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.

Evangelical Study Bibles Continued: How do they interpret Genesis Chapter One?

Evangelical Study Bibles Continued: How do they interpret Genesis Chapter One?

This is part two of a short series concerning how well-known evangelical study Bibles handle the account of creation as recorded in the historical narrative of Genesis chapter one.  Chances are you may not invest heavily in commentary sets but you may be willing to purchase a study Bible (either in paper or digital form).  It is for this very reason that we must understand what viewpoints appear in the notes.  

Our previous articles discussed the MacArthur Study Bible, the Reformation Heritage Study Bible, the Ryrie Study Bible and the Zondervan Study Bible (KJV Edition).  It would be only fair to state that the exact same notes for the KJV edition also appear in the the edition using the NASB and NIV.  So simply dismissing an English translation does not solve the problem (s) found within the study notes.

Our first stop for this article is the ESV Study Bible, General Editor Wayne Grudem.  As we shall see the notes in this study Bible clearly make room for the vast views of new evangelical scholarship within their churches and seminaries.  The study introductory and study notes don't even attempt to place a literal six-day interpretation as more favorable.  
Note on page 44, "Faithful interpreters have arguments for ...."  From here faithful interpreters can hold to the following positions "ordinary days" "a sequence of geological ages" "analogical days" or simply as a "literary framework."  So basically when it comes to the the creation account in Genesis, evangelicals can believe whatever they want.  This is patent new evangelicalism, "You call me a scholar and I'll call you a Christian."

The introductory notes continue on to make full liberty of interpretation for the many evangelicals that believe in evolution and the earth being millions of years old and the opened door for a local flood (another series forthcoming).

Concerning 1:1 they write, "This opening verse can be taken as a summary, introducing the whole passage; or it can be read as the first event, the origin of the heavens and  the earth (sometime before the first day), including the creation of matter, space, and time."  Later on they write, "The text indicates that God created everything in the universe, which thus affirms that he did in fact create in ex nihilo."

Discussion of how they describe the first six days is more fuzzy, which actually matches the all-embracing comments found within the introductory notes.  The comment, "By a simple reading of Genesis, these days must be described as days in the life of God, but how his days relate to human days is more difficult to determine."  This is a rather odd statement considering the first two humans were created on day six.  I think this is double talk to make room for broader evangelical scholars who don't take Genesis literally, don't believe in a literal Adam and Even, and the new trend of believing in death before the fall.

From here we move on to the The Reformation Study Bible, General Editor R. C. Sproul.
Unfortunately, Sproul's handling of the text fits well within the broader new evangelical landscape.  Again broad strokes will be made for the positions held by "scholars."  
The introductory notes for Genesis  don't start off very well, "The tension between Genesis and modern science about the origins of the universe and of living species is largely resolved when it is recognized that they are speaking from different perspectives."  In other words, modern evolutionary science tells us what we are to believe without ability to question to believes, motives, or assumptions.  Reading on in his introductory notes shows this conclusion to be correct.

Interestingly enough, Sproul first critiques one alternative view to holding to a literal six-day creation.  His notes on 1:2 state, "Some suggest that vv.1 and 2 refer to two separate creative acts separated by a span of time...this view is very doubtful."  He moves on from here in his notes on 1:5 to include four other positions held by "Reformed scholars."  He mentions a literal 24-hour day young earth position, a day-age theory, literal days separated by long lengths of time, and a literary framework view.  He spends the most time defending the "framework hypothesis" view and compares it to several other positions as obviously it being superior to the other positions.

Due to the lengthy overviews and warnings found in the ESV Study Bible and the Reformation Study Bible, we shall hold off on our comments for the following study Bibles.  It doesn't hurt to know what your Study Bible actually teaches in the notes before spending money on these publishing house products.  Next we will tackle the following:

The Apologetics Study Bible, Numerous Authors

The Archaeological Study Bible, General Editor Walter Kaiser Jr.

The NET Bible, Biblical Studies Press.

Hope this helps some.  Comments of course encouraged.