This small three part series has investigated the introductory notes and verse comments found with several well-known evangelical study Bibles.  By way of review we have previously covered the following list of study Bibles: The MacArthur Study Bible, The Reformation Heritage Study Bible, The Zondervan Study Bible (KJV Edition), the Ryrie Study Bible, the ESV Study Bible and lastly the Reformation Study Bible.

As has been shown there is a dramatic pull or push (which ever is worse) within new evangelical circles to present nearly every possible position on the creation account of Genesis chapter one.  Whether motivated by a broader audience appeal from particular publishing houses or simply a desire to be a respected scholar within the new evangelical sphere is besides the point.  What matters is that people read these study notes from these well-known and influential writers and walk away believing it doesn't matter.  In essence, these modern new evangelical "scholars" have redefined historical doctrine and made it of secondary importance.  Worse case (in this new way of thinking) it has not effected the content of the gospel (which in the end is all they want you to believe is important).  I would challenge you to produce a list of theological journal articles which actually support and defend a literal 24-hour, six-day view of the creation account found in Genesis One.  If and when you are actually able to produce a list take note of the journal and the date when it was published.  New evangelicalism does a very good job keeping these articles from appearing in print.

Today in this last episode concerning the view of creation found within study Bibles we shall review three remaining sources: the NET Bible, the Apologetics Study Bible and lastly the Archaeological Study Bible.

First is the NET Bible from Biblical Studies Press (2006).  This is a lesser known study Bible, the notes located within it appear to be more focused on translation and exegetical concerns.  Most study Bibles do not comment on manuscripts, variants, and various other details such as case uses and grammatical sentence structure.  Concerning the NET Bible comments on 1:1, "If the first view is adopted, then we have a reference here to original creation; if the second view is taken, then Genesis itself does not account for the original creation of matter."  In relation to these two positions later on in the notes they comment, "This second view presupposes the existence of pre-existent matter."  How then do they evaluate this alternative in the notes, "The following narrative strongly favors the second view..."  Did you catch that detail?  Pre-existing matter prior to creation and this is the favored view.  Please let me know if I am wrong and misunderstood this.  I'll gladly make correction to be academically correct and honest.

Well, on to the Apologetics Study Bible.  They list in their notes on page four, "Both sides believe they have strong arguments favoring their interpretation and rebutting the other side."  Ultimately, they take no position and offer no rebuttal for any position.  They are at least willing to acknowledge theistic evolutionists have sold out to Darwin, "those who accept evolution as God's mechanism in creation."  They simply don't understand the issues at stake and allow evolutionary scientists to define what "science" is and don't question it, "Some YCs accuse OCs of compromising the Bible with evolutionary science.  Some OCs charge YCs with undermining biblical credibility by generating a false conflict between science and the Scriptures."  Can you read what they are saying about broader new evangelical scholars?  Since OCs refuse to question the unbelieving views of evolutionists, everyone who opposes their accommodating Biblical interpretations is a trouble maker.  The end of their section really sums up the views of broader evangelical's refusal to take the text at face value, "even if the correct interpretation of the creation days is not readily apparent in the present generation."

Lastly, we shall discuss the Archaeological Study Bible.  The back cover explicitly identifies it as a joint project with Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary.  It's main editors are Walter C. Kaiser and Duane Garrett. We begin with comments on 1:1-31, "The length of the creative days of Genesis 1 is not specified in the Bible."  They continue after listing three views for the gloss "day", "There is no indisputable indication as to which of the three is meant in Genesis 1."  We go on, "The Bible provides no specific statement as to how long ago matter was created, when the first day or creation began or when the sixth day ended."  To their credit concerning 1:1-2 and a supposed long gap, "Hebrew syntax, leaves no room for such a view."  So at least their willing to take a stance again the gap theory but won't give any critique of the compromised views of new evangelical scholarship.

This series has come to a conclusion.  So in conclusion in evaluating study Bibles in their handling of the account of creation and accommodation to new evangelical scholarship only three stand out as the least compromised or again evolutionary theory.  These three are the MacArthur Study Bible, Ryrie Study Bible and the Reformation Heritage Study Bible.

Hope this helps some.  Again if any facts or copied quotations straight from their own notes are not accurate please let me know.  In the end, keeping reading and memorizing the scriptures.  Don't forget the notes are not given by inspiration from God.

Comments of course as always encouraged.