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

With eschatological debates, the Bible is still the rule of faith, but with Genesis compromise, science has become the rule of faith.

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.

A review of Is Atheism Dead? by Eric Metaxas

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

Compromise on Genesis leads to heresy, the doctrine of original sin is just 1 of many things that compromise corrupts.