googlef87758e9b6df9bec.html A Sure Word: March 2011

Wednesday, March 23, 2011

Rising College Tuition Rates: Economics 101

My daughter graduates high school this year and is making plans to go to college. She will begin studying anthropology which I believe is fantastic since we need more scientists who are also young-earth creationists but that's the subject of another post. Anyway, she did well in high school (3.97 GPA) and is currently 19th in her class of over 400 students so she will qualify for some scholarships. Even so, we're still going to probably have to help with some of the costs and she may even have to take out some student loans.

In case you haven't heard, college is becoming more expensive every year. In a Wikipedia article that includes a break down of inflation rates between 1978 and 2008, we find the following information:

Cost of living increased roughly 2.5-fold during this time; medical costs inflated roughly 6-fold; but college tuition and fees inflation approached 10-fold. Another way to say this is that whereas medical costs inflated at twice the rate of cost-of-living, college tuition and fees inflated at four times the rate of cost-of-living inflation. Thus, even after controlling for the effects of general inflation, 2008 college tuition and fees posed three times the burden as in 1978.

So how does a middle class family like mine afford to send a kid to college? It seems more and more impossible every year and so there are constant calls for increased government assistance to help students pay for college. In the 2009-2010 school year, more that $154 billion in financial aid was awarded to undergraduate students. Yet the cost of college is rising as fast as the money comes available. Any guesses why?

It just so happens that I too am a college graduate only my major was in business. In my opinion, most politicians in Washington would benefit from a refresher course in economics. There's a very simple principle they teach in Econ101 – see if you remember it: When there is a surplus in the money supply, the cost of goods rises. Hello!! It's called inflation. Ring any bells?

I know it's been a while but we have had some recent periods of economic boom. Every time the economy starts to heat up, the Federal Reserve tries to put the brakes on by raising the Federal discount rate. Why? Because too much money in the economy drives up costs. Even in our current, economic woes, you might have heard that inflation is becoming a concern because the US is simply printing money. More money equals higher prices. Always! Like I said, it's Econ101. Every time the government opens it checkbook (actually, it's our checkbook) to help pay for rising college tuition, they are actually helping to drive up the cost! I don't care if the Feds made $50K per year available for every kid to go to college; in no time at all the cost of 1 year of college will rise to $60K.

If any elected official heeds my advice to brush up on economics, he might also remind himself of the meaning of the term “free market.” If we let the free market do its job, college costs will stabilize at a rate most people can afford. Not only do government subsidies artificially inflate the cost of college, we are doing it at a time when the nation can least afford it. We're leaving a huge public debt that the next generation will have to repay plus we're burdening them with higher tuition costs that many kids have to finance as well. Future graduates will not only have to start repaying huge student loans but will also face enormous tax rates. It's inevitable.

Proverbs 13:22 says that a good man leaves an inheritance to his children's children. What do you call a nation that leaves it's children $20 trillion in debt?

Monday, March 21, 2011

Exodus 21:22-23: Does the Bible Consider the Unborn a Baby?

It's typical of liberal Christians or even liberal non-Christians to attempt to use the Bible to support their liberal views. Ordinarily, they wouldn't concern themselves with the word of God but when they can find a passage they believe supports their cause, they champion it like – well, like it's Scripture. They do this because they know conservative Christians seriously regard the Bible and if the liberal can convince the conservative that the Bible is on the liberal's side, it should settle the matter.

One such argument used by liberals concerns abortion. Conservative Christians, of course, recognize correctly that the unborn are still created in the image of God and deserve protection as much as any other person. Liberals justify their position on abortion by claiming the unborn child isn't really a person. The Bible certainly doesn't support their extreme view but I've heard a few liberals cite Exodus 21:22-23:
If men quarrel, and one strike a woman with child, and she miscarry indeed, but live herself: he shall be answerable for so much damage as the woman's husband shall require, and as arbiters shall award. But if her death ensue thereupon, he shall render life for life.
(Douay-Rheims Bible)
By citing this verse, they argue that even the Bible recognizes a difference between the unborn child and the life of the woman. In this passage, if a man strikes a woman and she “miscarries”, he has to pay a fine. But if she dies, it becomes a capital offense and his own life is forfeit. At first glance, their argument seems to have merit. However, as is always the case, it's a good idea to look up a passage for yourself before trusting a liberal's cite.

I'm not a Bible scholar or anything but when I first heard this argument, I had to search a while before finding the translation being used. The above passage is from the Douay-Rheims Bible. Now, tell me the truth, have you ever heard of the Douay-Rheims Bible? It is an English translation from the Latin Vulgate (as opposed to a translation from the original language into English). The fact that it is a translation of a translation presents more than a few problems and I honestly can't recommend it as an acceptable translation.

When we read the same passage in more mainstream translations, the liberal argument loses all credibility:
If people are fighting and hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely
but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows. But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life.

(New International Version ©2011)

If men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she gives birth prematurely, yet there is no injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman's husband may demand of him, and he shall pay as the judges decide. But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life.
(New American Standard Bible)

If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life.
(King James Version)

When men strive together and hit a pregnant woman, so that her children come out, but there is no harm, the one who hit her shall surely be fined, as the woman’s husband shall impose on him, and he shall pay as the judges determine. But if there is harm, then you shall pay life for life.
(English Standard Version)

And if men strive together, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart, and yet no harm follow; he shall be surely fined, according as the woman's husband shall lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. But if any harm follow, then thou shalt give life for life.
(American Standard Version)
We can see in these more familiar translations that this passage is more in line with the conservative position. If a man strikes a pregnant woman, and she delivers her child prematurely, he must pay a fine. However, if the woman or the child dies, he must give a life for a life.

It's rather pathetic that liberal theologians, who hold little regard for the Bible anyway, attempt to use the Bible to support a position so contrary to God's will. And to use such an obscure translation is not simply intellectual laziness but outright dishonesty. They had to hunt out this passage while intentionally overlooking the rendering in more trusted versions.

What is almost equally as sad is that too many Christians fall victim to this tactic. When I've seen this con employed online, the simple rebuttal is to point out the same passage in a more mainstream translation. Instead, I've seen Christians falling all over themselves trying to spin a pro-life position in this flawed translation. I suspect they never stopped to look in the Bible for themselves.

The Bible is very clear in its position on the unborn. God is pro-life! His clear word is not undone by the bad translation of a single verse.

Sunday, March 20, 2011

My King! Do You Know Him?

I had first heard this at a revival about 4 years ago but had forgotten it. Just today, our Sunday School teacher played a different version of it. I found this, slightly longer version online and wanted to share it with you. I hope it blesses you.

Thursday, March 17, 2011

Happy St. Patrick's Day

St. Patrick's Breastplate

I arise today
Through a mighty strength, the invocation of the Trinity,
Through the belief in the threeness,
Through confession of the oneness
Of the Creator of Creation.
I arise today
Through the strength of Christ's birth with his baptism,
Through the strength of his crucifixion with his burial,
Through the strength of his resurrection with his ascension,
Through the strength of his descent for the judgment of Doom.
I arise today
Through the strength of the love of Cherubim,
In obedience of angels,
In the service of archangels,
In hope of resurrection to meet with reward,
In prayers of patriarchs,
In predictions of prophets,
In preaching of apostles,
In faith of confessors,
In innocence of holy virgins,
In deeds of righteous men.
I arise today
Through the strength of heaven:
Light of sun,
Radiance of moon,
Splendor of fire,
Speed of lightning,
Swiftness of wind,
Depth of sea,
Stability of earth,
Firmness of rock.
I arise today
Through God's strength to pilot me:
God's might to uphold me,
God's wisdom to guide me,
God's eye to look before me,
God's ear to hear me,
God's word to speak for me,
God's hand to guard me,
God's way to lie before me,
God's shield to protect me,
God's host to save me
From snares of devils,
From temptations of vices,
From everyone who shall wish me ill,
Afar and anear,
Alone and in multitude.
I summon today all these powers between me and those evils,
Against every cruel merciless power that may oppose my body and soul,
Against incantations of false prophets,
Against black laws of pagandom
Against false laws of heretics,
Against craft of idolatry,
Against spells of witches and smiths and wizards,
Against every knowledge that corrupts man's body and soul.
Christ to shield me today
Against poison, against burning,
Against drowning, against wounding,
So that there may come to me abundance of reward.
Christ with me, Christ before me, Christ behind me,
Christ in me, Christ beneath me, Christ above me,
Christ on my right, Christ on my left,
Christ when I lie down, Christ when I sit down, Christ when I arise,
Christ in the heart of every man who thinks of me,
Christ in the mouth of everyone who speaks of me,
Christ in every eye that sees me,
Christ in every ear that hears me.
I arise today
Through a mighty strength, the invocation of the Trinity,
Through belief in the threeness,
Through confession of the oneness,
Of the Creator of Creation.

Attributed to St. Patrick.

Wednesday, March 16, 2011

A Contradiction Between Genesis 1 & Genesis 2?

I actually wrote this about 3 years back. However, I had very few visitors to my blog back then and no one seems to ever goes back and read the archives. While I was online the other day, this subject came up again so I thought it might be a good idea to revisit this.

One criticism often used by critics of the Bible is a supposed contradiction between the creation account given in Genesis, Chapter 1 and a “second creation account” given in Chapter 2. When people view Chapter 2 as a second creation account, there is some confusion. The creation of plants for example, doesn’t match up with the creation of plants in Chapter 1.

I’ve read commentaries from some Christians who try to explain that Chapter 2 as a summary - highlighting different events but not given in chronological order. They don’t seem to understand Chapter 2 at all. Frankly, I’m a little surprised at the confusion since it’s really rather simple: Genesis, Chapter 2, beginning in verse 5, is NOT a second account of creation - it is a detailed account of the creation of Adam and Eve and the Garden of Eden on the 6th day of creation.

Let’s look at the Chapter verse by verse.

Verses 5-6, “And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground. But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.”

At this point, God has not created Adam. It has not rained on the earth during the creation. God seems to be preparing the ground where He is going to put the Garden.

Verse 7, “And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.”

God creates Adam.

Verse 8, “And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed."

God creates the Garden of Eden and puts Adam in it. Verses 9-25 which follow expound on this a little.

Verse 9, “And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.”

God makes trees grow in the Garden which are meant for food. He also creates the tree of knowledge of good and evil. He later tells Adam not to eat of it.

Verses 10-14, “And a river went out of Eden to water the garden; and from thence it was parted, and became into four heads. The name of the first is Pison: that is it which compasseth the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold; And the gold of that land is good: there is bdellium and the onyx stone. And the name of the second river is Gihon: the same is it that compasseth the whole land of Ethiopia. And the name of the third river is Hiddekel: that is it which goeth toward the east of Assyria. And the fourth river is Euphrates.”

This is a somewhat detailed description of the Garden of Eden.

Verses 15-17, “And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it. And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.’"

God puts Adam in the Garden and gives him instructions. He specifically tells him not to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Later, He tells Adam and Eve to be fruitful and multiply. These are the only 2 commandments God gave at the beginning of His creation.

Verse 18, “And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.”

God has already decided that He will create Eve.

Verse 19-20, “And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof. And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.”

Here, Adams names the animals. I don’t believe God intended Adam to find a mate among the animals. Rather, I believe God was showing Adam that he was a unique creature. He was not like the other animals but was made in the image of God.

Verses 21-22, “And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.”

God creates Eve from Adam’s rib.

Verses 23-25, “And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh. And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.”

Adam meets Eve.

If you read Genesis, Chapter 2 while keeping in mind it is a description of day 6 of the creation, it is really impossible to miss the meaning of it. So anytime you hear someone claim there are 2 creation accounts, you’ll know he is wrong. There are no contradictions in the Bible. God’s word is sure (Psalm 19:7)

Tuesday, March 15, 2011

Why I Say Evolution is Not Compatible with the Bible

In my last post, I talked about how our beliefs about the creation can effect our attitude toward tragedies like we've seen in Japan. In the past, when I've made this point, I've been accused of misrepresenting the position of theistic evolutionists. I feel that I'm being accurate and they simply don't like hearing their position being described so bluntly. If you feel I'm being unfair, I direct you to the blog of a devout, theistic evolutionist.

The Palaeobabbler (PB) has been a visitor to my blog several times in the past and we've had a few exchanges. You can find his remarks among the comments to several of my posts. Anyway, PB hosts his own blog and just recently wrote a post that showcases wonderfully the very attitude ascribed to theistic evolutionsits. You can read his post here but I've included the most telling passage below.

While commenting on John 12:24, “Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone: but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit,” PB said:

Jesus describes a process of change, the bringing about of something new. This can be applied to Christ himself, where his death on the cross changed everything and brought about new life - this alone should be ample reading for seeing the death in the John verse as intended. Evolution by natural selection is a process which involves death, but it does not stop there. The death is instrumental in bringing about change, in bringing about new life. It is an act of redemption, which is small in scale compared to Christ on the cross, yet large in scale with regards to cosmic history. Many scientifically minded theologians have noted that evolution is a cruciform process. It redeems death into new life. What better way for Christ to create?

Now, to be fair, PB wasn't directly addressing the situation in Japan. Of course it doesn't matter. He has echoed the very thing I discussed in my last post. Death is how he believes God creates. PB seems to think that's a good thing. What then would he say to the people in Japan? Would he say, “I'm sorry for your loss but it was for the best”? Instead, we need to share the good news of the gospel – namely that there is life in Christ!

Let me just add that evolution isn't necessarily false because of it's moral implications. It's wrong for a lot of other reasons. I'm not trying to use moral outrage as evidence against the theory. However, many Christians, even sincere Christians, go out of their way to reconcile their understanding of Scripture to this amoral theory. Why they are so anxious to do this escapes me when it paints such a distorted picture of the gospel. It is another reason why I say that evolution is not compatible with the Bible.

Further reading

Christianity and Evolution: Mutually Exclusive

My Thoughts for Japan

Strange Bedfellows

Monday, March 14, 2011

My Thoughts for Japan

After any tragedy like the one we've seen in Japan, people ordinarily set aside their differences and work together to give aid to all those affected. Certainly, the differences of opinion regarding our origins seems inconsequential at a time like this. However, it is also at times like this that people ask the question, “why would God allow something like this to happen?” And in such a time, our view of origins bears directly on how we would answer.

The Bible says that when God created the world, He saw that it was all very good (Genesis 1:31). There were no earthquakes, floods, or disasters of any sort. There was no death. It was not until after Adam sinned that death entered into the world (Romans 5:12). The Bible tells us that it was at the Fall that God cursed the ground for the sake of Adam (Genesis 3:17) and the creation groans under the Curse even until now (Romans 8:22). The earthquakes and floods we see now are the result of the Curse. They are not God's perfect will but are His judgment for Adam's sin and our continued rebellion against Him. In this world, we will continue to have tribulation (John 16:33) until God restores His creation to the paradise He intended it to be (Revelation 21:1-6). To that end, He sent His Son so that whoever should believe in Him would have eternal life (John 3:16).

On the other hand, there are some Christians who believe in an “old” creation and theistic evolution. How exactly do they answer questions like this? If God used evolution to create us, then death and tragedy are intentional. If the earth is billions of years old, then this earthquake is rather ordinary. Earthquakes, volcanoes, and flooding are how God shapes the earth. Over the supposed billions of years the earth has existed, there should have been millions of earthquakes. Why then should we consider this one a tragedy? It's just another tink of God's hammer as He continues shaping the earth just as He's always done. And what about the thousands who died? I suppose they're just another step in the evolutionary ladder who have gone the way of Homo ergaster or Australopithecus.

To say that it doesn't matter what we believe about origins is to say that it doesn't matter what we believe about the character of God. Do we believe in a Holy God who is the Judge of His creation and who sent His Son to redeem us from our bondage of sin? Or do we believe in a capricious god who, for billions of years, has sent disaster upon disaster to clear the way for his next-best species of animal on his way to humans?

Let me close by saying this: I'm not exploiting this tragedy to promote my views on Genesis. Rather, I'm using it as an opportunity to show that our beliefs have consequences. If we are to be witnesses to the world, we must share the good news. And what is the good news? It is that there is life in Jesus and everyone who believes in Him will not die (John 11:25-26). There is no hope in the god of evolution. We cannot turn to him for comfort at a time like this. Death and suffering are his plan for us.

Further reading

Christianity and Evolution: Mutually Exclusive

Why I Say Evolution is Not Compatible with the Bible

Strange Bedfellows

Thursday, March 10, 2011

Thus Saith the Lord

Here's a Bible quiz. See if you can identify who is being discussed in this verse:

But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting. (Mic 5:2)

OK. That was an easy one but how about this:

But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed. (Isa 53:5)

Still too easy? Here's one more:

For dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked have inclosed me: they pierced my hands and my feet. I may tell all my bones: they look and stare upon me. They part my garments among them, and cast lots upon my vesture. (Psa 22:16-18)

Not stumped yet? Wow, you must be a Bible scholar!

I know. I'm playing it up a little. It's not really hard to identify that it's Jesus who is being discussed in these verses. However, there's something very interesting about these verses that critics of the Bible don't stop to consider. All of these passages are taken from the Old Testament. These passages that so clearly discuss accurate details of His birth, His passion, and His death, were written hundreds of years before the events actually occurred. Furthermore, these are but a few of the hundreds of Old Testament passages that I could have cited.

This is what we sometimes describe as “prophecy.” Before we had the revelation of Scripture, God would give His word to prophets who would proclaim it to the world. Of course, anyone could claim to be speaking God's word. The difference is that whatever was spoken by God would come to pass. If someone claimed to speak in the name of the Lord, but the thing he speaks does not come to pass, he is exposed as a false prophet (see Deuteronomy 18:18, 21-22).

Once the thing that God had proclaimed would come to pass, it revealed the sovereignty and authority of God. When Jesus came and fulfilled the prophecies spoken about Him centuries earlier, it established His status as the Messiah. It proved that God is the sovereign Lord of the universe. It proved the things spoken by the prophets were true. It proved the Bible is the word of God.

Consider the following passage from Isaiah:

Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me, Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure: (Isa 46:9-10)

To all the critics who read my blog, let me ask you something: do you deny that the Bible is the word of God? You probably do – otherwise you'd likely be a believer. Even still, you have to admit that what the Lord spoke about Jesus centuries in advance, came to pass in exactly in the same way He spoke it. It's proof that He is God and that the Bible is His word. If you're still not convinced, then let me ask you this: when you read the above passages, didn't you think they were talking about Jesus? You can deny it if you'd like but I know you did.

Wednesday, March 9, 2011

Reporters Don't Have a Clue About Religion

On this Ash Wednesday, I can't help but post this gem from Ash Wednesdays past. I know that most reporters are completely clueless about all things religious and, since these reporters are British, they're likely more secular than most. Even so, since they are reporters, you'd think they'd at least have heard about Ash Wednesday on the news before they embarrassed themselves.

It was Ash Wednesday, for crying out loud. Didn't their network even announce the day? I've mentioned before that I'm not Catholic but even I'm aware of this observance. I'm not asking them to observe the practice but, again, since they are reporters, do you think they at least might be aware of a practice observed by hundreds of millions of people all over the world? I can only assume they didn't think it was important enough to be mentioned on their network.

Can you imagine something like this happening at Christmas? Would the reporters have said something like, "I wonder why that tree behind the Vice President has lights on it?" Of course, nothing like that could ever happen. Christmas has become secular enough to catch the notice of the liberal media (though they still refuse to call it, "Christmas" but prefer the more benign sounding, "holiday"). Ash Wednesday is still far too religious for them to be interested in actually learning something about it.

Oh well. At least their antics provide a never ending supply of humor for bloggers like me. Enjoy!!

Sunday, March 6, 2011

A Stegosaurus in Angkor? It's not a Magic Bullet

Sometimes, we want to believe something so much that we fail to look at it objectively. Other times, we are overly trusting of the source and also fail to consider things objectively. If we believe things too easily, we set ourselves up for disappointment. At the very least, we risk looking foolish. No matter how exciting something sounds and no matter how much we trust the source, we need to be skeptical about anything we see or hear. Remember, only God is perfect. Everything else is suspect.

Such is the case for a carving found among some temple ruins in jungles of Angkor, Cambodia. Here is a photo taken of one of the carvings. What do you think it looks like? I admit, it looks a lot like a stegosaurus. I showed the photo to my 8 year old son who also immediately identified it as a dinosaur. If it is a dinosaur, the implications are significant. How could there be such an accurate depiction of a dinosaur unless the carvers had actually seen one? If they had seen a living stegosaurus, it would mean that humans would have been contemporaries of dinosaurs just as is predicted by young-earth creationists.

Such a find is extremely exciting. It's almost like a silver bullet that immediately dispels the notion that dinos lived millions of years before humans even existed. After seeing this glyph, many sincere creationists have accepted the most obvious interpretation (that it's a stegosaurus) without question. They haven't stopped to consider any other explanations. They aren't skeptical.

Now, like I said, I admit it looks like a stegosaurus. I'm not sure what else it could be. It doesn't look like any other creature that I recognize. Even so, I'm not entirely sure it's a stegosaurus. It could be a rather mundane creature, like a hornless rhino as some have suggested. Note the short neck and large head; these are not typical of a stegosaurus. The plates that seem to be on the back of the creature could actually be simple decoration or even a tree behind the beast.

Several inches below the suspect carving, there is another carving which I've also included here. What exactly is this other creature? I think it resembles a satyr (as in the Greek god, Pan). Does that mean these people once saw a satyr? Of course it doesn't. Some people believe it's a monkey but, if so, it's a very loose resemblance. More likely, it's either a mythical creature or a much elaborated upon depiction of a real creature.

Furthermore, look at the decoration around the head of the creature. I think it resembles the “plates” on the back of the suspect carving. It could be something like a mask or head-dress. It could also be just a fancy decoration these ancient monks liked to add to their carvings.

Obviously, then, not every carving on the temples walls was meant to be of a real creature. The "stegosaurus" could likewise be "dressed up" ordinary animal or even a mythical creature that just happens to look like a stegosaurus. Of course, don't get me wrong; I think it could be a stegosaurus. I'm just not sure. I know that dinosaurs were contemporaries of humans and I don't need this carving to prove that. The Bible says that God made all the land animals on the sixth day of creation – the same day He created man (Genesis 1:24-31). They did not live millions of years ago because the Scriptures tell us that the earth is only a few thousand years old. The Bible is really all the evidence that we need. If this carving is indeed a stegosaurus, it's nice that it reaffirms what I already know to be true. However, the Bible is true with or without this carving.

So I say again that we must be skeptical. Don't trust anything at first hearing no matter how exciting it might seem. Science is a useful tool but our understanding is limited and flawed. Things we think are true today are soon shown to be wrong. Only the Bible is without error. If we base our faith on the latest scientific discoveries, we are certain to be disappointed. If we put our trust in the Bible, it will never be wrong. If you wed your faith to science today, you will find yourself a widow tomorrow.