Is creationism bad for Christianity?

Allen Marshall O'Brien wrote an article on Irenicon titled, 5 Ways Creationism Is Bad For Christianity. Most of it is the same weak arguments I've heard before but, since theistic evolutionists keep trotting out these tired points, I have to keep answering them. Before I get into the points, though, let me just say I'm really getting tired of having to confront other Christians about what should be a non-issue. Evolution is a waste of time in science and, frankly, while many people may believe in evolution, the majority of those don't really give a whit about it. They're not “evolutionists.” I only discuss the issue because there are militant critics out there that use evolution to attack the credibility of the Bible. It's sad that some Christians feel it's important to “reconcile the Bible” with such a useless and godless theory. Evolution is an obstacle to the Faith and the time I spend addressing stupid points like the following is time I could have spent reaching lost people with the truth.

//Sigh// Anyway, here we go.

1. It suppresses critical thinking. Demanding conclusions which rise from evidence is part and parcel of human reasoning. If Christians say, along with Ken Ham, that no evidence could ever change their mind about Genesis 1-3 (or anything else for that matter), then they turn off the only function by which we arrive at logical thought and rational conversation.

There's an old Abbott and Costello skit where Lou “proves” to Bud that 7 x 13 = 28. Obviously, he's wrong but he reaches the same answer by adding, multiplying, and dividing and completely stymies Bud. I see evolution in much that same light. It's a clever explanation of the “facts” and some people have fallen for it completely. It's still absolutely wrong.

If something is true, then it's true regardless of how persuasively anyone might argue to contrary. God created the world miraculously. That's the truth. I will never let someone use clever stories like evolution to make me to believe in a lie.

I would like to ask Mr. O'Brien if he believes the Bible or not? I mean, what sort of evidence might convince him that Jesus isn't Lord? Might he ever change his mind about the resurrection? I admit that I believe the Bible. I believe that Jesus is the Risen Savior. I believe these things for the same reason people believe anything – I'm convinced it's the truth. Now that I've accepted Jesus as my Savior, no criticism will ever make me stop believing. For some reason, O'Brien thinks that's a bad thing.

2. It consciously promotes a lying God. The creation of a “mature” Earth is one way creationists attempt to explain a whole host of scientific evidence. But isn’t it troubling to think that God should make a universe which only looks old and life that looks evolved, then bequeath humanity a contradictory account of the real “truth” on the situation?

On the day that God made Adam, I wonder how old Adam “looked”? Obviously, God created Adam as a mature man who was able to walk and talk and speak. He commanded Adam and Eve to be fruitful and multiply meaning they were post-pubescent. Was God being deceitful making a man fully-grown even though he was only 1 day old? God made trees with fruit on them ready to eat. Just imagine Adam questioning God saying, “Lord, trees this big with fruit take years to grow so, when you say you made them in a day, I know you mean many years because You're not a deceiver.”

This argument is absolutely ridiculous. If God created a working universe in six days and told us that He did it in 6 days, that's not being deceitful. The irony is that if God did create the universe over billions of years but said He did it in six days, then He really would be a deceiver. Theistic evolutionists believe in a lying god!

3. It disrespects the legitimacy of human culture and the meaning-making power of literature. Ken Ham has said time and again that the Bible rises and falls with the scientific viability of Genesis. In fact, I’d venture to guess that most avid creationists feel this way; they deny that God could/would speak to humankind through ancient, scientifically inaccurate, mythology.

Jesus often taught using parables. When He did this, it was clear that He was not speaking something that was literally true. The Psalms are a collection of poetry that teach spiritual, though not necessarily, literal truths. The Bible uses many literary devices like metaphor, simile, and personification. However, the Bible also talks about historical facts like the death and resurrection of Jesus.

In Luke's chronology from Adam to Jesus, at what point do the people stop becoming myth and start becoming real? At Adam? Noah? Abraham? David? Jesus? How do I know Jesus wasn't a literary device? If we begin assigning the genre of “figurative” to passages that are intended to be literal, then the entire Bible becomes suspect. When we read the Bible, we understand it like we would any other written work – the way the author intended it. Some parts are figurative, some parts are literal, and it's not really that hard to tell the difference.

And by the way, I'm not that concerned with respecting the legitimacy of human culture. I am much more concerned with correctly understanding the revealed word of the Creator.

4. It hinders our vision of Jesus. Tethering creationism to Christianity places an unnecessary obstacle between us and Christ. The slippery-slope rhetoric of creationist pastors and theologians has regrettably set up a false dichotomy between evolution and “true” Christianity.

Jesus believed in the creation and the Flood. When asked about marriage, He cited the creation of Adam and Eve. He mentioned Abel by name in Luke 11:51. He compared His second coming to Flood of Noah. He talks about the events of Genesis as though they were historical events. Conversely, He never suggested even once that the books of Moses were meant to be figurative. At times, He confronted the Pharisees on their abuse of the Law. When He cited Old Testament passages to them, He always relied on a clear understanding of the text and never once appealed to some figurative meaning.

If Jesus treated Genesis as history, what does it say about Him when theistic evolutionists say none of it happened? Why would anyone need the last Adam if there never really was a first Adam (1 Corinthians 15:45)? If His return shall happen suddenly, like the Flood of Noah, what does it mean if there wasn't a Flood?

Theistic evolution destroys the gospel.

5. And yeah, it makes us look really, really silly. The silliest (read: saddest) part of fighting, speaking, preaching, and spending millions of dollars touting creationism is that our fights, speeches, sermons, and millions of dollars are needed elsewhere.

The risk of looking silly is hardly a reason to compromise on God's word. Indeed, Matthew 5:11-12 says that we should rejoice when people mock, insult, and persecute us because we will have a great reward in heaven. I guess that means Christians always have the last laugh.

What else in the Bible might make us look silly for believing it? Are we silly to believe Jesus turned water into wine? Could a person believe it didn't happen and still be a Christian? Maybe. What about feeding the crowd or healing the sick or walking on water? What if I believed in a Jesus that did NO miracles? A Jesus that did no miracles is not the Son of God revealed in Scripture but is just an insane, lying rabbi who was executed along with a couple of thieves and is still buried somewhere. Likewise, the god of evolution is an impotent god who is bound by the physical laws he supposedly created and is indistinguishable from dumb luck. I will not let scoffers shame me into believing in some farce of a god.

Regardless, O'Brien is missing a major point. Richard Dawkins once said that Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist. The rate of atheism among scientists is greater than the general population. Secular theories of origins are obstacles that hinder people from coming to the faith. Theistic evolution and theories that compromise the Bible to make it “compatible with science,” do harm to those people who don't think God is necessary to explain the origin of the universe, of life, or of man. Telling them that God guides evolution sounds as compelling as saying gravity is accomplished by angels dragging the planets in their course. Theistic evolutionists should stop wasting their time trying to explain how “six days” (as in Exodus 20:11) really means billions of years.  It makes them look silly.

Can a person lose his salvation? Part 3

Salvation is given by God. Can we all agree on that? I didn't earn it. I don't deserve it. God would be perfectly just to judge me according to my sins BUT because He is loving and merciful, He has made salvation possible through the shed blood of His only Son. By believing in the death and resurrection of Jesus and by accepting Him as my Lord, I am saved (Romans 10:). End of story....

or is it? You see, there are some people who believe that, while salvation may be a free gift, we have to work to keep it. So even though some call it a “free” gift, they still believe it comes with a lifetime of conditions. We could be the most vile sinner ever and be saved, right? But once we're saved, we'd better become sinless or we will meet the same fate we faced before coming to Christ. Before I even get into the Scripture, let me say that something about that just doesn't sound right. Christ will forgive a wallowing pig but will condemn a dirty sheep? Hmm.

In my second post of this series, I talked about the transforming nature of salvation. When we become saved, we are a new creature. Our old selves are passed away and we are born new of the Spirit. That is the picture of salvation given in the Bible. If we believe that we could lose our salvation, it makes salvation seem more of a status – something that could change. It's like going to work for a new company; as long as we work there, we enjoy the benefits of our employment but we could be fired or we could leave and then we would be the same person we were before. In this light, salvation isn't transforming but, rather, is conditional.

If we can all agree that salvation is given by God, my next question would be to ask who is responsible for keeping our salvation? Those people who believe we can lose our salvation obviously believe it is up to individual believers to keep their salvation but I don't believe such an idea can be found in Scripture. Instead, I think the Bible is clear that God not only saves us be He keeps us. Consider the following verses:

Therefore you do not lack any spiritual gift as you eagerly wait for our Lord Jesus Christ to be revealed. He will also keep you firm to the end, so that you will be blameless on the day of our Lord Jesus Christ. (1 Cor 1:7-8)

Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them. (Heb 7:25)

Being confident of this very thing, that he which hath begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ: (Philippians 1:6)

Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, To an inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, and that fadeth not away, reserved in heaven for you, Who are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation ready to be revealed in the last time. (1Peter 1:3-5)

You can see from these verses that the same God who saved us also keeps us. We aren't kept by feeble works of the flesh any more than we were saved by feeble works of the flesh. How can we possibly reconcile the idea of losing our salvation with the idea that our salvation is kept by the power of God? Is God able to save us but not keep us?

Jesus Himself often testified that He keeps those that the Father gives Him.

And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day. And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.... Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. (John 6:39-40, 54)

The flesh and blood in this passage is a reference to the crucifixion, where Jesus give His life as an atonement for the sins of the world. By “eating” His flesh and “drinking” His blood, Jesus says we have eternal life and with that He makes another promise - “I will raise him up at the last day.” There is nothing about that verse that is ambiguous.

Our salvation is not a “one and done.” The sacrifice of Jesus didn't only forgive some of our sins – those committed before accepting Him. His blood covers all of our sins, those we have committed and those we will commit. This is expressed in several familiar passages but I believe some people don't grasp what is being said. David said, “mercy will follow me all the days of my life” (Psalm 23:6). John said, “For of His fullness we have all received, and grace upon grace” (John 1:16).

I wasn't just forgiven once; I'm forgiven continuously. Every day is new mercy. Every day is new grace. Every day God pours out new blessings upon me, not because of my obedience but because of Christ's obedience. Am I so vain that I think I can obey God in my flesh? Is my opinion of Christ's sacrifice so small that I believe His blood will not cover my next sin? Will I rob God of His glory by claiming it is my works that keep my salvation and not Him? No, no, and no!

Read the entire series:

Part 1
Part 2
Part 4
Conclusion

Does God hide himself?

In a list of arguments against God's existence, one critic at Backyard Skeptics questioned the existence of God based on what he called, “Divine Hiddenness.” From the article we read the following:

Why is God so stingy with direct evidence?... [T]he supposed miracles that attest to a supernatural power all happened in ancient, pre scientific, times, in which there existed no means of reliable verification. These supposed miracles are not being duplicated today so that we could see that such things are possible. Scientific errors in the Bible and its other flaws, including the commanding of atrocities, all make Scripture much harder to believe. A loving God would not erect such high barriers to belief and then further compound the difficulty in believing by providing us with such strong evidential circumstances against the supernatural, such as the inviolability of the laws of nature.

The implication being made is that, if God were real, He would openly reveal Himself to His creation; since He doesn't openly reveal Himself, it is evidence that He is not real. I've heard this same argument raised many times. Often, critics will sum it up with the question, “If there is a God, why doesn't He just appear to us?” I don't recall having heard the term, “divine hiddenness” before but it seems to make the same point. Here are some of my thoughts on that subject.

First, I would question the premise that God would necessarily reveal Himself. In the above quote, the author stated rather firmly, “A loving God would not erect such high barriers to belief.” Really? I've always considered it a bit presumptuous of people to tell me what God will or will not do. I agree that I might expect Him to appear, but on what grounds could one argue that He must? I can't think of any reason that obligates Him. Constructing a false narrative about how God should act, then criticizing God for not acting according to the false narrative is a logical fallacy known as a straw man.

Beyond that, though, I would say that God does not hide Himself. At the most fundamental level, we see God behind His creation. Psalm 19:1 says, “The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands.” The enormity, the complexity, indeed, even the existence of the universe tell us plainly that there is a Creator who made it all. Romans 1:20 goes even further, “For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.”

God also revealed Himself in special ways to people of the Old Testament. He appeared to Moses in the burning bush. He lead the freed children of Abraham through the desert as a pillar of fire or a cloud of smoke. The people heard His voice audibly at Mt Sinai. These examples and others show that God is a personal God who has made Himself known to His people.

God also made Himself known through the prophets and apostles. In many passages, the writers recite the words of God verbatim, prefacing their remarks with, “Thus saith the LORD....” As evidence that they were speaking with the authority of God, they were often given the ability to perform miracles. By extension, the words given to the prophets of old have become our Scriptures today. The canon of Scripture is God's revealed word to us.

But above all these is the incarnation – the birth of Jesus, our Emmanuel (God with us). John 1:14, 18 says, “And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.... No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.” God has revealed Himself in the Person of the Son. He told us who He was and proved it through many miracles including His own resurrection. He told us that we can have eternal life through Him and He gave His own life as the atonement for our sins.

People who would claim that God remains hidden have to ignore the clear evidence for His existence in His creation; they have to ignore His revealed word in the Bible; and they have to ignore the historical certainty of Jesus Christ. Of course, some critics still complain saying that the Bible was written so long ago and where is Jesus now? I'm sorry, but God has already made Himself known to them and there is no obligation that He reappear every few years to remind them that He is still Lord of the universe and that they will someday have to give an account of their lives to Him.

Even if Jesus did appear today, it still wouldn't change the mind of some people. Many of the people He appeared to in the Bible refused to believe in Him. It's not so much that God is hidden from them but rather they have blinded themselves to the truth.

Acts 20:28: The Blood of God or the Blood of His Son? An Argument of Exceptions

“Be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood.” Acts 20:28

I was online the other day, discussing this verse. It's one of special, theological importance. A plain reading of this verse shows that God purchased the church, “with His own blood.” Obviously, it was Jesus who shed His blood on the cross so this verse seems to affirm the divinity of Jesus. That is, Jesus is God.

The person with whom I was discussing this verse took exception to that understanding. He resorted to a “mistranslation” argument. I've had dealings with this individual before and his Greek is not really that good. However, in this case, there is a certain amount of ambiguity in the Greek that he was leveraging to bolster his point.

The Greek reads, διὰ (through) τοῦ (the) αἵματος (blood) τοῦ (the) ἰδίου (His own).

The most obvious translation of this verse is the one rendered in most Bibles, “through His own blood.” Another translation, which is a little more awkward in English, is “through the blood which is His own.” But there is still another possibility: “through the blood of His own (Son).”

The latter translation is not the most likely but it is still possible. The question is, which is the intended translation of the three? Since the critic I was conversing with online did not believe Jesus is God, he argued the 3^rd translation, the least likely one, is the correct one. He hooted and cheered that even RKBentley, a conservative Christian, acknowledged that “through the blood of His own” had merit as a possible translation. Of course, he ignored that I said it is the less likely one. As far as he was concerned, it is THE translation because Jesus is not God.

From there, we began discussing some other verses that referred to Jesus as God. Here are a few that I cited – please excuse my frequent use of the word, “clearly,” I was making a point:

In John 20:28, Thomas clearly says to Jesus, “The Lord of me and the God of me.”

John 1:1c clearly says, “the Word was God.”

Titus 2:13 clearly says, “the great God and our Savior, Jesus Christ”

2 Peter 1:1 clearly says, “our God and Savior, Jesus Christ”

In John 10:11, Jesus clearly said, “I AM (ἐγὼ εἰμι) the good shepherd” while Psalm 23:1 clearly says, “Jehovah is my shepherd.”

In Matthew 3:3, John the Baptist said he was preparing the way for the Lord (who is clearly Jesus) just like Isaiah said. Isaiah 40:3 clearly said the prophet will prepare the way for Jehovah.

Joel 2:32 clearly says that whoever calls upon the name of Jehovah will be saved. Roman 10:13 clearly says whoever calls upon the name of the Lord (Jesus) will be saved.

Revelation 1:8, we clearly see that God is the Alpha and Omega. In Revelation 1:17, Jesus clearly says He is the first and the last. In Revelation 22:13, we clearly see that the Alpha/Omega and the first/last is the same Person.

In John 5:21, Jesus clearly says He gives life just as the Father gives life.

In John 5:23 Jesus clearly says we should honor Him in the same way we honor the Father

In John 10:30, Jesus clearly said, “I and the Father are one.”

We also have many clear instances of people worshiping Jesus; The man born blind (John 9:38), the magi (Matthew 2:11), the disciples in the boat (Matthew 14:33), et al.

So we see time after time where the Bible clearly identifies Jesus as God. The response from my critic friend online was to cite William Barclay:

But we shall find that on almost every occasion in the New Testament on which Jesus seems to be called God there is a problem either of textual criticism or of a translation. In almost every case we have to discuss which of two readings is to be accepted or which two possible translations is to be accepted.

Note that Barclay said, “almost every occasion.” If the Bible says even once that Jesus is God, then that would clear up the ambiguous verses but never mind that now. What struck me was that the rebuttal I usually hear to seemingly clear references of Jesus' divinity is to say that the Bible doesn't really mean what it clearly seems to be saying.  Each and every time the Bible seems to identify Jesus as God, they say a more obscure translation of the verse is the correct one.

Is that the best they have? Their only response - ever - is to say, “what that really means is....”  We argue rules and they argue exceptions. How odd it would be if God gave us His revelation in code. How are we expected to understand any part of the Bible if the most ordinary meaning of any verse is never the correct one?

Could It Be More Plain?

A while back, I wrote about the plain meaning of the words of the Bible. Many Christians want to believe the Bible but seem to exhibit a greater confidence in the opinions of scientists whose theories contradict the plain words of the Bible. Rather then call the Bible wrong, these Christians assume that the Bible simply doesn't mean what it says. They allege that the creation account in Genesis is a “story” akin to a metaphor or analogy. What is worse, they not only believe that a metaphorical interpretation was intended, they further claim the original readers (the fledgling nation of Israel) would have immediately understood it to be figurative! It's truly incredible.

In English, there are certain clues that alert the reader to when grammatical devices are being used. For example, when a person reads the word, “like,” he should be on the look out for simile (he runs like the wind). Equative verbs that compare two different objects identifies metaphor (his car is his baby). Assigning anthropomorphic characteristics to concepts is personification (Reality is a cruel mistress). Get it? So where are the literary clues in Genesis? If the passage is “easily understood” to be non-literal, there surely must be some grammatical device we can point to.

Of course, Hebrew does have some poetic devices not used in English. One device is a type of alliteration where each passage begins with consecutive letters of the Hebrew alphabet. Psalms 119 is the most complete example of this. Another type of Hebrew poetry is where the author repeats the same point using slightly different words. Psalm 91:4 says, “He shall cover thee with his feathers, and under his wings shalt thou trust: his truth shall be thy shield and buckler.” Covering us with His feathers is not much different than taking us under His wing. Also, a buckler is just another word for a shield. Curiously, neither of these devices are used in Genesis 1 or 2.

I've discussed this issue more than a few times with many, many people who hold the non-literal view. I ask them earnestly to clearly explain the literary construction in Genesis that helps them identify it as figurative and to give me a few examples of where else it is used in the Bible. They almost invariably retreat to a position of, “well, science has proven it can't be literal so it must be figurative.” You can see how that is not persuasive. Neither does it explain why the ancients would have understood it to be figurative because they did not have the “benefit” of modern, scientific theories of origins. They would have interpreted it “plainly” as should we.

But to those people still who hold a figurative interpretation, let me ask a question: What if God had intended Genesis to “really” mean six days? How could He have written it any more plainly? Think about this for a moment: Each day enumerates specific creative acts by God and the days are clearly delineated with the phrase “evening and morning” and identified with an ordinal number (first day, second day, etc.) Assuming for a moment it's not literal, I'm not sure how it would be substantially different if God had truly meant it to be literal.

Obviously anyone can read the creation account for himself but let me sum it up in paraphrase. The creation account reads something like this:

On the first day (during the day and the night) God did this...

On the second day (during the day and the night) God did this...

So forth until the seventh day when God rested (ceased creating).

That all sounds pretty factual to me. If the plain meaning of the words in Genesis 1 cannot be understood to mean what they clearly say, then no part of the Bible can be believed with certainty. If God did not create the world in 6 days, then how do I know Jesus rose on the 3^rd day? How do I even know He literally “rose”? How do I even know if Jesus was a literal person? If the words of the Bible don't mean what words ordinarily mean, than the entire Bible is meaningless!

If I had written the account with the intention of making sure it would be understood to be literal, I'm not sure what more I could have said except perhaps to add a qualifier: “these were not metaphoric days but real, ordinary days!”

1 Chronicles 16:30: Does the Bible Say the Earth Doesn't Move?

A frequent visitor to my blog left a comment where he alluded to biblical passages that speak of the earth not moving (geocentricism). He didn't cite a specific verse but this isn't the first time I've heard that criticism so I'm aware of certain passages which are frequently cited in support of that claim. Perhaps the most frequently cited is 1 Chronicles 16:30:

Fear before him, all the earth: the world also shall be stable, that it be not moved. (1 Chronicles 16:30)

At first hearing, this criticism seems to have legs (for any Bible critic reading this, I'm using an expression. The criticism doesn't “literally” have legs). The genre of 1 Chronicles is historical narrative – unlike Psalms which is Hebrew poetry. So when we read a passage like 1 Chron 16:30 in the midst of historical narrative, it seems as though the Bible might literally be saying the earth does not move. A quick look at the context, however, quickly dispels that notion.

First off, the passage is clearly introduced as a psalm (i.e. “song” or “prayer”) of David. 1 Chron 16:7 says, “Then on that day David delivered first this psalm to thank the Lord into the hand of Asaph and his brethren.” Like the book of Psalms, the passage uses poetic descriptions to convey spiritual truth – not necessarily literal truth. In the same passage (v. 32-33) David says that the sea “roars,” the fields “rejoice,” and the trees “sing.”

Why don't the same critics who allege this passage endorses geocentricism, also assert the Bible teaches that trees sing? It's because they know that people will immediately recognize trees singing as an obvious use of metaphor. Yet they still quote v. 30 as though it's meant to be a statement of fact. This is a clear case of quote mining where critics cite a passage out of context in order to make it sound like the Bible says something that it clearly does not intend.

Another thing we must be careful to consider is what is meant by the use of the words like “world” and “earth.” Often, when these words are used, they are not referring to the physical earth but the people of the earth. This is demonstrated in the same verse in question. 1 Chron 16:30a says, “Fear before Him all the earth.” Do you think this means the literal “earth” should fear Him or doesn't it more likely mean the people of the earth? It could mean the literal earth in the same sense that the “fields” rejoice. On the other hand, it could also mean the people of the earth. The Bible does use the words “earth” and “world” in that sense; Here are some indisputable examples where this is so:

And I will punish the world for their evil, and the wicked for their iniquity. (Isaiah 13:11a)

And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be taxed. (Luke 2:1)

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. (John 3:16)

In these passages, and others, the word “world” clearly means the people who live in the world. No one, for example, could rationally argue that Luke 2:1 means that the literal earth (that is, dirt and rock) is going to be taxed.

We also must ask what is meant by “not moved.” The most ordinary meaning, of course, is that it means “stationary” and that is what the critics who cite this passage claim it means. However, “not moved” can also mean “not moved from its course” or “unpersuaded.” Psalm 21:7 says, “For the king trusteth in the Lord, and through the mercy of the most High he shall not be moved.” I'll ask you: does this passage mean the king is stationary or does it mean that he should not be moved from his trust in the Lord?

In conclusion, remember that this is a psalm. In a poetic passage that says the Lord established the earth that it should not be moved, would it be entirely unreasonable to interpret that to mean the Lord established the ways of the earth (or its people) and it/they will not be moved from the way He established? What is unreasonable is that critics (whether intentionally or by ignorance) ignore the clear context of a passage and assert the correct interpretation of an obvious use of poetry is that it is meant to be literal fact. It's no wonder that critics see the Bible as rife with errors. They obviously have trouble reading.

Psalm 58:8: Snails Don't Literally Melt but Some Critics are Literally Stupid

I know I shouldn't call anyone stupid but sometimes I can think of no other way to say it. I browse Yahoo! Answers occasionally and recently came across this gem:

Why does the bible say that snails 'melt'? Wouldn't an all knowing God know better than this?

Psalm 58:8 (King James Version)

8As a snail which melteth, let every one of them pass away: like the untimely birth of a woman, that they may not see the sun.

It's such a weak criticism that I would normally ignore it as a straw man argument raised by a fringe nut. However, this isn't the first time I've heard this particular criticism so I will amend my opinion and say the criticism is a straw man argument frequently used by lots of nuts.

Do I even need to spend much time rebutting this? I mean, the correct understanding of this passage is fairly obvious. So rather than wasting a lot of words explaining the passage, I'll quickly explain the passage then spend the rest of my time examining the critic.

The Book of Psalms is a collection of poetry. They were originally sung so they could correctly be called songs or hymns. Like any poetry, words are used to paint pictures and sometimes (as in the case of Psalms) convey symbolical – though not necessarily literal - truths. Don't they teach metaphor, analogy, and similar devices in 6^th grade English? The snail (or slug) may shrivel under salt or leave a slimy trail as it moves but it doesn't literally melt. Likewise, in Psalm 1, neither is a blessed man literally a tree and neither is there a literal path of sinners. Is that so hard to understand?

When critics raise points like this, it tells us more about the critic than the Bible. I don't want to paint with an overly broad brush but I can only think of three reasons why arguments like this are ever used:

1) Some critics may be grossly ignorant. Perhaps they aren't familiar with the literary genre of Psalms but the fact that one such critic wrote the question above demonstrates that he is at least literate. Is he not familiar at all with such literary devices? If he heard someone say, “I could eat a horse,” would he believe the speaker literally claimed to be able to eat a horse? Such ignorance goes far beyond a lack of familiarity with the Bible. It borders on lunacy.

When someone raises this objection, we should start with the assumption that he is simply not aware of the heavily poetic language used in Psalms. Once it's pointed out to him, perhaps he'll quit the argument. If he still cannot genuinely identify so obvious a metaphor, perhaps he is more than ignorant. He is a simpleton.

2) Some theophobes may be so contemptuous toward the Bible that they are truly blind to its use of literary devices. It's like conspiracy theorists who see a government plot in every headline. When people read the Bible with such a jaundiced eye, they see every word in an ill light. They might understand the use of things like simile, hyperbole, and personification when it occurs in ordinary language, but when it comes to the Bible, they suddenly cannot distinguish between a poetic expression and a statement of literal fact.

By the way, this same phenomenon occurs among theistic evolutionists. They have no trouble interpreting passages that say Jesus rose on the third day (Acts 10:40). However, when they read Exodus 20:11, they suddenly cannot understand what the Bible means by six days.

3) If Bible skeptics insist they understand the use of literary devices yet still pursue this point as if it had substance, then we can only assume they are deliberately lying so they might prey on the ignorance of others. Indeed, what other option is left? If they are truly bright enough to understand the ordinary use of language, and it has been pointed out to them that this is a poetic expression, then there is no other reason to repeat the falsehood except an evil motive.

In conclusion, I again repeat that I don't ordinarily call people stupid. It's not a very nice term. Still, why would any intelligent person use such stupid argument? Perhaps I could temper it by calling him “challenged” or some other polite term. It's either that or call him a liar.

Killing Weeds, Killing People – Same Thing?!

A Few weeks ago, BioEdge published an incredible article discussing the ethics of organ harvesting. In the article, two bioethicists made the astonishing claim that “killing by itself is not morally wrong.” They tried to justify their position with the following reasoning:

[I]f killing were wrong just because it is causing death or the loss of life, then the same principle would apply with the same strength to pulling weeds out of a garden. If it is not immoral to weed a garden, then life as such cannot really be sacred, and killing as such cannot be morally wrong.

Do I really need to comment? Their flawed reasoning is plain for all to see. Well, maybe it's not so plain. Rather than soundly condemning the claims of these so called, “bioethicists,” the author of this article, Michael Cook, actually seems to defend them. He writes:

This radical conclusion may shock some readers, but the authors are not murderers. They want to bring greater precision to what we mean by killing. Rendering someone totally and permanently incapacitated is just as bad as taking a life, or so they contend. Killing totally disabled patients does them no harm.

That last line is a hoot! “Killing totally disabled patients does them no harm”? In what universe does killing a person do them no harm? I suggest that there is no interest in bringing a greater precision to the term “killing” but rather this is an attempt to blur the meaning.

What would prevent Mr. Cook from immediately denouncing these absurd ideas? I'll tell you. If scientists practice a secular brand of science, one where there is no absolute standard of right and wrong, then moral decisions are driven by what is expedient. He can see the point the bioethicists are trying to make: namely, we have people who are vegetables and we have people who need organ transplants. To him, this is a worthwhile discussion.

This highlights the dangers of moral relativism.

In the Christian worldview, we know that all people are created in the image of God (Genesis 1:26). There is value in human life. We are not like the animals and we are certainly not like the plants. We are fearfully and wonderfully made (Psalm 139:14) and even the most pathetic human is infinitely more valuable than a weed. Questions about the “quality of life” are relative and subjective and certainly do not supersede the fundamental “right to life” which has been endowed upon us by our Creator and protected by our Constitution. Truth is absolute and the Bible specifically condemns the taking of innocent human life.

These bioethicists have made several flawed assumption in reaching their conclusion. Foremost is the overt assumption that there is no qualitative difference between human and plant life (I suppose they also treat animal life with equal regard). They make no attempt to defend this idea but seem to rely on a fundamental understanding that a clinical definition of “life” applies equally to all “living” things. “Life is life,” if you will. If we start with that assumption, then the bioethicists are correct. If all things are equally alive, then there really is no difference between a human and a plant.

Once we cross that bridge and equate humans and plants, then we can rationalize the taking of certain lives for the sake of others. It's the same reason we pluck weeds so other plants can grow. If a person is only alive in a persistent, vegetative state, then why not harvest his organs to help someone who can recover and contribute to society? It's a sort of evolution – a societal “survival of the fittest.” The lion eats the zebra in order to survive. Is that “wrong”? It's nature's way for the strong to exploit the weak and if we can “weed out” the unfit members of our society to benefit the more fit, on what grounds can anyone say it's wrong?

Of course, why stop with the persistent vegetative? What about the permanently disabled? People who are victims of something like downs syndrome will always be dependent on others and thus will always be a drain on the resources of those who help them. Why not harvest their organs for the benefit of people who can become productive if they could only receive transplants? You can see this is a slippery slope where might makes right. Even so, the problem remains – on what grounds can we say it's “wrong”? If it's only wrong because the majority says it's wrong, then eugenics could prevail if its proponents can only persuade enough people to their view. Then suddenly what we believe is “wrong” now will become “right.”

As I've said many times before, atheists are not rational people. More specifically, anyone who rejects the absolute truth of the Bible is irrational. Even though they have no objective standard by which they can judge right and wrong, they still act like such a standard exists. These same people who claim that plant life is the same as human life will devote themselves to taking care of their families and also cut their grass. They will tell their children it's “wrong” to lie even though their own worldview is silent on the subject. They call Christians “evil” and say creationists are lying yet there is no scientific standard which identifies anything as “evil” or makes lying “wrong.” In instance after instance, these people conduct their lives in direct contradiction to their own worldview.

Fortunately, Christians are not confused and can see the difference between humans and weeds.

A Bible Study in Discernment

Recently, my Sunday School class has been studying the book of Job. Much of the book details the conversations Job had with his three friends who had come to “comfort” him but actually spend more time accusing him. As you read through the conversations, though, in many places we find that the friends weren't too far off from sound doctrine. In many cases, their only error was attributing Job's tragedy to some unconfessed sin of Job. Much of what they said was correct but a little bit was garbage.

As we live our lives day to day, there is no shortage of opinions we hear about God and the Bible. Some of what we hear is correct but some of it is garbage. As Christians, it is our responsibility to identify what is right and what is wrong. The Bible refers to this as “discernment.” 1 Thessalonians 5:21-22 says, "But examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good; abstain from every form of evil."

For some people, discernment is a spiritual gift. When discussing gifts of the Spirit, Paul said, “to some [are given] the discerning of spirits” (1 Corinthians 12:10). For others, it must be learned. Job says that wisdom and understanding comes with age (Job 12:12). Even so, I believe there are six steps we can follow to help us gain discernment.

TRUST THE BIBLE

The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple. (Psalms 19:7)

We don't have to be geniuses or scholars. Psalms tells us that with the Bible, even the simple become wise. If we base our thinking on the Bible, we can never be very wrong on any subject.

STUDY THE BIBLE

Even if you sincerely trust the Bible, what good does it do if you don't know what the Bible says? What if someone said, “I believe the Bible when it says, 'The Lord helps those that help themselves'”? Do you say, “Amen!”? Nothing resembling that verse appears in the Bible but you can't know that if you don't study the Bible.

I worked in a bank for many years. Before the Federal Reserve issued any new currency, we would get detailed descriptions of what the new bills would look like. The best way to spot a fake bill is to know what the real bill looks like. Likewise, we can easily spot false doctrine if we know what correct doctrine is.

Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. (2 Timothy 2:15)

Let's look at this passage in reverse: This passage says we need to study to show ourselves approved. So what does it mean if we don't study? Obviously it must mean we aren't approved. Furthermore, if we don't study, we should be ashamed. Finally, if we don't study, we will not be able rightly divide the word of truth.

SEEK THE ADVICE OF OTHERS

Most people have heard the expression, “Two heads are better than one.” This is based on a sound, biblical doctrine.

Where there is no guidance, a people falls, but in an abundance of counselors there is safety. (Proverbs 11:14)

There are abundant resources available today that Christians can turn to to find answers to tough questions. Also, a Christian can seek the advice of godly men or women.

BE SKEPTICAL

Though we should seek the advice of others, we must never mistake their opinions for Scriptures. In your study Bible, the notes written in the margin are not part of the text. You need to compare whatever advice you receive to the Scriptures to make sure it is sound.

Now the Berean Jews were of more noble character than those in Thessalonica, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true. Acts 17:11

Paul is normally someone whose opinion I would trust. Yet the Bereans were even skeptical of him. As he preached the gospel, they compared his words to the Scriptures to confirm what he was saying was true. We should do the same.

BE OPEN MINDED

There's a difference between being skeptical and refusing to believe. Sometimes, we are wrong in something we believe and we need to be available to the truth. The Bible uses the term “stiff-necked” to describe certain, stubborn people who won't listen to the truth.

But they hearkened not, neither inclined their ear, but made their neck stiff, that they might not hear, and might not receive instruction. (Jeremiah 17:23)

BE PRAYERFUL

Finally, we should always remember to seek understanding from God.

If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him. (James 1:5)

Loving God with our Minds: A Series in Logic. Part 3

EQUIVOCATION

Equivocation occurs when a person changes the meaning of a word in the middle of his argument. Here is an extreme example: The Bible says that Jesus rose from the dead; a rose is a flower; therefore, the Bible says that Jesus is a flower. Like I said, it's an extreme example but you see how it works. I changed the meaning of the word “rose” in the middle of my argument so even though both of my premises are true, my conclusion is false.

Evolutionists equivocate over the word “evolution.” In ordinary conversation, most people understand evolution to mean the changing of creatures from one kind to another over time (like a dinosaurs evolving into birds or apes evolving into people). Most people also understand “evolution” to mean the descent of all species from a common ancestor. However, scientists have a more technical meaning for the term evolution – namely that evolution is “any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next.”

The problem is that evolutionists use the same term – evolution – to describe both change AND the descent of all life from a common ancestor. By doing this, they often use examples of one as evidence for the other. They seldom word it this way but their argument goes something like this: evolution is change, we see animals change, therefore evolution is true and all animals have a common ancestor.

Do you think I'm kidding? I'm sometimes accused of making straw men (see below). Look at this quote: “Biologists define evolution as a change in the gene pool of a population over time. One example is insects developing a resistance to pesticides over the period of a few years. Even most Creationists recognize that evolution at this level is a fact. What they don't appreciate is that this rate of evolution is all that is required to produce the diversity of all living things from a common ancestor.” (source)

In this quote, the folks at Talk Origin use one example of “evolution” (a change to insects' resistance to pesticides) and suggest it is all that is needed for “evolution” (the descent of all animals from a common ancestor).

Many times, when discussing the issue with creationists, an evolutionist will say something like, “How can you deny evolution? We see evolution happening all the time.” What he means to say is that we see animals changing. Of course, creationists don't deny that animals change. We do deny that dinosaurs have changed into birds or that apes have changed into people which are things we have never seen.

Evolutionists aren't careful about their use of the word evolution. I think they're happy for the confusion. In what is understood to be a discussion about common descent, evolutionists will constantly resort to examples of change. It's equivocation of the worst sort.

STRAW MAN

Another fallacy frequently employed by critics of the Bible is the straw man fallacy. In this fallacy, the critic doesn't address his opponent's argument directly. Instead, he creates a caricature of his opponent's argument and then attacks the caricature. In other words, he builds up a “straw man” that supposedly represents his opponent and then knocks down the straw man.

In apologetics, a typical example of this is when critics accuse Christians of taking the Bible “literally.” The critic might say something like, “My opponent believes every word in the Bible must be taken literally. I guess that means he believes trees have hands because Psalms says that the trees will clap their hands.” This criticism isn't accurate because I've never heard any Christian say that “every word in the Bible must be taken literally.” The Bible uses many literary devices like metaphor, simile, and personification. So the claim that any Christian takes every word in the Bible “literally” gives a false impression of what the Christian really believes. It's a false impression created by the critic. It's a “straw man” that the critic can then ridicule in order to make the Christian's position seem weak.

Here are some other examples of straw man fallacies that I've heard: “Creationists believe the Flintstones represent real history.” “Fundamental Christians believe we should stone gays and witches.” “The Bible teaches that women are second class citizens and treats them as property.” There are many others, of course.

In the course of any discussion, there are times when a person will try to “sum up” his opponent's position. I did so above when I said, “They seldom word it this way but their argument goes something like this...” Yet when this happens, there's a possibility that he's really creating a straw man. Don't let your critic characterize your position. Make your position plainly known and let the critic know he's being deceptive by creating a straw man of your argument.

QUOTE MINING

I don't want to make this post too long but I wanted to discuss quote mining now. This is not one of the fallacious arguments that atheists use frequently (though they do use it occasionally), however, I bring it up for two reasons: First, it's a type of straw man so it would be natural to include it now. Second, evolutionists often accuse creationists of quote mining so I want to explain exactly what quote mining is since they seem to use the term incorrectly.

Quote mining is a type of straw man argument where a person's quote is taken out of context in order to make it seem like he believes something which he really doesn't. For example, someone could quote mine me here and say, “RKBentley once said that the Flintstones represent real history.” Even though I wrote those words above, I obviously don't believe it. It is a false impression of what I truly believe, thus it is a type of straw man.

Creationists are often accused of quote mining when we cite some secular scientist with whom we agree on some particular point. The secular scientists hate this because they loath creationists and so they claim we are misrepresenting what they said. The times I've seen this, I've never really suspected the creationist of misrepresenting the evolutionist.

One, very famous example is when creationists quote Gould about the lack of transitional forms in the fossil record. He said, for example, “An average species of fossil invertebrates lives five to ten million years (terrestrial vertebrates have shorter average durations). During this time, they rarely change in any fundamental way. They become extinct, without issue, looking much as they did when they first appeared.”

Gould, of course, believed in evolution. No one has ever claimed he was a closet creationist. However, he noticed that there is no clear progression of forms in the fossil record from one species to another (though he did recognize certain transitional forms at a more macro level). It is because of this lack of transitional forms that he came up with his theory of punctuated equilibrium. We quote him not because he believed in creation (because he didn't) but because we too have noticed the lack of transitional forms and have a different explanation for it. Therefore, Gould is sort of a hostile witness who sees the same evidence that we see even though he has a different interpretation of it. Therefore, when we talk about the lack of progression evident in the fossil record, we sometimes cite someone like Gould.

Quote mining only occurs when a quote is being misused to create a false impression of what the speaker truly believes. It is not appropriate to call every creationist's quote of an evolutionist a quote mine. I'm not sure if there is a technical term for mislabeling a logical fallacy. At the very least, we might say it's “crying wolf.”

Further Reading

Part 1

Part 2

Part 4

Part 5

Part 6

Part 7

Part 8

National Atheists Day

April 1st is traditionally recognized as April Fool's Day. Over the last few years, some non-atheist people (excuse the double negative there) have relabeled April 1st as National Atheists Day. It's a play on Psalm 14:1, which says, “The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.” It seems at least a few atheists have adopted the intended slur and celebrate the day as a sort of “in your face” to Christians.

I thought I should make a few comments about the event and I thought about what might be an original angle to take. I didn't want to merely rehash the same points that another 1,000,000 bloggers are making today. Sometimes, when I'm trying to decide what to write, I search Google images to find inspiration. It was there that I came across this gem.

Atheists are such a tiny minority that they qualify as “fringe” by any standard. However, they seem to be louder than their tiny numbers would allow. How? When I see things like this cartoon I see how. It's because they can be some of the most brazen and outrageous liars you could ever find. Is this serious? Almost none of the people on the graphic were atheists. I almost thought this was somehow trying to paint atheism in a bad light by showing some brilliant men who were theists only it didn't quite work; of course, Carl Sagan was a devout atheist and so that doesn't make sense (I'm not sure of the religious leanings of Hemingway or Clemens). So what is the point of the pic? That Lincoln was an atheist? That's absurd! In his proclamation given during the Civil War, Lincoln called people to prayer saying:

It is the duty of nations as well as of men to own their dependence upon the overruling power of God, and to confess their sins and transgressions in humble sorrow, yet with assured hope that genuine repentance will lead to mercy and pardon, and to recognize the sublime truth, announced in Holy Scripture, and proven by all history, that those nations only are blessed whose God is the Lord.

And what about Ben Franklin? Is he an atheist too? Might I remind you of his call to prayer during the Constitutional Convention where he said:

I have lived, Sir, a long time and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth – that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid? We have been assured, Sir, in the sacred writings that "except the Lord build they labor in vain that build it." I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without his concurring aid we shall succeed in this political building no better than the Builders of Babel:

Jefferson, Einstein, and even Darwin – though not necessarily born-again Christians – were certainly not atheists. But you know what, so what if they were? I mean, what does it prove? Lincoln was an atheist so then atheism is true? This is a type of an appeal to authority (argumentum ad verecundiam). It's a logical fallacy that attempts to say something like, “This brilliant person believes this so therefore this is true.”

Though the Bible says fools don't believe in God, I believe atheists do a fair job of making themselves look foolish. Why did they attempt to portray several committed theists as though they were atheists? Couldn't they find enough prominent atheists to make the same point? Now that I think about it, who could they get? Dawkins? PZ Myers? Mao Tse-tung? Pol Pot? And even if they could find some truly inspiring atheists, the entire point is a logical fallacy anyway. This graphic, meant to be persuasive, is demonstrative of the foolishness of their arguments.

I think Mark Twain (aka Samuel Clemens – portrayed in the pic as an atheist) said it best: “Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt.”

I'm tempted to wish everyone a happy Atheists Day but it's really too sad to be celebrating. Maybe we should make this day the National Pray for an Atheist Day!