Why Doesn't Answers in Genesis Tell You the Truth?

[Tim Martin]

Some days I just shake my head... See for yourself.

Why Doesn't Answers in Genesis Tell You the Truth?

Tim Martin
www.BeyondCreationScience.com

[James Kessler]

When I read your article Tim I thought of that line from "A Few Good Men," from Jack Nickelson,

"You can't handle the truth"

Like a gifted screenwriter, it seems AiG can't handle the truth of history so they re-write the script to please thier audience.

They just don't seem to like the script you're trying to write from the actual evidence of history:-)

Good detective work Tim!!!

[John Scargy]

This doesn't surprise me in the least.Didn't they fire someone a few years ago for being a preterist? Their science has been questioned more then a few times and their methods and against their honesty..or the lack of.No Answers in Genesis. I know there is always two sides to the story,but once you lose your credibility it's hard to be taken serious especially in science and religion.

[Tim Martin]

Here is more in-depth analysis by John Holzmann from Sonlight Curriculum for Homeschoolers:

http://johnscorner.blogspot.com/2009/02/honesty-its-such-lonely-wor...

Tim Martin
www.BeyondCreationScience.com

[Tim Martin]

AiG updates the "updated" Spurgeon sermon.

What a difference a day makes! Looks like someone is watching.

Apparently, AiG has just inserted a note to the portion of Spurgeon's sermon in question.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2009/02/26/power-of-holy-g...

Here is the addition that just showed up this morning:

--------------

(a) [We do not know how remote the period of the creation of this globe may be—certainly many millions of years before the time of Adam. Our planet has passed through various stages of existence, and different kinds of creatures have lived on its surface, all of which have been fashioned by God. But before that era came, when man should be its principal tenant and monarch, the Creator gave up the world to confusion. He allowed the inward fires to burst up from beneath and melt all the solid matter, so that all kinds of substances were commingled in one vast mass of disorder; the only name you could give to the world then was, that it was a chaotic mass of matter; what it should be, you could not guess or define.] Bracketed text removed from the sermon. As brilliant as Spurgeon was, even he did not understand the age issue. –Editor
**Please also note that this footnote was intended to be in the original posting, but was lost somehow in the transition of these files for web publication. Thanks to our astute readers for finding and reporting this error.

-------------

At least now they tell you that they have edited Spurgeon's teaching on creation.

Tim Martin
www.BeyondCreationScience.com

[Tami]

Tim, as I already saw someone else ask (maybe it was you) why not quote him accurately, and in their footnote say they disagree with him? By editing the quote in the body of the article, they *still* are intentionally misleading the majority of their readers about what Spurgeon believed.

I am just stunned.

[Tim Martin]

Tami,

I made that very point in a comment to Mark Looy (from AiG) at PP. You can see the discussion here:

http://planetpreterist.com/news-5594.html

Note how I am the "bad guy" for pointing out in public what AiG presented in public.

I'm afraid that how they present Spurgeon's sermon is actually just fine, according to their own standards. I hope they change the body of the text, but I'm not expecting them to.

Pretty sad if you ask me.

Tim Martin
www.BeyondCreationScience.com

[Tami]

Yes, I see now...it was you. :)

I am just completely stunned by their own admission in the footnote. In what universe is editing a quote to completely misrepresent its author not considered blatant dishonesty??? I am just completely flabbergasted. Because they say in the footnote what they did, that makes it OK?

Think about it this way, would they get away with doing that to an author who wasn't dead?

The lengths some will go to in order to protect their delusion.

[Tim Martin]

Wow.

http://johnscorner.blogspot.com/2009/02/should-be-interesting.html

Tim Martin
www.BeyondCreationScience.com

[John Scargy]

Tim,
They should have just admitted a mistake was made and left it at that. By attacking people for pointing out there "mistake" they are just looking desperate and making it a BIGGER mistake. John had some great comments on his blog.Thanks for keeping us up to date.

[Tim Martin]

John,

Here is what is bugging me. Bear with me as I vent a bit. I feel like this is an intimate enough place that I can get something off my chest.

AiG had a specific explanation of what they were doing with this program with Spurgeon. They wanted to celebrate "another Charles" on this February which is the 200th birthday of Darwin. Now, it is a bit ironic that they picked an old-earth creationist to do this, but hey, I don't make this up. It wouldn't even surprise me if they honestly didn't know about the detail in that sermon when they began the program. The one person who did know was the editor who did the work, and he clearly "fixed" the problem. I suspect that no one would have known if Jeff and I were not watching for it to arrive.

Anyway, they explained their intent behind the program in this article:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2009/01/29/charles-spurgeo...

In that article, they said they "were able to update these sermons, not to change the meaning, but to make them more easily understood by modern readers."

They went on to assure everyone that, "Finally, all the sermons have been meticulously compared against the originals (as photo reproduced by Pilgrim Publications in Texas) and carefully proofed by David and Eleanor Pohl. This assures that the version you read adheres as closely as possible to the original intent—but updated so that the sermons can be enjoyed for years to come."

I took them at their word.

They claimed to have double-checked and "carefully proofed" the sermons. In other words, they claimed they were certain of their accuracy. What else can you do but accept that they are doing the job they claim to be doing?

When I pointed out the blatant revision and omission of that one sermon they released in public, under those guidelines, I was charged with "talebearing."

I sat there and looked at my computer screen for about five minutes when I saw that comment from Mr. Looy. I have seen many loopy things in my experience, but that one ranks right up there at the top.

I was kind of bummed for awhile last night about it, because it does make you feel "dirty" to some extent when someone levels that accusation against you. But I don't know what else to do about it. They were presenting "certified" academic material as a service to the public, and I wrote an academic response pointing out the problem in public.

Tim Martin
www.BeyondCreationScience.com