About the author


Jeremy Crooks

Jeremy grew up in Sydney Australia. He has tertiary qualifications in business, training, and Bible. With experience in both church ministry and corporate human resources, Jeremy has a strong interest in how faith is demonstrated in our homes and workplaces. You can contact Jeremy at


  1. avatar


    The literal Creation issue has surely become the one of the most important debates of late & I have some strong views of it myself.

    But in answer to the questions you’ve raised,

    1. Should the creation process be an issue that divides Christians? Why or Why not?

    I dont think this should divide Christians – either God created the world in 6 days or he didnt.

    2. Is a belief in a literal 6 day creation a pre-requisite to belief in a literal Genesis account of Adam and Eve in Eden?

    Yes. In my opinion if the 6 days are not taken literally then that means death & suffering has entered the world long before Adam & Eve were created. The long-age theory is flawed in this area, since God called his creation good!

    Thorns have been found fossilized ( millions of years ago apparently), but the Bible doesnt talk about thorns until after the Fall.

    Paul called Christ the second Adam, death entered the world thru the first.., but long-ages would mean there was death under the garden of Eden.

    Also its essential to take either the whole of Genesis as history or none of it. This also opens up doubts on the Noah’s flood account too, can we take it as global or local?

    3. What are other flow-on beliefs that stem from a literal 6 day view of creation or its alternatives?

    As someone once said, “there is a slippery slope into unbelief that accompanies disbelieving any part of the Word of God”.

    The beliefs that stem from an alternative to literal 6 day view could be:
    1. it undermines the goodness of God.
    2. undermines the Gospel.
    3. it changes the way we understand the Bible.
    4. The Son of God took Genesis literally, it undermines his understanding of the book. The church fathers, early historians all understood the creation account to be literal.

    Thats my understanding of it & I’ve also borrowed from the books written by Jonathan Sarfati & CMI.

    looking forward to hearing more on this.


  2. avatar

    Jason Harris

    I was going to let others have this discussion, but since it’s so quiet, I’m in!

    1) Absolutely. While it may be possible to fit some theories with Scripture, others are entirely incompatible with Christianity.

    2) I believe it is. Any theory which allows for the evolution of animals or humans nullifies the purpose of process of creation as presented in Genesis.

    3) Any theory which includes death before the fall directly undermines Christian theology by removing it’s foundation in Genesis. Genesis is the first chapter of the story of redemption. Without taking it literally, the rest of the story doesn’t make sense.

  3. avatar

    William Ostermann

    If Gen. 1-3 is not literally true, and evening and morning does not mean a day then:

    1. God is a very lousy communicator – He could have used the Hebrew for ages or eons.
    2. God deliberately misled his people for 6000 years as God knew ahead of time that we would all get it wrong
    3. God knew that we his people would finally be led out of darkness by apostate Darwin and his ilk

    4. YOU must come up with an alternate story of the fall of man and origin of sin and death
    5. YOU must tell us when the apes became human enough that one day an almost human was born and God gave him a soul
    6. YOU must explain how death was there for billions of years before sin entered the world.
    7. You must explain how Jesus got it all wrong as the Word who was made Flesh was there at creation and the God-Man Jesus believed in a literal Adam and Eve.
    8. You must explain how Paul being inspired by the Holy Spirit gives us whole chapters in Romans based on the LITERAL understanding of Gen. 1-3.
    9. You must explain how Jesus cannot be the second Adam as there was no one single first Adam, just some developing apes….

    Any church that rejects the literal Gen. 1-3 is committing themselves to a slow but certain death. If you are in a church that refuses to take a stand on this GET OUT!

    Every church or denomination that starts be rejecting a literal 6 day creation as in Gen. 1-3 will eventually totally reject the gospel. What follows rejecting Gen. 1-3 is ordaining women as pastors, then accepting and ordaining homosexuals, and a totally rejection of the fundamental historic doctrines of the Christian faith. Evangelicals today, many of them, are rejecting the literal 6 day creation and fall of man as stated by God in Gen. 1-3. They are blinded fools leading themselves into a path of destruction. Proof: check the history of ALL the mainline denominations over the past 100 years!

    Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Israel during the time of Judges proves that. It is a fact that ALL mainline denominations started down the path of total rejection of the fundamentals of the faith by rejecting G
    en. 1-3 following the liberal school of so-called “theology”. If is a fact that they followed that with rejecting God’s word in many other ways, tossing out the doctrine of eternal punishment, the doctrine of propitiation, and Biblical teaching on the perversion 0f homosexuality – the the point where they now even ordain such to ministry. These are fact Don, like it or not. Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

    1. avatar

      Jeremy Crooks


      What do you think of Christians/churches who take an agnostic view of the creation timeframe? ie. it may have been 6 days or may have been millions of years?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2005-2016 by InFocus. Powered by WordPress. Effective News theme by Themelions Team.