Why Not Edit the Bible?

For many years Karl Giberson was a professor at Eastern Nazarene College. He was also the vice-president of BioLogos (a theologically liberal think tank for those who compromise God’s Word in Genesis) for about two years.

He now writes, speaks, and teaches a religion and science course at a Catholic college.

Giberson recently wrote a book where he basically rewrites Genesis to fit in with evolution or millions of years. In his article about the book, his subheading is, “What the Genesis creation account might look like if it were written today, rather than thousands of years ago.”

In this article, he begins,

I have often wondered—quietly and usually to myself—what would happen if we could edit the Bible. After all, textbooks get edited and publishers bring out new and improved versions that are more in tune with how things are, instead of how things were. Wouldn't it be good if some ecumenical committee could go through the Old Testament and take out all the language about stoning people to death for breaking various rules? Or maybe soften that passage where the Psalmist talks about bashing the heads of the babies of his enemies against the rocks? We could also fix some of those New Testament misquotes of the Old Testament.

The fact he would even think this way is astonishing for a theologian! What a low view of Scripture he has. (See my article A Low View of Scripture.)

Of course the Creation Museum gets a mention:

Many biblical ideas don't fit with our contemporary scientific understanding. Unfortunately, as we have seen all too often through the previous century and into the present, many Christians insist that we have to accept all the details of the biblical story of creation. The Creation Museum in Kentucky contains, among its many exhibits, beautiful dioramas of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden, with dinosaurs looking over their shoulders—an impossible scene, but one implied by the Genesis story.

But note that he states, “but one implied by the Genesis story.” In other words, he knows that if you take Genesis as literal history, then the Creation Museum is portraying that history as given in Genesis! Of course, he doesn’t believe Genesis is history, but he is acknowledging that the Creation Museum is teaching correctly from Genesis if the book is taken as history—which it is, of course.

He states the following in his article:

In Seven Glorious Days I have turned on the light to show the reader just how beautiful the creation story is, when we trade the ancient science for its modern counterpart …

As an imaginative exercise—not a rewrite of the Bible!—I offer my speculation in Seven Glorious Days as to what the Genesis creation account might look like if it were written today, rather than thousands of years ago.

Despite his supposed disclaimer (“As an imaginative exercise—not a rewrite of the Bible”), he is in fact rewriting and editing the Bible!

I certainly do not recommend that anyone obtain a copy of his heretical book because Giberson is actually doing what he said in his first paragraph—he is editing and rewriting God’s Word! Wow! He has to answer to God for that one day, and there will be a day of reckoning!

Can you imagine standing before the holy, infinite God the Creator one day and saying, “God, I hope you like my rewrite of Genesis. I wanted to correct the way you had it written to fit with what we humans believe about evolution and millions of years. Your version was outdated and didn’t work for academics like me in the twenty-first century.”  I would not want to be in his shoes!

You can read his article at this link.

I encourage you to read the book Old-Earth Creationism on Trial, which is available for purchase or online to read.

Thanks for stopping by and thanks for praying,

Ken