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.

Five Reasons Why I Reject Theistic Evolution: Part 1

Too many Christians have fallen for the idea that evolution is a fact. It's the result of a concerted effort by many secular educators who tirelessly work to conflate “evolution” with “science,” loudly proclaim “the science is settled,” use legal maneuverings to squash any discussion in the classroom not helpful to the theory, then mock and ridicule anyone who doesn't get in line. Unfortunately, in some cases, these tactics have worked and some Christians, who otherwise profess to believe the Bible, are convinced the Bible can't be correct about a six day creation.

In an effort to protect the inerrancy of the Bible, these same Christians have adopted a compromising position, saying that both the Bible and evolution are true. Through much mental gymnastics and questionable hermeneutics, they have developed a theory of origins called “theistic evolution” which basically says that everything secular scientists believe about our origins – the Big Bang, the millions of years, the gradual deposition of the geological column – are all true. The only difference is that theistic evolutionists add the qualifier, “God-did-it.”

In a discussion about kids leaving the Church, a theistic evolutionist, who claims to be a former youth leader, made these comments:

Believe me, I know; kids aren't stupid, and know a specious argument when they hear it. If (in essence) they're being told that "The Flintstones" represents real and true history (that is, dinosaur/human cohabitation, etc), and that all they are watching on the History or Discovery channels is a sinister secular conspiracy to do away with God, then it's no wonder they fall away from the faith. I see (and have involved myself in) a Church and a Christian School which take a line which would be anathema to Ken Ham, freely endorsing a harmony between modern Science and a grounded Christian faith.

I was educated in public schools where I was taught evolution and I believed what the textbooks taught. Even after becoming a Christian, I continued for a while believing in evolution. There was even a brief time where thought I had invented the idea of theistic evolution. After that, I entered in another brief period where I just ignored the subject altogether. Eventually, of course, I came to completely reject evolution and became a full-blown, young-earth creationist. There are several reasons I reject theistic evolution. I thought I'd make a short series and talk about five of them.

1) It is contrary to a plain reading of the Scriptures

One way to “reconcile” the Bible with evolution is to claim the creation account isn't meant to be understood “literally” but rather as a poem or a parable. Genesis, they will say, only tells us that God created everything but science tells us how. I beg to differ. The Bible very clearly tells us how; God spoke and it happened. Genesis 1 offers a detailed account of the creation week. It's very specific, detailing the events of each day: on the first day, evening and morning, God did this; on the second day, evening and morning, God did this; etc.

Furthermore, the Bible says that God created Adam from the dust of the earth. These passages are not ambiguous. There is nothing in them to suggest we need to look somewhere else to determine how long “six days” or that suggest Adam evolved from some non-human primate.

What other parts of the Bible do we read in the same way some Christians read Genesis? Think about these questions:

How many days was Jonah in the whale?

How many days was Lazarus dead?

How many days did Joshua march around Jericho?

How many days did God take to create the universe?

It's easy to answer the first three questions. It should be just as easy to answer the fourth. Yet, because some Christians put their faith in science above the revealed word of God, they get confused over what should be an easy question. How many days was Jonah in the whale? “Three,” they answer. How many days did God take to create the universe? “We don't know,” they answer. What? Um, yes, we do know!

A usual argument employed is to say that the word “day” can mean something other than a day. True, but it can also mean a day. In fact, it usually means a single day. The meaning is always determined by context. When God commanded the Jews to work six days and rest the seventh (Exodus 20:8-10), do you think they asked themselves, “I wonder how long the Lord means by 'six days'?” In the same commandment (v. 11), the Bible says, “For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them.” In that context, how can anyone seriously suggest that “six days” really means “millions of years.”  Genesis 1 modifies each use of the word "day" with the modifier, "1st day," "2nd day," etc.  It also modifies each use with the phrase "morning and evening."  When Genesis 1 so emphatically uses the word "day" in the same way we would describe an ordinary day, why should I even bother to consider that it means something other than a 24-hour day?

Another characteristic of theistic evolution is that, if the secular scientists are right about the geological column, there is no room in the rock strata for a global flood. So, Christian evolutionists must also compromise when reading those chapters of Genesis that describe the Flood. They say Noah's flood was a local catastrophe limited to the Mesopotamia valley. So when God said, “Behold, I, even I am bringing the flood of water upon the earth, to destroy all flesh in which is the breath of life, from under heaven; everything that is on the earth shall perish,” it can't mean under the whole heaven or everything on the earth or all flesh shall be destroyed.

The Bible clearly describes a world-wide deluge. Genesis 7:20 says that mountains were buried under 15 cubits of water which is not possible if the flood were limited to a single valley (how can a mountain be 15 cubits underwater without both sides of the mountain being covered?). Furthermore, God's covenant of the rainbow says there will never be a flood like that one – a promise He didn't keep if the Bible only meant a local flood.

Genesis cannot be reconciled with a belief in evolution or a local flood. The theory is contrary to the clear words of the Bible. Does the Bible ever use parables or figures of speech? Yes, it does, but when it does, it is easily understood from the context. There is nothing about the early chapters of Genesis that suggest they are meant to be anything other than history. 2 Peter 1:20 says, no prophecy of the Scripture is of any private interpretation. There is no hidden meaning. There is no obscure understanding that has only been recently brought to light through scientific discovery. Just like any other written work, the most ordinary reading of the text is usually its intended meaning and when the plain meaning is clear, there is no reason to seek any other meaning.

The Bible tells us the correct accounts of the creation and the judgment in no uncertain terms. I trust the easily understood words of the Bible far above the flawed opinions of secular scientists who proudly boast they will never accept a supernatural explanation for any event. This is the first reason why I reject theistic evolution.

Part 2

Part 3

Part 4

Part 5

Is the Bible Immoral? Part 3b: Does the Bible Condone Slavery?

I hadn't intended to write another post on this series. In my last post on this subject, I explained that it would take too much time to address every passage in the Bible that discusses slavery – not that there are a lot of them, by the way. However, I can see now that there are a few other points that need addressing.

First, there is the irony that if there really is no God, then the critics have no moral grounds to say the Bible is “wrong” about slavery. If there is no transcendent, objective standard of morality, then there is no weight in the critic's claim that our modern attitude of slavery is more “correct” than the attitudes held by ancient slaveholders. Critics who use slavery to attack the Bible are relying on a general sense of outrage over the word “slavery” to give their argument any credibility. Therefore, they invariably want to equate the type of slavery in the Bible with the type of slavery we once had in the US.

If you do a Google image search for “slavery Bible,” you'll get hundreds of images showing mostly dark skinned people chained, whipped, and tortured. Completely absent from the criticisms are Scripture references supporting the things the critics portray. There is no passage in the Bible, for example, that talks about putting slaves in chains. Why, then, are there so many pictures of blacks in chains with Bible verses written beneath them? Whether it's done out of ignorance or intentional deceit, it doesn't matter. It's a straw man caricature of what the Bible teaches.

Just as I said in my last post, slaves in the ancient world were a socioeconomic class. They were chronically poor or indebted people who entered indentured servitude because they could either not take care of themselves or they could not repay their debts. This type of indentured service was practiced in many places in the world. The slavery discussed in the Bible not only didn't resemble the slavery once experienced in the South, it wasn't really even like the slavery practiced in contemporary nations.

Usually, entering into this kind of servitude was a lifelong commitment. If the master died, the slave would continue in the service of the master's family. This was also true of foreign slaves living in Israel. Jews, on the other hand, were required to forgive the debts of other Jews every 7 years; this included freeing Jewish servants. In Leviticus 25:46, the admonition to not treat their fellow Israelites “ruthlessly” cannot be interpreted as a license to beat foreign born slaves. It precisely meant the Jews could not exclude indentured service from the debts forgiven. By the way, even freed Jewish slaves could voluntarily remain in their master's employ permanently. This is really the only difference between servants taken from among Jews and servants taken from other nations.

Some key differences between the kind of service detailed in the Bible and the cruel slavery seen in other parts of the world are as follows:

• People could not be kidnapped and sold into slavery against their will. Exodus 21:16.
• Slaves who ran away could not be forced to return to their masters. Deuteronomy 23:15-16.
• Slaves were required to be given a Sabbath day of no work, just like free men. Exodus 20:10.
• If a master kills a slave, he is guilty of murder. Exodus 21:20.
• If a master permanently injures a slave, such as knocking out a tooth, he must free the slave. Exodus 21:26-27.

Nowhere in the Bible are masters commanded or even allowed to chain, torture, and kill their servants. Nowhere! Yet that is exactly the false impression critics want to portray when they show dark skinned people in chains. When asked to cite specific verses where such practices are allowed, critics really can only resort to one verse, Exodus 21:20-21:

“If a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod and he dies at his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, he survives a day or two, no vengeance shall be taken; for he is his property.”

The verse is cited to make it sound like it's OK to beat a slave as long as he doesn't die immediately; if he dies later, it's fine. This is another example of taking a passage out of context. The passage isn't talking about murder but about what happens if you injure a man but he doesn't die. In verses 18-19, the two verses immediately prior to the above verses, the Bible proscribes exactly the same punishment for fights between free men. The only difference is that if you strike a free man and he doesn't die immediately, but only remains in bed for a while, he must be compensated for the time he was injured. A slave that is struck but doesn't die immediately doesn't have to be compensated for the time he was injured because his work belongs to his master anyway!

The idea of permanent servitude still will sound strange to a lot of modern readers. I've tried comparing it to being a squire or vassal – words that are less emotionally charged – but even these types of service don't exist anymore. It's just hard for some people to think of a being a “slave” as anything less than repulsive. They can't imagine being a slave as being a kind of job. They can't imagine a person wanting to be a slave. It might help if you think of the parable of the Prodigal Son (Luke 15:11-32). A man's son asked for his father for his inheritance now. He took the money and went into a foreign land where he squandered it all. When the money was gone, he began to starve and considered returning to his father as a slave. Read the boy's thoughts (Luke 15:14-20):

After he had spent everything, there was a severe famine in that whole country, and he began to be in need. So he went and hired himself out to a citizen of that country, who sent him to his fields to feed pigs. He longed to fill his stomach with the pods that the pigs were eating, but no one gave him anything. When he came to his senses, he said, ‘How many of my father’s hired servants have food to spare, and here I am starving to death! I will set out and go back to my father and say to him: Father, I have sinned against heaven and against you. I am no longer worthy to be called your son; make me like one of your hired servants.’ So he got up and went to his father

Further Reading:

Is the Bible Immoral:

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Is the Bible Immoral? Part 3: Does the Bible Condone Slavery?

Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly. (Leviticus 25:44-46, NIV)

Another way that critics try to portray the Bible as “evil” is to claim that the Bible condones slavery. The criticism strikes a chord with many people because of America's tragic history of slavery. We consider ourselves to be a better nation for having ended the practice here and so, when we read passages like Leviticus 25 which seem to support slavery, doubt about the Bible can creep into our minds.

It should be noted first that there's a little bit of dishonesty behind the criticism – even if it's not intentional. When we hear the word, slavery, we immediately think about the subjugation of blacks in the South. It's a highly, emotionally charged word which is the impression critics want us to have. It's an unfortunate consequence of translation that words of different languages seldom have exactly the same semantic range of meaning. It's nearly unavoidable that when we substitute an English word for a Hebrew or Greek word, we interpret the text according to our understanding of the English word. In English, slavery sounds like a terrible thing which makes this criticism seem to have merit.

This is not a trivial point. This criticism's entire weight rests upon the negative connotation implied by the word, slavery. Critics routinely beat this drum by using disparaging language like, “Except for murder, slavery has got to be one of the most immoral things a person can do” (source). It's a type of straw man argument. The moral quandary only exists if the slavery mentioned in the Bible resembles the slavery as the typical, modern reader understands it.

The reality is that the “slavery” discussed in the Bible is not at all like we experienced in the US. For example, Exodus 21:16 specifically proscribes the death penalty for anyone who kidnaps a person in order to sell him. In his letter to Timothy, the Apostle Paul includes “enslavers” (ESV) in the same list as murderers, liars, and other sinners (1 Timothy 1:8-10). The type of slavery once practiced in the US, where dark-skinned natives were kidnapped in Africa and sold in America, is specifically forbidden in Mosaic Law and is clearly identified as a sin.

When the Bible talks about “slaves,” it is primarily talking about 2 groups of people. First, a tiny minority of slaves were prisoners taken in war. War was a grim reality at the time of the Old Testament and conquered kingdoms meant defeated populations that needed to be dealt with. If you defeat and enemy, you can't simply pack up and go home or else you'll be fighting the same enemy again sometime later. The Law gave instructions in dealing with enemy prisoners that was more practical than internment camps and more humane than summary execution. This doesn't mean that God “condones” war or slavery. Just like Jesus said about the law allowing divorce (Matthew 19:8), laws dealing with captured prisoners were merely allowances made for people living in a fallen world. It doesn't reflect God's perfect will.

The far more common slaves in biblical times are what we might call indentured servants. In biblical times (both the Old and New Testaments), there were no such things as government welfare or bankruptcy. Out of economic necessity, chronically poor people could pledge their future labor in exchange for things like forgiveness of debt, a lump sum of money, and food and shelter. The practice isn't as foreign when we look at similar arrangements that aren't called slavery. Kings had vassals. Knights had squires. Vassals never became kings and squires never became knights but in both situations, the subordinate served the master exclusively and permanently.

Such an arrangement might still sound bizarre to modern readers, but it was often easier for the impoverished person to do this rather than try to provide for himself. Once again, such an arrangement isn't “condoned” by the Bible. God created a world where “work” meant tending a garden and picking food off the trees to eat. In the fallen world, people have to work hard to eat. This type of arrangement existed and the Law gave instructions to regulate it.

It would take too much space to address every verse in the Bible that discusses slavery but, in general, the Bible tries to make the arrangement more professional and less like “slavery” as we typically understand it. Colossians 4:1 commands masters to treat their slaves “justly and fairly.” Jewish slaves were commanded to be freed in the year of Jubilee (every seven years). Even after being freed, a Jewish servant could choose to permanently remain with his master. In other nations, female slaves were often used for sex but the Law commanded that if a Jewish owner had sex with a slave, he must treat her like a wife. These are just a few of the types of regulations the Bible lists concern the practice.

Finally, God ultimately does not distinguish between slave and master – both are equal in His eyes (Galatians 3:28). In his letter, Paul tells Philemon to receive Onesimus, not as a slave but as a brother (Philemon 1:16). Paul even refers to himself as a “slave” to Christ (Greek, δοῦλος, Romans 1:1, et al). Indeed, Christ Himself gave us the parable of the unprofitable servant, Luke 17:7-10. He has forgiven my debt, paid the penalty for my sins, and given me eternal life. He is my Lord. I owe Him all I have and could serve Him my entire life and still never repay all He has done for me.

Is the Bible Immoral? Part 2: Did God Order a Genocide?

Now go and strike Amalek and utterly destroy all that he has, and do not spare him; but put to death both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey. (1 Samuel 15:3)

As we consider critics' claims that the Bible is immoral, one of the most cited examples comes from 1 Samuel where God commands King Saul to destroy the city of Amalek along with everyone and everything in it. Critics typically use words like “genocide,” “atrocity,” and “infanticide” to describe the account. It's a clever use of loaded words to make God seem capricious.

Critics usually quote verse 3 out of context. 1 Samuel 15:2 says, “Thus says the LORD of hosts, ‘I will punish Amalek for what he did to Israel, how he set himself against him on the way while he was coming up from Egypt.” Critics don't include verse 2 because they intentionally want to omit God's motive for His command to Saul. Israel's encounters with Amalek began back in Exodus 17. After their flight from Egypt and during their wandering in the desert, the Jews were a nearly helpless people. They had no city, no walls, and no forts. They had to rely upon God daily for food and water. Deuteronomy 25:17-18 described it this way,

Remember what Amalek did to you along the way when you came out from Egypt, how he met you along the way and attacked among you all the stragglers at your rear when you were faint and weary; and he did not fear God.

At one point, while they were camped at Rephidim, the Amalekites came and attacked them. Moses told Joshua to lead armed men to resist the Amalekites and God gave the Jews the victory after a hard fought battle. Afterward, God made a promise to Moses:

Then the LORD said to Moses, “Write this in a book as a memorial and recite it to Joshua, that I will utterly blot out the memory of Amalek from under heaven.” Moses built an altar and named it, The LORD is My Banner; and he said, “The LORD has sworn; the LORD will have war against Amalek from generation to generation.” (Exodus 17:14-16)

God could have rained fire down on Amalek just as He had done with Sodom and Gomorrah, but it was many generations later, after the Jews settled in the Promised Land and Saul had become the king, that God fulfilled His promise.

So God's command to destroy the Amalekites wasn't arbitrary but rather was His judgment on that city for their crimes against Israel. Critics call the event “genocide” because that sounds more effective to their cause than calling it “justice.” Here's something that might put this into perspective: we need to consider the attitudes of Americans right after 9/11. Do you remember the calls that we should bomb Afghanistan and the Taliban back into the stone age? Were we interested in genocide or justice?

Of course, some people aren't satisfied with this explanation. Some have asked, “Why would God command the babies to be killed?” There are a couple of other points we need to keep in mind.

First, we have to remember that not only did all the people of Amalek die but Saul also died. Every one of Saul's soldiers died too. Every Jew in Israel died. Every prophet mentioned in the Old Testament has died. The Bible says that it is appointed unto a man to die and then he is judged (Hebrews 9:27). Some die old; some die young; some die violently; some die quietly. The mortality rate among people is 100%. Death has reigned since the Curse and just like it came to the Amalekites, it will also come to all of us. To say that God was cruel in His treatment of Amalek is to deny that God judges all of humanity fairly.

There is still another point we must consider, a point which relates to God as our Creator. Read this passage from Jeremiah:

Then [Jeremiah] went down to the potter’s house, and there he was, making something on the wheel. But the vessel that he was making of clay was spoiled in the hand of the potter; so he remade it into another vessel, as it pleased the potter to make. Then the word of the Lord came to [Jeremiah] saying, “Can I not, O house of Israel, deal with you as this potter does?” declares the Lord. “Behold, like the clay in the potter’s hand, so are you in My hand, O house of Israel.” (Jeremiah 18:3-6)

No one can credibly deny that the vessel a potter makes belongs to the potter. If the potter doesn't like how the vessel turns out, it is his right to scrap it and start over. In this haunting passage, we are reminded that we are created by God and so are subject to His will.

Words like “genocide” and “atrocity” are misleading characterizations of God. The Bible gives us a complete picture of Him. He is not a tyrant who smites innocents on a whim. He is not a pacifist who will shower grace on vile, unrepentant sinners. He is Holy and Just. We all face the same fate – a grave. We all have the same opportunity – eternal life through Jesus. I will have to stand before God and give an account for my sins; my only plea will be the shed blood of His Son. Critics are welcome to tell God He's not being fair.

Answering the 10 Theological Questions That No Young-earth Creationist Can Answer: Part 3

5. How did Adam and Eve know what death was?

The critic's point in asking this question is that Adam and Eve could not have known what God meant by saying, “Ye will surely die” unless they had already seen something die. There are at least a couple of things we have to consider.

When God created Adam, Adam already understood a language. For example, Adam must have already understood the abstract concept of “not” doing something otherwise, how did he know what “not” meant (as in, “Do not eat...”)? So just like Adam could immediately understand what “not” means, he probably could understand – at least in concept – that “dying” means “not living.”

It is also likely that Adam and Eve didn't entirely appreciate everything about dying. It could be like me explaining to a 5 year old not to touch an electrical wire or he would get “shocked.” He might not entirely understand what it's like to be shocked, but just from my tone and the urgency of my warning, he could understand that being “shocked” is a bad thing that results from touching electrical wires.

From just these few facts, it seems Adam would have easily understood that to die meant “not live” and that it was a bad thing.

But what if we applied this same question to Francke's theology? If “dying” in Genesis only meant “dying spiritually,” then how could Adam know what it meant to die spiritually unless he'd already experienced it or observed it? So even from Francke's point of view, Adam must have only understood “dying” in concept and not necessarily from experience.

But here's a tangent thought: didn't Francke just talk about the Tree of Life and say that eating from it would give eternal physical life? So when God put Adam and Eve out of the Garden, it was precisely so that they would die physically. Adam, then, would have necessarily understood that God's warning involved his physical death (in addition to his spiritual separation from God). This undermines Francke's entire point that physical death had nothing to do with the Curse.

6. If the punishment for from the tree was that Adam and Eve would physically die … why didn’t they physically die?

We know that Adam and Eve did die – physically – once they ate of the Forbidden Fruit. Francke's point, however, is that they didn't die, “in the day” that they ate it as God had warned (Genesis 2:17). However, Francke doesn't really explain why this is a problem for creationism; I guess he's trying to say that since they didn't die on the very same day they ate, that proves “day” doesn't necessarily mean “a 24-hour period.” Francke even paints a strawman caricature of creationism by saying some creationists, “assert that, in this very special case, maybe the word “day” does refer to a long, indeterminate period of time.”

The word “day” obviously can mean an undetermined period. We've never been coy about this. I might say, for example, “Back in my day, everyone had to walk to school.” The meaning of the word “day” (or any word, really) is always determined by its context. What if I instead said, “One day, I had to walk to school”? The use of the modifier, “one,” suddenly narrows the meaning from an indeterminate amount of time to a specific day. Therefor, in Genesis, we should look to context of each use of the word, “day,” to determine its meaning. When the Bible says, “the even and the morning were the first day,” it certainly means a single day. When God said, “in the day ye eat...,” it talks about an unspecified time in the future and means something like, “When you eat of it....” It's not hard really to understand. I would say it requires 5^th grade reading comprehension.

So, yes, the word “day” can mean more than one thing. It can mean a long period of time. It can also mean a single, 24-hour day. I believe the problem lies in theistic evolution. Why is it that seemingly bright people suddenly can't read when it comes to Genesis? Exactly how can, “the evening and the morning were the first day,” mean “millions of years”? I ask this in earnest. What literary clues exist in the text that tell us something besides an ordinary day is in view? Just because the word “day” can mean a long period of time, why must it mean that in Genesis 1? Furthermore, how can “day” not mean a single day in Exodus 20:11, which says, “For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is.”

Creationists always advocate an ordinary reading of the Bible. No mental gymnastics are necessary. It is Francke, and his cohorts, who jump through hoops and ignore the plain meaning of the words. They go to great lengths to explain why a “day” cannot possibly mean a day.

Read the entire series:

Part 1
Part 2

Part 4

Part 5

A Review of Genesis Veracity Foundation

I remember how surprised I was when I first heard a radio advertisement for Genesis Veracity Foundation (visit their site here). What surprised me most was that it advertised on a secular radio station. There are very few creation apologetics groups that advertise on the radio and I don't know if I had ever heard one advertise on secular radio. Even groups like Answers in Genesis usually stick to Christian stations. Besides being surprised to hear them advertising, I was also surprised that I had never heard of them before. It seems to me that a group large enough to advertise would already have a large enough web presence that I would have at least heard of them. Not in this case though.

Their commercials were very appealing. They talked about defending the Bible from the very first book. They asked how would Jesus answer if He were asked about evolution or Noah's Flood. They raised many of the same points that I've raised on my blog. I was very excited for a while – until I actually visited their website.

If you've ever read David Copperfield, you might recall Mr. Dick. He was the eccentric friend of David's aunt who was constantly writing a “memorial.” It seems that no matter how hard he tried, King Charles I always seemed to creep into his writings. This site reminds me of Mr. Dick. It seems that no matter what the subject is, they cannot help but refer to the city of Atlantis. Yes, I mean “the lost city of Atlantis” mentioned by Plato.

On the front page of their website is currently a photo (shown here) of scuba divers exploring what are supposed to be “bronze age ruins”. I believe they want to give the impression these are similar to the ruins of Atlantis.

On the left is a side bar contain links to many of the things you might expect to find on creation website including: Ice Age Hydrology, Earth Measure Geometry (not sure what they mean by this one), and Post Ice Age Migrations. There's even a link titled, Submerged Ruins Atlantis. How much more obvious could they be? As you click on each link, you will find within the articles, references to Atlantis.

Here are a few excerpts:

Under their tab, Ice Age Hydrology, we find this statement: Note that some of the flood stories are records of the sea level rise with the end of the Ice Age, such as the legend of Kumari Kandam off southern India and Atlantis in the Gibraltar region, not to be confused with the clearly global flood legends...

Under their tab, Earth Measure Geometry, we find this statement: And the fact that the ancient fortress at Seville, Spain, which was ancient Tarshish, part of the Atlantean Empire during the ice age....

Under their tab, Post Ice Age Migration, we find this statement: The “sea peoples” invaded the eastern Mediterranean while the deserts of the world were forming, vast tracts of north Africa becoming the Sahara at that time, and southern Spain changing from the lush environ of atlantean times with elephants,....

Even on their blog we find articles that reference Atlantis. On 9/3/2013, they published a blog titled, Basque Language Remnant of Atlantis Similarities Algonquin Lenape Nahuatl Groups Americas. Under the blog, Real Genesis History Proof Knocks Wind Out of Skeptics’ Sails to Face Claims of Jesus Christ, they said, “For decades, the history in the book of Genesis has been the whipping boy for skeptics of the Word, saying science has proven the Bible wrong, but now coming to light the submerged ruins, bronze age climate change (at the time of the Exodus and the demise of Atlantis), and the real cause of the Ice Age, the whip is being taken out of their hand.”

I could go on but I've made the point. I love to see Christians standing up for the word of God but I just can't see how insisting there was a real Atlantis defends the word of God. Was Atlantis mentioned somewhere in the Bible and I missed it?

Now, in all fairness, I haven't read many of their articles. I just couldn't get past the “Atlantis” being thrown in my face at every turn. I have some links to reputable apologetics and creationist websites on my side bar to the right. Feel free to visit those sites. However, I won't be adding a link to Genesis Veracity Foundation's site any time soon.

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.

Atheist Questions William Lane Craig About God's Morality

William Lane Craig is a top notch debater. I've enjoyed many chuckles while watching him destroy (figuratively) atheists on YouTube. The big disagreement I normally have with Craig is his compromise on creation but that is the subject of another post. What impresses me most about him is his command of logical arguments. Usually Craig's arguments are so unassailable that even the renown Richard Dawkins has refused to debate him again. Anyone who has followed my blog for a while has probably seen a little of Craig's influence in my posts because I've learned a lot from listening to him. You can imagine my disappointment, then, when he seemed to stumble over a rather ordinary question from an atheist (at least I assume he's an atheist from the headline because he doesn't identify himself as such in the video). As usual, I've included the video here for your review. It's only 2:57 long so you will probably want to take a moment to review before we continue. Go ahead. I'll wait...

If you've never watched Dr. Craig before, one argument he frequently uses for the existence of God is the existence of absolute morality. If there is no God, then there is no objective morality. Things like right and wrong would be subjective and relative to what is expedient. A cat, for example, might kill a mouse for sport. If nature is all there is, then a human killing another human would be no more wrong than any animal killing another. One can call an atrocity like the Holocaust objectively evil only by assuming there is an ultimate standard of good and evil. In a universe without God, such a standard does not exist. If someone believes there is a such thing as absolute right and wrong, he must admit there is an ultimate Law-Giver whose judgment supersedes every other person's opinion.  That's Craig's point and I believe it's a compelling argument.

The argument for the existence of objective morality must have been one of the topics Craig had discussed the night of this video. The atheist in this video challenges Craig on the “morality of God” by citing several verses where, he believes, the Bible endorses immoral practices. He starts with a reference to Exodus 21:20-21 but then rattles off a long lists of “questionable” verses. As I've said, this is a fairly common criticism raised of Christianity – one I'm sure Craig must have heard before so I would think he'd be practiced in answering it. In this video, he acted like he was winging it.

First, I'm not sure why Craig asked why the questioner seemed so angry. This smacks of the logical fallacy of “appeal to motive”; that is, he seems to say “you are only asking this question because you are angry with God.” He even suggests that the questioner was too wound up emotionally to understand his argument. Maybe Craig was genuinely curious about the questioner and wasn't trying to accomplish anything by raising this point. It just struck me as odd he would even go there.

However, what disappointed me most about Craig's response was how he immediately abandoned the God of Christianity and the Bible. He said that his point was only a generic argument for theism and the existence of a personal supreme being thus his argument is consistent with Christianity, Judaism, Islam, some Hindu beliefs, and deism. Really, Craig? Is that how you want to defend Christianity? You seem to actually retreat from the Bible.

Now, it would be terribly presumptuous of me to tell Dr. Craig, who holds a PhD in Philosophy and is a veteran debater, how he should have answered the question but I'm going to anyway. It would have been a mistake to begin to try to address every verse the critic cited so I can understand why Craig didn't do that. It's seems obvious to me, though, that he should have used the opportunity of the critic's question to double down on his argument. Instead of saying (I'm paraphrasing), “I was only trying to prove theism and not the Bible,” Craig should have said, “If there is no God, then on what grounds do you consider these verses from the Bible to be morally objectionable?” By putting the burden back onto the critic, Craig would have accomplished at least two things: 1) he would have reinforced his argument and put the critic in the position of having to address the real point of Craig's argument instead of raising red herrings and 2) Craig would not have made those “questionable” verses in the Bible seem indefensible.

The verses cited by this critic are certainly worth discussing and I may use them as the subjects of future posts. But, as they say, we must make first things first. If someone believes some passage from the Bible is morally “wrong,” from where does he derive his objective standard of right and wrong? The “Supreme Personal Being” Craig alludes to in his lectures/debates is not some generic god of any religion. He is the only God – the God of the Bible. He is the ultimate Judge of what is right and wrong. There is no objective morality apart from Him and so no one can question His morality (or the morality of the Bible) without first realizing He exists.

How Should We Feel About the Death of Osama Bin Laden?

Bin Laden is dead and a lot of people are happy about it. I admit, it's hard to not be happy about it. A lot of the folks I saw rallying in front of the White House after the President's announcement looked like they were in their twenties. Weren't they, like, 10 when 9/11 happened? Maybe they are old enough to remember but I know I can certainly remember where I was and how I felt when I saw the Towers fall. My first thought when I heard bin Laden was dead was, “good.” But is that how I should react?

When we search the Scriptures for an answer on how we might act, a lot of verses come to mind. Some people will immediately go to Exodus 21:24, “Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.” Not that it really matters but that is OT Law so some people reject it out of hand. Therefor, some will turn to the teachings of Jesus and cite something like Matthew 26:52, “Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.” Thus, if bin Laden lived by the sword, it is just that he should die by the sword.

Certainly it's just that bin Laden should die for his crimes. Even so, does that mean we should rejoice about it? I'm reminded of the words in Ezekiel 33:11, “As I live, saith the Lord GOD, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live.”

God, who is the perfect Judge, holds the guilty accountable for their crimes – if not in this life then certainly in the next. The wages of sin is death (Romans 6:23). We all die physically because of our sins but the unrepentant face the second death which is the lake of fire. God isn't “happy” about it. It's His will that the wicked would turn from their sins and live. Jesus said, “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” (John 6:40). So God's will is not that anyone should die but that all should come to Jesus and live.

I think God's will should also be our will. I know there will never be peace in the world until the Prince of Peace returns so there will always be a military component to the war on terror. Even so, shouldn't we also be zealous about winning radical Muslims – indeed, wining all Muslims – to Christ? In the war on terror, the death of Osama bin Laden is a huge victory. In the Great Commission, any person who dies without Christ isn't a victory; it's a loss.

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.