Anarcho-Creationism.com

An Anarchist Defense of Six-Day Creationism

And a Creationist Defense of Anarchism

Why you should become a Bible-believing anarchist
 who also believes the universe was created around 4004 B.C.

What does the Bible actually say?

Does the Bible actually command us to be creationists? Is that what the Bible is really saying? Does the Bible actually command us to believe that the earth is only thousands of years old?

Up until the 1700's the universal consensus of Christian thinkers and Bible students was YES. Nobody was saying Biblical history was just "poetry," or "religious" rather than historical. These are all ways of re-packaging Genesis in order to please atheistic big-brains who invent theories of evolution to justify them taking political control of your life.

• The Westminster Confession of Faith (1647) "In The Space of Six Days"
• Protestant Reformers Belief about the Age of the Earth

In the 1700's, Autonomy began coming out of the closet. It was in the closet for a thousand years after the fall of Rome. After the fall of Rome, Christianity dominated Western Civilization. For a thousand years it was socially unacceptable to openly profess Autonomy/Atheism/Naturalism. This changed about the time Newton died (no conspiratorial connection there; just a coincidence). Opponents of Christianity began to characterize the centuries of Christian civilization following the fall of Rome as "The Dark Ages." Philosophers, theologians, and scientists began an open rebellion against the Bible. As Autonomy became more socially acceptable, and even gained academic and political prominence, compromising theologians began to claim that the Bible does not really teach that the earth is only thousands of years old. There is no Biblical (exegetical) basis for that claim. That claim does not arise from the text ("exegesis"). The claim is made only by writers who are embarrassed by Theonomy and want approval from the proponents of Autonomy/Evolutionism.

For 1700 years -- up until "The Enlightenment" --  Christians believed that Genesis (and the rest of the Bible) taught that God created the universe in six 24-hour days, about 6,000 years ago. In the 5th century, Augustine wrote:

In vain, then do some babble with most empty presumption, saying that Egypt has understood the reckoning of the stars for more than a hundred thousand years. For in what books have they collected that number who learned letters from Isis their mistress, not much more than two thousand years ago? . . . For as it is not yet six thousand years since the first man, who is called Adam, are not those to be ridiculed rather than refuted who try to persuade us of anything regarding a space of time so different from, and contrary to, the ascertained truth?
Augustine, City of God, Bk. XII, chaps. 14–16.

True, Augustine (for some reason) said that God created everything instantly, not in six 24-hour days. I don't know why he said this. What would be the reason for saying this? Not the actual text of the Bible. But he believed Adam -- the first human being -- was created 6000 years ago, and no self-respecting evolutionist would agree with Augustine on that point.

In a 4th of July address in 1802, Daniel Webster said:

“We live under the only government that ever existed which was framed by the unrestrained and deliberate consultations of the people. Miracles do not cluster. That which has happened but once in six thousand years cannot be expected to happen often. Such a government, once gone, might leave a void, to be filled, for ages, with revolution and tumult, riot and despotism.”
File:Newly discovered fourth of July oration

Webster was not an anarchist, although I think I could persuade him if he were to travel 200 years into the future and see the mess we're in. But here's the point:

"Christendom" thought in terms of a 6000 year-old earth.

The seminaries and pulpits, bloggers and YouTubers say you don't have to believe what the Bible says if "science" or "the government" says something completely different. But if you don't believe what the Bible says, are you really a "Bible-believing Christian?"

I asked Grok about this:

> According to young-earth creationists, who was the first clergyman or theologian who claimed that the earth was created millions or billions of years in the past?

Young-earth creationists (YECs), particularly those associated with organizations like Answers in Genesis (AiG) and Creation Ministries International (CMI), consistently identify Thomas Chalmers (1780–1847), a prominent Scottish Presbyterian minister and theologian, as the first major clergyman to popularize the idea of an ancient earth (millions or billions of years old) while still claiming to believe in the inspiration of Scripture. Key points from YEC sources: Chalmers promoted the “gap theory” (also called the ruin-reconstruction theory) as early as 1804–1816 in his lectures and writings. This view inserts a vast time gap between Genesis 1:1 (“In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth”) and Genesis 1:2 (“And the earth was without form, and void…”), allowing the geological ages to fit into that gap, with the six creation days being recent (often interpreted as literal 24-hour days about 6,000 years ago). In his 1814 series of articles in the Edinburgh Christian Instructor and later in his 1833 book Astronomical and Physical Discourses, Chalmers explicitly defended the idea that geology showed the earth was far older than 6,000 years and that Scripture could be reconciled with this via the gap theory. YECs argue that Chalmers was the first influential evangelical clergyman to break from the traditional young-earth, literal six-day view held by the church for centuries and to actively teach and defend an old-earth position from the pulpit and in print. Others sometimes mentioned but usually considered secondary by YECs: William Buckland (1784–1856) – Oxford geologist and Anglican priest who published old-earth views in 1820 (Vindiciae Geologicae) and defended a form of the gap theory in his 1836 Bridgewater Treatise. YECs note he was influenced by Chalmers and came later. Jean André Deluc (1727–1817) – Swiss geologist and Calvinist who in the late 18th and early 19th century defended long ages, but he was more a scientist than a mainstream clergyman/theologian and is not usually credited by YECs as the primary popularizer among evangelicals. Earlier figures such as Georges-Louis Leclerc (Comte de Buffon) or James Hutton were deists or non-clergymen and are not counted by YECs as “clergymen or theologians.” Summary from the YEC perspective: The first major clergyman/theologian who taught that the earth was created (or became old) millions or billions of years in the past, while still claiming to uphold biblical authority, is Thomas Chalmers, beginning around 1810–1814 with his advocacy of the gap theory.This is the standard answer given in works by Ken Ham, Terry Mortenson, Andrew Snelling, and other prominent young-earth creationist historians.

I followed-up with this:

> Are young-earth creationists correct about Chalmers being the first, or is their claim disputed by anyone?

YEC Claim Overview Young-earth creationists (YECs), such as those from Answers in Genesis and Creation Ministries International, argue that Thomas Chalmers (1780–1847) was the first major evangelical clergyman or theologian to publicly advocate for an ancient earth (millions or billions of years old) while maintaining a commitment to biblical inerrancy. They pinpoint his 1814 lectures and writings in the Edinburgh Christian Instructor, where he promoted the "gap theory" (inserting vast ages between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2), as the starting point for this shift. YECs frame this as the origin of modern "compromises" with geology, contrasting it with the church's historical young-earth consensus. Is the Claim Disputed? Yes, the claim is disputed by historians of science, theology, and creationism, as well as old-earth creationists (OECs). The disputes center on two main points: (1) the idea of an ancient earth predates Chalmers by centuries, and (2) even within the 19th-century context, Chalmers was a popularizer, not the originator. Critics argue that YECs oversimplify history to portray old-earth views as a recent, Enlightenment-driven aberration, ignoring earlier theological flexibility and non-evangelical precedents. Below is a breakdown of key disputes: 1. Pre-Chalmers Theological and Interpretive Precedents Ancient and Early Modern Roots: Non-literal interpretations of Genesis allowing for extended timeframes existed long before the 19th century, though they were often allegorical rather than tied to geological evidence. Origen (c. 185–254 AD) and Clement of Alexandria (c. 150–215 AD): Early church fathers who viewed Genesis 1's "days" as symbolic or non-temporal, rejecting a strict 24-hour chronology. Origen's De Principiis emphasized spiritual truths over literal timelines. Augustine of Hippo (354–430 AD): In The Literal Meaning of Genesis, he proposed instantaneous creation with Genesis describing logical (not chronological) stages, potentially accommodating vast ages without contradicting Scripture. 17th-Century Gap Theory Origins: YECs acknowledge Chalmers credited the gap idea to Simon Episcopius (1583–1643), a Dutch Arminian theologian, but downplay it as non-evangelical or minor. Episcopius suggested a temporal gap between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 to fit angelic history, not geology, but it explicitly allowed indefinite antiquity. 17th–18th-Century Developments: Historians like M.B. Roberts (in Myth and Geology, 2007) trace discussions of geological time in Genesis to Hugo Grotius (1583–1645) and Marin Mersenne (1588–1648), who explored reconciling Scripture with emerging natural philosophy. These were not full old-earth models but showed interpretive openness predating uniformitarian geology (e.g., James Hutton's 1788 work). Dispute Summary: OEC historians (e.g., Ronald Numbers in The Creationists, 1992) and BioLogos argue YECs impose a false binary: the church wasn't uniformly young-earth until "compromised" by science. Early views were diverse, and old-earth ideas gained traction gradually with evidence, not abruptly via Chalmers. 2. Contemporaries and Near-Contemporaries Jean-André Deluc (1727–1817): A Swiss Calvinist geologist and devout Christian who, in the late 18th century, defended long geological ages while upholding Scripture. His works (e.g., Letters on the History of the Earth, 1831, based on earlier ideas) predate Chalmers' popularization and influenced British evangelicals. YECs often dismiss him as more scientist than theologian. Other 19th-Century Figures: John Pye Smith (1774–1851): A Congregationalist theologian who, in 1839 (On the Relation between Holy Scripture and Some Parts of Geological Science), advocated old-earth views via local flood interpretations, building on pre-Chalmers ideas. William Buckland (1784–1856): Anglican priest and Oxford geologist who defended gap theory in 1820 (Vindiciae Geologicae), explicitly citing ancient earth evidence. Dispute Summary: Scholars like Davis Young (in The Bible, Rocks and Time, 2008) note that by the early 1800s, old-earth acceptance was widespread among conservative Christians due to geological data from figures like Charles Lyell (1830). Chalmers amplified it but didn't invent it; YECs are accused of selective history to vilify "compromisers." 3. Broader Critiques from Historians and OECs Ronald Numbers (The Creationists, 2006): Documents that old-earth views were the evangelical majority until the 1960s (e.g., via The Genesis Flood by Whitcomb and Morris). He calls YEC's Chalmers narrative a "myth" to retroactively claim historical orthodoxy. Reasons to Believe (Hugh Ross): OEC organization argues YECs ignore pre-19th-century flexibility (e.g., Augustine) and conflate popularization with origination. Academic Consensus: In journals like GSA Today (2012), geologists and historians (e.g., David Montgomery) portray the shift as evolutionary, not a single "first" figure. YECs are seen as projecting modern debates onto the past. YEC Internal Nuance: Even some YECs (e.g., in Journal of Creation) admit earlier "seeds" like Episcopius but insist Chalmers was the first to tie it explicitly to millions/billions of years via geology while remaining a leading evangelical. Aspect YEC View (e.g., AiG/CMI) Disputing View (Historians/OECs) Origin of Gap Theory Chalmers (1814) as innovator Episcopius (17th c.); earlier in Jewish thought First Major Proponent Chalmers as evangelical trailblazer Deluc (late 18th c.); diverse pre-1814 precedents Historical Context Sudden 19th-c. compromise with "infidel" geology Gradual acceptance; church views always varied Key Dispute Chalmers started old-earth "error" Oversimplifies; ignores allegorical traditions Conclusion YECs are correct that Chalmers was a pivotal, influential figure in making old-earth views mainstream among 19th-century evangelicals, but their claim that he was the absolute "first" clergyman/theologian is disputed and widely viewed as historically inaccurate. The idea evolved over centuries, with clearer precursors in the 17th–18th centuries. This debate reflects deeper tensions: YECs prioritize a literalist young-earth hermeneutic as essential to orthodoxy, while critics see it as a 20th-century innovation (post-1961). For deeper reading, Ronald Numbers' The Creationists provides a balanced, source-rich history.

I concluded with this:

Although Clement and Augustine both entertained the idea of an instantaneous creation (rather than in 6 24-hour installments), they still believed the creation event took place thousands rather than millions or billions of years ago. Origen also seems to have believed in a young earth, based on Biblical history (e.g., genealogies), even if he allegorized the "days" of Genesis 1. Doesn't this suggest that Young-earthers are substantially correct, and the overwhelming majority of pre-enlightenment theologians have been young-earthers, despite a couple of possible allegorizing outliers?

Yes, you are correct on the key historical point, and this is precisely why young-earth creationists (and many conservative evangelical historians) argue that their position represents the overwhelming majority view of the Christian church from the apostolic era until roughly the first decades of the 19th century. The crucial distinction The debate is not primarily about: whether the six “days” of Genesis 1 were 24-hour periods, or whether some kind of non-chronological or instantaneous creation was permissible. The real dividing line that matters to both YECs and their critics is: Did pre-modern Christians believe the earth and universe are only thousands of years old (roughly 6,000–12,000 years from creation to their own time), or did they believe it could be millions or billions of years old? On that specific question, the answer is overwhelmingly clear: Virtually no pre-1800 Christian writer of any significance taught that the earth is millions or billions of years old.   Augustine, Basil, Ambrose, Origen, Clement, Aquinas, Luther, Calvin, Ussher, and the entire Jewish and Christian tradition all placed the creation event only a few thousand years before their own era. Even the most allegorizing fathers (Origen, Augustine) still accepted the biblical chronologies (Genesis 5 & 11 genealogies, the 6,000-year scheme derived from them, and the general framework of James Ussher’s later calculations) as giving the approximate age of the world. The “instantaneous creation” or “non-literal days” views of Augustine and a few others were not attempts to make room for vast geological ages.   Augustine’s instantaneous creation (De Genesi ad Litteram, book 4) was a philosophical/theological argument that God created everything at once, and the “days” are a literary framework, not a temporal sequence. He still dates creation to roughly 5,600 years before Christ (City of God 18.40; Literal Meaning of Genesis 5.23). Origen’s allegorizing likewise never suggests an ancient earth; he follows the Septuagint chronology and places creation only thousands of years earlier. The only real pre-modern exceptions are extremely minor or idiosyncratic   A handful of Jewish and Islamic medieval scholars (e.g., some Karaite Jews or certain Mutazilite thinkers) occasionally speculated about very long pre-Adamic periods, but these ideas had no influence on mainstream Christian theology. Isaac La Peyrère’s pre-Adamite theory (1655) is sometimes cited, but he was condemned as a heretic by Catholic, Protestant, and Jewish authorities alike, and his work was suppressed. Summary of the historical consensus (pre-1800) Period Dominant View on Age of the Earth Notable Non-24-Hour-Day Views? Ever Taught Millions/Billions of Years? Church Fathers A few thousand years old Yes (Origen, Augustine, etc.) No Medieval Scholastics A few thousand years old Rare No Reformers (Luther, Calvin) ~6,000 years old (literal days) No No 17th-century divines 6,000–10,000 years (Ussher, Lightfoot, etc.) Very rare No 18th-century church Still ~6,000–12,000 years Minor allegorizers No What changed in the early 19th century? Only after deistic and uniformitarian geology (Hutton 1788, Playfair 1802, Lyell 1830–1833) began claiming overwhelming evidence for an immensely ancient earth did any significant number of Bible-believing clergymen and theologians start proposing interpretations that placed hundreds of thousands or millions of years into the biblical record. The three earliest major attempts were: Thomas Chalmers – gap theory (1814 and later) William Buckland – gap theory with day-age elements (1820–1836) John Pye Smith – tranquil/local flood + old earth (1830s) Hugh Miller – day-age view (1840s–1850s) These men were the first orthodox, evangelical, or broadly conservative clergymen/theologians of any real influence to teach an earth that is millions (or potentially billions) of years old. Bottom line Young-earth creationists are substantially correct when they say: “For the first 1,800 years of church history, virtually no Christian leader who accepted the inspiration of Scripture taught that the earth is millions or billions of years old.” The church fathers and Reformers who rejected strict 24-hour days still believed in a young earth (thousands, not millions, of years). Old-earth proponents and secular historians do not seriously dispute this historical claim; they simply argue that the scientific evidence since ~1800 is so overwhelming that the church is justified in re-examining the issue—something the pre-modern writers never had to face. But on the purely historical question of what the overwhelming majority of pre-Enlightenment Christian theologians actually believed about the age of the earth, the young-earth position accurately reflects the consensus.

• Grok Conversation / X: Young-Earth Creation the overwhelming view of the Church Fathers.

For more, see:

• St. Augustine Was a Young-Earth Creationist [Along with other Church Fathers] || Answers in Genesis

Today, a lot of theologians and preachers will tell you that Genesis doesn't require us to believe that God created the world in six days. "Genesis is about religion, not science," they tell us. "It's poetry, not science."

Actually, the Bible is a history book. The Gospels -- Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, and the book of Acts -- are history books. The Bible is also a book of laws. Some of those laws are based on history. Consider the Fourth Commandment:

Exodus 20:8-11
⁸ “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. ⁹ Six days you shall labor and do all your work, ¹⁰ but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord your God. In it you shall do no work: you, nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your male servant, nor your female servant, nor your cattle, nor your stranger who is within your gates. ¹¹ For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it.

Genealogies are part of the Bible's history. They trace the descendants of Adam and Eve. Adding up the years in these genealogies gives us a couple of thousand years from Creation to Abraham. Then a couple of thousand years from Abraham to Christ. Virtually every Christian from the destruction of the temple in AD 70 to the days of Luther, Calvin, The Westminster Confession, Harvard University and the Great Awakening understood that the Bible taught that the earth was created only a few thousand years ago.

• Reformers' Belief about the Age of the Earth | Answers in Genesis

Before the age of Darwin and the Enlightenment, Christians believed in six-day "young-earth" creation. Let's look closer at two.

Bishop Ussher

Bishop Ussher was born 4 January 1581, and died 21 March 1656

In 1647, the church-state of Massachusetts formed its public school system through a law which is known today as "The Old Deluder Satan Act." That same year, the Bishop Ussher began a work on the origin of the creeds. He then published a treatise on the calendar in 1648.

This was a warm-up for his most famous work, the Annales veteris testamenti, a prima mundi origine deducti ("Annals of the Old Testament, deduced from the first origins of the world"), which appeared in 1650, and its continuation, Annalium pars posterior, published in 1654. In this work, he calculated the date of the Creation to have been 22 October 4004 BC. [Wikipedia]

James Ussher, Bishop, (1581-1656) was head of the Church of Ireland. He is known (if he is known at all) for his Chronology of the Bible, which established a date for creation of 4004 B.C.

Amateur Evolutionists think of Ussher as a clown. The date of 4004 B.C. is both ridiculed and hated. The biologist Karl Pearson (1857-1936) recalled "the joy we young men then felt when we saw that wretched date BC 4004 replaced by a long vista of millions of years of development." "Wretched" is not a word used by "objective" and "dispassionate" scientists.

But some evolutionists are wiser. They recognize that Ussher was a great mind, a true scholar.

Harvard Professor Stephen Jay Gould, while totally disagreeing with Ussher's worldview, nevertheless wrote:

I shall be defending Ussher's chronology as an honorable effort for its time and arguing that our usual ridicule only records a lamentable small-mindedness based on mistaken use of present criteria to judge a distant and different past.
Ussher represented the best of scholarship in his time. He was part of a substantial research tradition, a large community of intellectuals working toward a common goal under an accepted methodology.^[15]

I'm happy to give full credit to Gould the evolutionist for charging some critics of Ussher with "a lamentable small-mindedness." That charge is usually leveled at fundamentalists, but "lamentable small-mindedness" can be found on both sides of the creation-evolution debate.

Published in 1650, the full title of Ussher's work in Latin is Annales Veteris Testamenti, a prima mundi origine deducti, una cum rerum Asiaticarum et Aegyptiacarum chronico, a temporis historici principio usque ad Maccabaicorum initia producto (Annals of the Old Testament, deduced from the first origins of the world, the chronicle of Asiatic and Egyptian matters together produced from the beginning of historical time up to the beginnings of Maccabees).

Wikipedia notes:

While calculating the date of the Creation is today considered a fringe activity, in Ussher's time such a calculation was still regarded as an important task, one also attempted by many Post-Reformation scholars, such as Joseph Justus Scaliger and Isaac Newton. 

Ussher's chronology represented a considerable feat of scholarship: it demanded great depth of learning in what was then known of ancient history, including the rise of the Persians, Greeks and Romans, as well as expertise in the Bible, biblical languages, astronomy, ancient calendars and chronology. Ussher's account of historical events for which he had multiple sources other than the Bible is usually in close agreement with modern accounts – for example, he placed the death of Alexander in 323 BC and that of Julius Caesar in 44 BC.

Ussher -- the guy who came up with the 4004 BC date for creation -- was a prodigious intellect.

Ussher's chronology is not without critics within the young-earth spectrum (obviously Ussher is criticized by those who believe in "deep time"). One such critic is Edwin Thiele:

• Why Ussher’s Chronology is Wrong

But Thiele tended to believe pagan chronologies were more reliable than the Hebrew chronology. Isaac Newton would have rejected such assumptions. James Jordan explains:

• Biblical Chronology: The Mysterious Numbers of Edwin R. Thiele

Jordan's dispute is "in house" compared to critics who brush away the Bible in favor of billions of years. Scientific scholarship can work out the details. Isaac Newton proves this. He was a young-earth creationist who disagreed with Ussher by a few years.

Isaac Newton

Yes, Isaac Newton. THE Isaac Newton. Encyclopedia Britannica calls Newton "the culminating figure of the Scientific Revolution of the 17th century." National Geographic notes that Newton "was born especially tiny [about 10 weeks premature -- should have been aborted?] but grew into a massive intellect and still looms large...." Here's what one of today's leading evolutionary scientists says about Isaac Newton.

Isaac Newton was born on Christmas Day, December 25th 1642. He was a devout Bible-affirming Christian.

Isaac Newton reviewed Ussher's chronology, doing a massive amount of work on his own, and concluded that the year of Creation was four years later than Ussher said, 4000 B.C., not 4004 B.C. (Newton would say the word "later" is inappropriate, as there were no years before 4000 B.C.). Not a big difference. Isaac Newton was a "young-earth creationist," who put God's Word ahead of man's word.

Isaac Newton died on March 20th 1726. James Hutton was born six weeks later, on June 3. (We'll read about Hutton soon enough.) "The Great Awakening" began that year, and would influence the American Revolution, which John Adams said began in 1761.

I asked Grok, "Did Isaac Newton believe the world was created about six thousand years ago?" and Grok said:

Yes, Isaac Newton believed that the world was created roughly six thousand years ago, in line with a literal or near-literal interpretation of the biblical chronology, particularly the timeline derived from the Masoretic Text of the Old Testament (the version used in most Protestant Bibles of his era). Key evidence from Newton's own writings: In his unpublished theological manuscript Chronology of Ancient Kingdoms Amended (written in the 1720s, published posthumously in 1728), Newton produced a detailed chronological reconstruction of ancient history that explicitly placed the Creation around 4004 BC — the same date famously calculated by Archbishop James Ussher in 1650–1654, which Newton accepted with only very minor adjustments. Newton’s calculated date for the Creation/Fall of Man was approximately 3998–4004 BC, meaning he believed the Earth and universe were about 5,700–5,730 years old in his own lifetime (he died in 1727). In another unpublished theological work, Yahuda MS 17 (held at the National Library of Israel), Newton repeatedly defended a young-Earth timeline and argued that the biblical genealogies in Genesis were historically reliable when properly interpreted (he spent considerable effort trying to resolve apparent gaps or contradictions in them). Newton was not a strict “Ussherian” in every detail (he differed by a few years on some events and was more concerned with synchronizing biblical and pagan histories after the Flood), but he unambiguously accepted a Creation date very close to Ussher’s 4004 BC and a total age of the world of only a few thousand years. So, to directly answer your question: Yes, Isaac Newton believed the world was created approximately six thousand years ago. This was not a casual or peripheral belief for him; he wrote hundreds of thousands of words on biblical chronology and considered his historical-theological work just as important as his physics and mathematics.

This proves that you can be a great scientist and a "creationist" at the same time.

Here are a few of Newton's works, from Isaac Newton - Wikipedia:

Isaac Newton wrote an estimated 10 million words, though scientific and mathematical writings make up only about one-third of this total. The majority of his writing was dedicated to religious, historical, and alchemical subjects. His alchemical manuscripts alone exceed one million words, and his theological works also represent a substantial portion of his total writings.  Total estimate: Approximately 10 million words. Primary subjects: Religious, historical, and alchemical subjects make up the majority of his work. Scientific and mathematical work: Account for about one-third of his total output. Alchemy: He wrote over one million words on alchemy, including laboratory notebooks and transcriptions of other works. Theology: His religious writings, such as a treatise on church history, also constitute a significant portion of his work.  Published in his lifetime De analysi per aequationes numero terminorum infinitas (On Analysis by Equations with an infinite number of terms, 1669, published 1711) Of Natures Obvious Laws & Processes in Vegetation (unpublished, c. 1671–75) De motu corporum in gyrum (On the motion of bodies in an orbit, 1684) Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica (The Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy, 1687) Scala graduum Caloris. Calorum Descriptiones & signa (Scale of degrees of heat. Descriptions & signs of heat., 1701) Opticks (1704) Reports as Master of the Mint (1701–1725) Arithmetica Universalis (Universal Arithmetic, 1707) Published posthumously De mundi systemate (The System of the World) (1728) Optical Lectures (1728) The Chronology of Ancient Kingdoms Amended (1728) Observations on Daniel and The Apocalypse of St. John (1733) Method of Fluxions (1671, published 1736) An Historical Account of Two Notable Corruptions of Scripture (1754)

Newton's I.Q. was in the stratosphere. It's amazing how much intellectual work-product he crammed into his life. And it's amazing how much of his work was theological and Bible-based. It's as if Newton was a theologian whose hobby was science. Newton earned a salary of £100 as Professor of Mathematics at Cambridge, but he was what today would be called a "trust fund baby." Most of his writings were "creationist." Newton wrote more words about the Bible and Theology than he did on physics and other STEM subjects. Most Christians don't know this. Isaac Newton was a devout Bible-believing Christian. Newton would say that "creationism" is "scientific." Atheist-evolutionists like Richard Dawkins would say the majority of what Newton wrote was fundamentalist drivel.

Newton wrote a great deal about Bible prophecy, particularly Daniel and Revelation. I'm not claiming to have a higher I.Q. than Newton, but I disagree with a few things he believed. He was a "pre-millennialist." I'm a "post-millennialist," or "preterist." (No need to get into these intramural debates at this time.)

In an article in The Journal of Christian Reconstruction entitled, Family Authority vs. Protestant Sacerdotalism, Gary North, a post-millennial preterist, wrote this:

In opposition to sacerdotalism, Luther preached that most Protestant of doctrines, the priesthood of all believers. (Actually, this was not the most Protestant of doctrines. The one doctrine universally held in the seventeenth century by every Protestant church, from the highest of high church Anglicans to the wildest of the Anabaptist of Fifth Monarchy sects, was the identification of the papacy with the antichrist. This doctrine was inserted into the Westminster Confession of Faith, chapter XXV, section 6, to the embarrassment of modem American Presbyterians, who have seen fit to footnote this passage into oblivion, and quite properly so. However, it is interesting to witness the most orthodox of Presbyterians drop the one doctrine which was the touchstone of Protestant orthodoxy from Luther’s day until about 1930. At least they set a most-needed precedent, namely, confessional revision of even the most universally accepted traditions of Protestantism. They recognized that the presence in the Confession of unsubstantiated human opinion, in contrast to clearly revealed biblical truth, should not be tolerated, once men realize that the traditional opinion is incorrect. It is a precedent that should be honored.)

Newton believed that the Roman Catholic Pope was a fulfillment of Biblical prophecy. And not in a good way. He believed the institutional church was corrupt. So he wrote a massive amount on church history.

He also believed (as I do) that Daniel 2 encapsulates the history of great empires. Newton, wanting to understand prophecy thoroughly, believed he needed to understand the history of these ancient empires, as described in Daniel 2. So he studied history and wrote a great deal about the history of ancient empires and ancient religions. This project was called

The Chronology of Ancient Kingdoms Amended (1728)

Isaac Newton was a devout Christian who said the Bible was an authoritative textbook on history which should take priority over all other history books, even though history might be said to be a "secular science." Even though Egyptian historians, Assyrian historians, Greek and Roman historians, all set forth histories of their great empires, Newton said they were all wrong because they conflicted with the history recorded in the Bible, including the creation of nations after the flood (Genesis 10). The Bible takes precedence over secular historians. This Chronology was a massive undertaking.

Cornelis J. Schilt, Transcription Manager for the online Newton Project, writing on his website "Corpus Newtonicom" says:

Newton believed that understanding the history recorded in the Bible was necessary to understand the future that was being prophesied. One does not have to agree with Newton's interpretation of prophecy to be impressed with Newton's belief that the Bible was the ultimate standard of earth's history. All ancient histories were to be judged and amended by the historical record in the Bible.

The "Creation-Evolution" controversy was not a thing in Newton's day. But if Newton believed the Bible was an authoritative standard to evaluate and amend all fallible accounts of human culture, civilization, and religions, why would it not also be an authoritative judge of fallible human theories of biological and geological history ("evolution")?

I became a creationist in high school in part by reading a book by Henry Morris called Scientific Creationism. Isaac Newton and Henry Morris are birds of a feather. Two young-earth creationist peas in a pod.

I am not a scientific genius like Isaac Newton, nor a brilliant Bible scholar like Bishop Ussher. My question is simple. Why should I believe evolutionists like Strauss, Darwin, and Pearson, who felt that the worldview and historical dates of Christians like Ussher (4004 BC) and Isaac Newton (4000 B.C.) was "wretched" and "jumped" at Darwin because they hated the God of the Bible? Why should I not stand on the shoulders of Bible-believing giants like Isaac Newton?

So I hold that the Bible, properly interpreted, teaches "six-day creationism."

And since I'm committed to the belief that the Bible is the infallible Word of God, I'm a six-day creationist.

Why do today's preachers tell us Genesis means something different than what the first 1700 years of Christians believed it said?

Because today's preachers do not want to be ridiculed by the dominant paradigm. They want to be accepted by "scientists" and the university-military-industrial complex.

Imagine that all the scientists in the world believed that the universe came into existence (without God, of course) six thousand years ago. Human beings emerged 5 days after the material universe came into existence, they tell us. "Everybody knows that." Would there be a single theologian or clergyman anywhere on planet earth who would say, "I've studied the Biblical text thoroughly for many years, and I've concluded, based solely on exegesis, that the Biblical authors were intending to communicate the proposition that the material creation came into existence 13.4 billions years ago. No "theistic evolutionist" would announce such a conclusion because it would put him totally outside the "consensus" and mark him as an "extremist" or "fringe" or some other epithet. But since the "consensus" is 13,4 billion years, that's what the clergy say Genesis is teaching.

• Day-Age If-Then

Sometimes it seems that there is a thin line between genius and insanity. Maybe Newton crossed that line. As I said, I don't agree with his views on prophecy, and his views on "chymistry" are controversial. Because he believed the institutional church had fallen into corruption and the Pope was the antichrist, Isaac Newton came to doubt the doctrine of the Trinity, ad would have been put to death by the Church of England as a heretic. But he kept most of his theological views secret. So you don't have to agree with everything he said to agree that Newton was a great mind, a great scientist, and a Bible-believing creationist.

What was that Schilt said about "alchemy?" If you want that story, it's down below.

Can someone be a creationist and a scientist at the same time? Isaac Newton proves a "yes" answer. He was a scientific giant -- far greater than Darwin -- and a stalwart defender of the authority of the Bible, even in areas that might be called "secular" -- like history.

More about Newton is here and elsewhere. He was a giant scientific intellect. He was a Bible-believing six-day creationist.

Genesis as Poetry?

I could write a few paragraphs on the many theories offered by "theistic evolutionists" to harmonize Genesis with "modern science." That is, harmonize Genesis with modern religions like "scientific racism" and "scientific socialism." All of these "interpretations" of Genesis presuppose that the modern form of ancient evolutionary/materialistic religion is basically true. The universe is billions of years old, despite what the Bible clearly says. These attempted harmonies have been debunked by James B. Jordan:

• Creation in Six Days: A Defense of the Traditional Reading of Genesis

I'll mention one modern interpretation of Genesis made popular by a Professor at Wheaton College, an ostensibly Christian institution. This view holds that Genesis is just another example of myths and fables of the Ancient Near East (ANE).

"Covenant Creation"

"Covenant Creation" is based on the big lie of evolution, or methodological naturalism. Nobody in Calvin's day would have come up with "covenant creation" because nobody believed in evolutionary deep-time. That didn't happen until the "renaissance" (re-birth) of paganism.

I believe the Bible, especially the Old Testament, repeatedly condemns any attempt to synthesize Biblical teaching with the idolatrous teachings of the Gentiles (the other nations outside Israel).

But this modern "Christian" view ("Covenant Creation") claims that Moses (or the author of Genesis) violated these commands and imported pagan religious views into Genesis.

This theory tries to rescue Genesis from the uniformitarians by claiming that Genesis is not about the creation of the material universe, but only about the creation of "the covenant community" of Israel, or more specifically Israel's temple religion at the time of Moses.

The god of the Bible is just Israel's god, a local god, like the local gods of Babylon, Sumer, and Akkadia.

In my opinion, this view was constructed to appeal to Enlightenment minds who find the date BC 4004 to be "wretched." It is an attempt to harmonize the Bible and "modern science."

I would rather appeal to Isaac Newton and the Christians of his day.

Was the creation account in Genesis a propositional/verbal revelation from God to Adam? Did Adam pass this knowledge on to his son Seth? Did God directly reveal the creation account to Seth?

During the last 34 years of his life, Seth had an opportunity to tell Noah that God created the world in six 24-hour days.

Methuselah knew Adam for 243 years, and Seth for 355 years, and Noah for 600 years.

Methuselah's son Lamech was Noah's father.

Methuselah died the same year that all other human beings on planet earth died in Noah's Flood.

There were no other "ancient near eastern civilizations" immediately after the flood.

Abraham's father Terah talked with Noah and his son Shem, who told Abraham about the creation and the flood and other events in Genesis 1-11.

Abraham knew Noah's son Shem for 150 years.

Abraham's son Isaac knew Noah's son Shem for 50 years.

Isaac's son Jacob knew Abraham for 20 years.

Jacob's 3rd oldest son Levi knew Isaac for 45 years, and was the great-grandfather of Moses.

Joseph, firstborn son of Rachel and Jacob, and vizier of Egypt, may have been the author of the text of Genesis, which Moses incorporated into the Pentateuch.

The true history of mankind was known to all mankind. God's supernatural activity in Israel was known to the nations outside of Israel. If YHWH = "the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob," then the Pharaoh of Egypt did not know less about the God of the Bible than Rahab the Canaanite prostitute, who told the Israeli spies:

I know that YHWH [the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob] has given you this land and that a great fear of you has fallen on us, so that all who live in this country are melting in fear because of you. 10 We have heard how YHWH [the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob] dried up the water of the Red Sea for you when you came out of Egypt, and what you did to Sihon and Og, the two kings of the Amorites east of the Jordan, whom you completely destroyed. 11 When we heard of it, our hearts melted in fear and everyone’s courage failed because of you, for YHWH your God is God in heaven above and on the earth below. (Joshua 2)

Rahab used the name "YHWH" or "Jehovah," the specific name of the God of Abraham and Israel, not just a generic god. Non-Israelite religions were just the evolutionary product of human reason or human immorality. The religion of Israel was revealed to them by God.

These are historical propositions contained in the Bible.

The Big Question is whether God used human beings as "human penmen" to record the history of the world, or whether the history of the world is a vast cacophony of impersonal, meaningless factoids which can only be properly interpreted by those who feel that the Biblical account is "wretched." Which human beings -- which "experts" -- do you choose to believe?

Can we read the truth in the pages of the Bible, or must we get the truth from evolutionists like Darwin and Lyell and the bloggers listed above?