Republican Presidential YouTube/CNN Debate Bible Question Guy Joseph Dearing asks Candidates about Genesis Veracity and Historicity of Bible as Reliable Reportage

Joseph Dearing, with a strange, low-key but in-your-face delivery, asked the Republican presidential candidates in the CNN/YouTube debate on Nov. 28 if they believe every word of the Bible, and those who answered said essentially that they believe the Bible, but not all that is written in it, as it is written, but they never said where and how the history in the Bible is supposedly wrong (except Giuliani that the whale didn’t swallow Jonah), so of course, Bible skeptics say “ah ha, they believe the Bible, but not all of it, so where’s the intellectual consistency?”

Obviously, the question was geared to Genesis history, as that is the most controversial portion of Biblical history, but the candidates somewhat adroitly avoided discussing the six days of creation, Noah’s Flood, the Table of Nations (Genesis 10), how the Ice Age fits in, and all the other components of the Global Flood Model discussed at this blogsite.

If but one of the candidates had been knowledgable on the science of Genesis history, he could have said:

“Only warmer oceans from Noah’s Flood, geothermal heating of the oceans from below, could have caused the dense worldwide cloudcover for the Ice Age, great corroboration of the Biblical account, in defiance of mainstream notions, but nevertheless, the only way the Ice Age could have been caused, when you analyze the hydrology involved, so we see that any global atmospheric warming today would cause more cloudcover which cools the atmosphere back down, a negative feedback mechanism, such as we see with hurricanes, which cool the atmosphere back down.”

Such a statement would send the mainstream scientists scurrying, to then reluctantly concur that Genesis does in fact have much explanatory power, but even the theologian candidate Mike Huckabee squandered the opportunity, ostensibly through ignorance, so somebody please let the candidates know that there is a plethora of good reasons to believe the Bible, as it reads, not as one might like to interpret it, such as the candidates who were clearly implying that the Bible is mostly wrong about Genesis history, as it supposedly belies good science, which in fact, it does not.  See

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: