– Episode 1788 –

The Importance of Genesis: Dr. Chou

Todd Fried interviews Dr. Abner Chou of the Master’s College about Christian colleges, worldviews, and the Bible.  The discussion centers on comparing the teaching of solid Biblical institutions, such as the Master’s College, versus secular humanistic institutions, including many so-called Christian colleges that are teaching a secular humanistic worldview.

Segment 1 (0:00) – Todd dialogues with Dr. Chou about the contrast of secular humanism and the teaching of a historic Genesis chapters one through three, including six 24-hour days.  The early parts of Genesis are the foundation of Bible and that it has many ramifications for understanding the rest of the Bible and all aspects of everyday life.  Genesis chapters one through three should be read as literal history, not as a gap or poetry, because of the literature structure and content of the original Hebrew along with the fact that actual history is the foundation of theology and aligns with other historical usages throughout the Bible.

Segment 2 (11:00) – Todd Friel discusses with Dr. Chou how a young earth view of Genesis is required for maintaining the reliability of the rest of Scripture.  Also discussed is the significance of all parts of the Bible, which Leviticus is used as a specific example.  Leviticus displays the holiness and transcendence of God, the morality of man related to holiness, and how a person who does the Law, lives by it, which is not possible by one’s self.  Leviticus has application to one’s relationship with God, worship, and many other aspects of life.

Segment 3 (18:50) – Todd and Dr. Chou Bible talk about translations along the range of formal equivalence to functional equivalence.  Specifically a comparison is made using the book of Isaiah between translations like the New American Standard Bible (NASB) and the New Living Translation (NLT) and The Message.  Choosing a translation comes down to choosing the right tool for the right job, with functional equivalence providing more of a summary while formal equivalence lending itself more to formal theological analysis.