Creation compromise

The literary framework approach to Genesis has become very popular among evangelical academics but there are many reasons why this belief is wrong.

Does Genesis imply a gap between verses 1 and 2 of chapter 1 into which Christians can fit long ages?

The usage patterns of the Hebrew words bara’ (create) and tob (good) in Genesis 1 argue against Framework Hypothesis.

Responding to Justin Taylor of The Gospel Coalition regarding the length of the creation days.

Yom is not a long period of time as day-age theory suggests.

A review of Early Christian Readings of Genesis One by Craig Allert

Is the debate about how we should understand Genesis just like disputes about end-times prophecy (eschatology)?

What Hugh Ross used to say about the Church Fathers on Genesis, and why he had to retract (quietly).

Soft gappers claim Gen. 1:1–2 refers to creation of stars, galaxies and the matter of the earth, and v. 3–31 to forming and filling of earth billions of years later.

The evidence shows overwhelmingly that Genesis is an authentic, literal historical record of what actually happened.

Hugh Ross makes excuses for ignoring Refuting Compromise, and claims that YECs have ignored A Matter of Days.

Jesus created food, gave life to the dead, and healed the sick by His word of command and the exercise of His will, not by any evolutionary process.

An attack on atheism hampered by adopting evolutionary assumptions

Conversational approaches to studying Scripture can lead to liberalism, where truth and values become relative.

Compromising on Genesis has far reaching consequences, even for the cross.

Scholars argue that claims to take the Bible seriously while treating Genesis symbolically undercut its truth, nullify its evidence for God, and hinder evangelism.