Answering the 10 Theological Questions That No Young-earth Creationist Can Answer!

I came across an article online titled, 10 Theological Questions No Young-Earth Creationist Can Answer. In the article, the author, Tyler Francke, tries to build a case that many points in young earth creationism are not supported by the Bible.

Headlines like this have always annoyed me. Besides sounding presumptuous, the “questions” asked have usually been answered many times before. What the authors are trying to do is make their argument seem irrefutable merely by claiming their questions can't be answered. It borders on dishonesty. I would rather they used headlines more like, “10 Questions for Creationists.”

As always, I recommend you click the link and read the article for yourself. The author expounds on each question he asks so if you just read the question by itself, you may not appreciate the full scope of what the author means by asking the question.

As he expounds on each point, Francke anticipates what he thinks are the most probable answers from creationists. This is a rather ordinary tactic of most debaters but I don't think Francke is very successful in overcoming the objections he raises. In some cases, his treatment of the criticism is barely more than ridiculing it. Perhaps he is merely attempting to poison the well by raising the possible answers before his critics can.

The questions in this article are somewhat interesting but they're hardly not answerable. I know I always say I'm going to stop writing series but here I am getting ready to start another. I intend to answer the 10 questions. I'm not going to write 10 posts; instead, I'm going to answer 2-3 answers at a time.

I wonder if, when I'm done, the author will retract his headline? Chuckle.

1. What was the point of the tree of life?

Francke's point in asking this question is that, if God had intended people to not die in the original creation, why would He create the Tree of Life whose purpose seems to be granting immortality to anyone who eats from it? In his own words, “why, exactly, did God create a magical tree that grants immortality in a world where every living thing was already immortal?”

First off, I believe we always risk sounding foolish when we begin to ask why God does any certain thing. We simply do not know everything God knows. In asking this question, Francke says the purpose of the Tree of Life is “abundantly clear.” I disagree. If the Tree of Life were pointless in the initial creation where there wasn't any death, then Francke should maybe ask why God also puts the Tree of Life in the new creation (Revelation 22:1-2, 14)? After all, the Bible is perfectly clear there will be no more death (Revelation 21:4) so, according to Francke's logic, God has no reason to put a Tree of Life in the new creation. Yet there it is.

What does seem clear from the text is that the Tree of Life does have a role in a world where there is no death. I admit I'm not completely sure of the purpose of the Tree of Life but, unlike Francke, I will grant that God knows what He's doing.

2. If human sin is the reason animals die, why can’t they be saved?

Let’s recap: young-earth creationists believe all death, even animal death, is a consequence of human sin. Now, ignoring for a moment the fact that the Bible never once actually says animal death is a consequence of human sin

The author dismisses 1 Corinthians 15:21-22, saying it only describes human death. I suspect he would make the same argument about Romans 5:12, even though that verse is a little more compelling. Before I address the animals, I would ask Francke what these verses mean in relation to human death? According to his blog, he believes in a god of evolution which means men have always died. Death was in the world – including death in the supposed homo ancestors – long before there was sin. So while he may claim these verses only describe human death, he doesn't explain exactly how that works in the theistic evolution paradigm.

Of course, we know the Curse wasn't limited to Adam. Genesis 3:17 attests that God cursed even the ground because of Adam's sin. The world would no longer be the paradise He created but that the ground would now bring forth thorns and thistles. Furthermore, Romans 8:22 says, “...the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now.” So the notion of a very narrow Curse that is limited to death among men but having no change on anything else is contrary to the clear teaching of the Bible.

The crux of the matter, though, is that man is separate from the animals. We alone are created in the image of God and have a spiritual dimension that is not present in animals. The earth and the animals were created to be our dominion and for our service. Christ died to redeem the descendants of Adam; not the animals. So, no. Animals can't be saved.  Don't get me wrong, though. God has a plan for the creation.  He redeemed us by His own blood and He also will restore the creation. 

Animals are described in Genesis 1 as “living” (nephesh) in the same way people have life. Since there was no death in the initial creation, neither would animals have died. Indeed, prior to the Fall, animals were not carnivorous. Genesis 1:30 says,  

And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.

When the curse has ended, so will death among animals end. Isaiah 11:6 is habitually misquoted as, “The lion shall lay down with the lamb.” The verse actually says,

“The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them.”

When death began among men, it also began among the animals. When death has ended among men, so will it end among the animals.  The fate of the creation turns upon man's relationship with God. There is no separate salvation for animals.

Read the entire series:
Part 2

Part 3

Part 4
Part 5

Should I go to see Noah?

The new Noah movie has been out for a while and I've debated with myself over whether I should go to see it. On the one hand, I hear it's no where near a fair representation of the Genesis narrative. On the other hand, what's wrong with seeing a movie that's not really Bible based? After all, some other movies I've seen lately include The Hobbit and The Hunger Games. Those weren't biblical movies either.  I went to see them simply to be entertained. As I pondered this dilemma, it occurred to many that other people are surely considering this same question. So why not share my thoughts to help them decide?

I first heard about the Noah movie being made about two years ago and I blogged about it then (read it here). In that post I wondered, “will the movie bring out the real message behind Noah? Will it be about a righteous God Who judges sin? Will people know that God has provided salvation to those who believe in Him? Will they see the Ark as a picture of Jesus?” What was I thinking? I mean, I know I doubted it then but did I seriously even think it might? Of course it wasn't going to. In the movie, Noah is not a righteous man at all. He's an ultra-liberal who thinks it's his job to save the “innocent” animals of the world and insure the global-warming causing, human race is terminated. He even wants to murder his grandchildren. Radical environmentalism? Check. Abortion? Check. Straw man caricatures of the Bible? Check. Yep, it's all there in this movie. I must said I nailed it when I said, “I guess it's not always about money for liberals. They have their standards too. Some just can't bring themselves to make a movie portraying the Bible in a favorable light no matter how successful the movie might be.”

But like I've already said, I don't just go to see movies that are biblically themed or biblically accurate. Maybe this fictional story will be interesting. Maybe the special effects will be exciting. Maybe the action will be intense. However, judging by what I've heard from people who have actually seen the movie, this movie has none of that. Instead, it has a weak story that isn't saved by dazzling special effects – kind of like the second Matrix movie.

The majority of the people who've seen the Noah movie didn't like it. In typical, Hollywood style, the movie is loved by professional, liberal movie reviewers who hate anything Christian, while hated by the public at large. In this screen shot from “Rotten Tomatoes,” it shows how 76% of reviewers liked it yet only 47% of movie goers felt the same.

What bugs me the most is that this movie, which bears only a remote resemblance to the Genesis account, is still held out as a being a fair representation of the Bible. When I heard the movie advertised on the radio, it was followed by a disclaimer. The disclaimer I heard was a little different but the official text is as follows:

The film is inspired by the story of Noah. While artistic license has been taken, we believe that this film is true to the essence, values and integrity of a story that is a cornerstone of faith for millions of people worldwide. The biblical story of Noah can be found in the book of Genesis. (source)

So there is the rub.  It's not just that it's not a biblical film; it's that it pretends to be a biblical film. Rather, it deceptively holds itself out as a biblical movie even though Aronofsky knows the movie is antithetical to the lessons of judgment and mercy taught in the biblical account. Let's face it, did God really want Noah to murder his grandchildren to insure the extinction of the human race? Is that a “value” which is a cornerstone of Christian faith?

Let's sum up: weak story, antithetical to christian-values, liberal propaganda. Should I go see the movie? I think the answer is obvious.

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.

Do Creationists Deny These Things?

There's a video on YouTube called, “What Every Creationist Must DENY” (note the use of capital letters in 'DENY' - how petty). I've seen the video before and briefly referred to it at least once on my blog but I never really made an effort to respond to it because, frankly, there's no substance to it. It's an empty argument. A while back, though, in another discussion I was having online, I heard an evo making remarks that I immediately recognized as being from this video. When I looked up the video again, I noticed that it's had over 313K views with a very high approval rating. Regardless of whether it has any good points, 313K views is substantial enough that I should respond to it.

The premise of the video is that evolution is supported by an overwhelming mountain of facts and if anyone denies evolution, he must also deny all of the facts that support it. The video then proceeds to trot out a long list of the things which creationists supposedly “must deny.”

It's ironic that the list begins with “logic” since the video is a case study in logical fallacies. As I said, there's not a substantial argument found anywhere so I'm not sure exactly how I should respond. I suppose I'll simply highlight a few of the logical fallacies committed in the video in order to demonstrate how it completely lacks an argument. There are a few specific items mentioned in the video that I could discuss but I'll save them for future posts. The items I cite now will only be for the purpose of demonstrating some fallacy.

By the way, the music in this video is the Hungarian Rhapsody No. 2. By happy coincidence, thisis the same music Warner Brothers used for their “Daffy Duck's Rhapsody,” so while I was watching the amateurish arguments raised by the video, I kept hearing Daffy Duck singing in my head. Oh, the justice of it!

First, this video is about the best example of argumentum verbosium that I think I've ever seen. Because the list of terms given in the video is so long, it's apparently intended to give the impression there's an impressive amount of “evidence” for evolution. But they're just terms! None of them is an argument. One term listed, for example, is dendrochronology. Really? Creationists “MUST”deny dendrochronology? Dendrochronology is a method of dating by using tree rings. It's a scientific discipline. It's not “evidence” for evolution any more than theology is evidence for God. Other items mentioned include gravity, weak nuclear force, and trigonometry. All of them are just empty terms.

Another fallacy committed by the video is the bald assertion. At no time during the long list of terms did the makers of the video attempt to explain why any of these things must be denied by creationists. Admittedly, the makers did say at one point there was another video to explain why creationists must deny gravity but here they suggest nary a reason. This video might have been a little more substantial if it had only about 1/3 of the terms but each was accompanied by at least some explanation. As it stands now, the video is about as persuasive as a 2^nd grade bully who says, “Johnny is a poopy-head!”

Because the video lacks any attempt to justify the items on its list, many of the items sound non sequitur, See what you think: “Because you believe in creation, you deny gravity.” How does that follow? It doesn't.

This brings us to the fallacy of the straw man. Creationists obviously don't deny gravity, trigonometry, the speed of light, natural selection, or Neaderthal DNA. To suggest that we do or to insist that we “MUST” deny these things is to misrepresent what creationists believe. It's a text book example of a straw man.

Also included in the video are a couple of appeals to authority. At one point it says that creationists must deny “200,000 peer reviewed papers.” At another point it says that evolution is supported by “hundreds of scientific techniques, used by thousands of scientists.” Scientists and papers aren't evidence in themselves. Scientists study evidence and write papers about their studies and conclusions. Also, scientific techniques aren't evidence but are methods of gathering or studying evidence.

There are so many other fallacies committed in the video that we can't possibly get to them all. It commits a sweeping generalization by suggesting all creationists believe the same thing. It commits conflation by equating scientific disciplines and techniques with evidence. I could go on and on but I'll start wrapping up.

Near the end, the video makes an ad hominem attack. Quoting the video: “People who are able to deny millions of facts, and believe in things that don't exist including global conspiracies are called PARANOID DELUSIONAL” (capitalization in original). This is a consequence of the straw man argument set up earlier in the video. That is, creationists must deny things like gravity, they must believe in a global, scientific conspiracy, therefore they must be delusional. It's easy to knock down a straw man, isn't it?

Finally, the video ends with this appeal: “One can only hope that by showing people how silly their denial makes them look, they will open their eyes and begin to... think about it” (ellipsis in original). It's rather optimistic of them to believe that such lazy arguments will open anyone's eyes. But then again, 6,000 people “liked” the video so at least some people think it's compelling. I guess it shows how irrational people can be charmed by foolish arguments.

Let me just say in closing that the Bible is very clear about the origin of the universe and the creation of man. Since evolutionists reject the true account of creation given in Scripture, we can only conclude one thing: every evolutionist must deny reading!

Further reading:

BREAKING NEWS: Creationists Deny Evolution!

Natural Selection is the Opposite of Evolution!

“Mutations” Make a Creature More Evolved?

Trait Adding Mutations? I'll Show You Why More is Sometimes Less

I'd Like to Be Like Uncle Tom

Like most people, I learn the meaning of words and terms by hearing how they are used. I suppose that's the usual way people learn any language. Should I be angry with myself, then, that I've long had the wrong impression of the term, “Uncle Tom”? I've always understood the phrase to be a term of derision. Usually, it is spoken by black people to insult other black people where the first group accuses the latter of “acting white.” I know that Clarence Thomas was called an “Uncle Tom” when he was being considered for the Supreme Court. Congressman, J. C. Watts has often been called an “Uncle Tom” for being a conservative Republican. Any black person who isn't a card-carrying, liberal Democrat is called an “Uncle Tom.” It's a term reserved by blacks for blacks who don't act black enough.

From the way the term has been used, I had the impression that Uncle Tom was a mousy, smarmy character who would suck up to white people in an effort to ingratiate himself into their favor. I considered him a snake of a person, similar to the cliché fink portrayed in prison movies. You know the type – the weasel-looking inmate who would squeal on fellow prisoners in hopes of earning special treatment from the guards. Such characters usually only win loathing from everyone.

Perhaps I should not be too hard on myself for not knowing that the fictional character of Uncle Tom portrayed in the book, Uncle Tom's Cabin, bears no resemblance to the rat-fink I had in my mind's eye. After all, when liberals use the term, “Uncle Tom,” they usually mean it in precisely the same way I understood it. I suspect rather that it's those who hurl the term who are ignorant of the true nature of the literary character.

I've read a lot of books in the past including many of the classics but as is always the case, there are far more books that I haven't read than I've read. Uncle Tom's Cabin happens to be one of the books I hadn't read until recently. That's too bad. It's a treasure that I wish I could have cherished decades ago.

The book surely gored many sacred cows of its time. Certainly the southern slave owners were exposed for their crimes against slaves – both the “good” masters and “bad” masters. This book also shone a light on the complacent abolitionists of the north who spoke openly against the scourge that was slavery but did very little else but speak. Much blame was also (justly) laid to the charge of the churches in that day. Perhaps the worst offenders were those churches who endorsed slavery as a part of the divine order of things but other churches were equally culpable by walking a fence on the issue – not endorsing slavery but neither condemning the white slave owners in their congregations. The book gave a most insightful glimpse into the plethora of attitudes that existed on every side of the issue.

The hero of the story was, of course, Uncle Tom, who, throughout the book, moved from master to master (three in total). The masters ranged in attitude from the most benevolent to the most malign but each was used in such a way as to show the injustice of slavery. Throughout his trials, Tom was a model of Christian character: His honesty and integrity won the confidence of many who knew him, he always concerned himself with the salvation of those around him – slave or master, and he relentlessly sought instruction from the Bible.

As I read, I sometimes thought of Tom as a picture of Joseph and at one point in the book, Tom also intimated the same thought about himself. As the book progressed, however, I saw Tom as much more like Christ than Joseph. Toward the end of the book, two slave girls had planned their escape from the wicked, Simon Legree. Legree intended to learn the details of the escape from Tom. Read this edited version of the encounter:

Tom heard the message with a forewarning heart; for he knew all the plan of the fugitives' escape, and the place of their present concealment; - he knew the deadly character of the man he had to deal with, and his despotic power. But he felt strong in God to meet death, rather than betray the helpless.

He sat his basket down by the row, and, looking up, said, "Into thy hands I commend my spirit! Thou hast redeemed me, oh Lord God of truth!" and then quietly yielded himself to the rough, brutal grasp with which Quimbo seized him....

"Well, Tom!" said Legree, walking up, and seizing him grimly by the collar of his coat, and speaking through his teeth, in a paroxysm of determined rage, "do you know I've made up my mind to kill you?"

"It's very likely, Mas'r," said Tom, calmly.

"I have," said Legree, with a grim, terrible calmness, "done - just - that - thing, Tom, unless you'll tell me what you know about these yer gals!"

Tom stood silent.

"D'ye hear?" said Legree, stamping, with a roar like that of an incensed lion. "Speak!"

"I han't got nothing to tell, Mas'r," said Tom, with a slow, firm, deliberate utterance.

"Do you dare to tell me, ye old black Christian, ye don't know?" said Legree.

Tom was silent.

"Speak!" thundered Legree, striking him furiously. Do you know anything?"

"I know, Mas'r; but I can't tell anything. I can die!"

Legree drew in a long breath; and, suppressing his rage, took Tom by the arm, and, approaching his face almost to his, said, in a terrible voice, "…. You've always stood it out again' me: now, I'll conquer ye, or kill ye! - one or t' other. I'll count every drop of blood there is in you, and take 'em, one by one, till ye give up!"

It was but a moment. There was one hesitating pause, - one irresolute, relenting thrill, - and the spirit of evil came back, with seven-fold vehemence; and Legree, foaming with rage, smote his victim to the ground.

Scenes of blood and cruelty are shocking to our ear and heart. What man has nerve to do, man has not nerve to hear. What brother-man and brother-Christian must suffer, cannot be told us, even in our secret chamber, it so harrows the soul! And yet, oh my country! these things are done under the shadow of thy laws! O, Christ! thy church sees them, almost in silence!

But, of old, there was One whose suffering changed an instrument of torture, degradation and shame, into a symbol of glory, honor, and immortal life; and, where His spirit is, neither degrading stripes, nor blood, nor insults, can make the Christian's last struggle less than glorious.

Was he alone, that long night, whose brave, loving spirit was bearing up, in that old shed, against buffeting and brutal stripes?

Nay! There stood by him one, - seen by him alone, - "like unto the Son of God."

The tempter stood by him, too, - blinded by furious, despotic will, - every moment pressing him to shun that agony by the betrayal of the innocent. But the brave, true heart was firm on the Eternal Rock. Like his Master, he knew that, if he saved others, himself he could not save; nor could utmost extremity wring from him words, save of prayers and holy trust.

There is much about Tom that is worthy of emulation. In many ways – in every way, really – he was superior to the white men who owned him yet he carried himself with sincere humility. The quiet strength of his testimony won many to Christ. He even prayed for Simon Legree while he was being beaten to death.

I'm not sure why his name has come to be such an insult. I wish I could be more like him.

Ann Coulter's book: Demonic, How the Liberal Mob is Endangering America

I received Ann Coulter's book, Demonic: How the Liberal Mob Is Endangering America, for Christmas this year. Thus far, I've only had a chance to read the first four or five chapters yet I've read enough to see it's another winner. Ann Coulter is definitely one of my favorite political authors. She's funny, insightful, and straightforward. She articulates the conservative position as well as anyone I've heard. Perhaps what I like most about her is that she drives liberals absolutely crazy! The mere mention of her name brings out that demonic frenzy she has correctly identified that exists inside liberals. As always, her book fails to disappoint.

The premise of her book is how liberals exhibit a mob mentality. Mobs are unable to think rationally and are instead driven by base emotions. According to Coulter, “All the characteristics of mob behavior set forth by [Gustave] Le Bon in 1895 are evident in modern liberalism – simplistic, extreme, black-and-white thinking, fear of novelty, inability to follow logical arguments, acceptance of contradictory ideas, being transfixed by images, a religious worship of their leaders, and a blind hatred of their opponents.”

Coulter introduces the book by quoting Mark 5:2-9 which details the encounter between Jesus and the demon possessed man, Legion. It's an attention grabber and sets the tone for her myriad of examples of how liberal mobs exhibit the same demonic behaviors.

I might write a more thorough review once I've finished the book but the close of Chapter One is so intriguing that I wanted to reproduce it here. Coulter uses the biblical account of the crucifixion of Jesus to illustrate the typical, demonic mob.

The seminal event of the New Testament – Jesus' cricifixion – is a dramatic illustration of the power of the mob. 

When the mob was howling for Pontius Pilate to sentence Jesus to death, even Pilate's wife couldn't convince him to spare Jesus. After having a dream about Jesus, Pilate's wife sent her husband a note saying Jesus was innocent – a “just man.” Pilate knew it to be true and that the mob hated Jesus out of “envy.” But not his wife, not even his own common sense, was enough for him to resist the mob.

Three times Pilate told the “multitude” that Jesus was innocent and should be spared. He pleaded with the mob, proposing to “chastise him, and release him.” But the mob was immovable, demanding Jesus' crucifixion. Pilate was required to release one of the prisoners, so he gave the mob the choice of Jesus or Barabbas, a notorious murderer and insurrectionist – in other words, someone who incites mobs. Again, the mob “spoke with one voice,” demanding “with loud shouts” that Jesus be crucified.

Capitulating to the mob, Pilate ordered Jesus' death.

Even one of the mob's victims, a thief being crucified alongside Jesus, joined the mob's taunting, saying to Jesus, “If thou be Christ, save thyself and us.” The other thief rebuked him, noting that they were guilty and Jesus was not. He said to Jesus, “Lord, remember me when thou comest into they kingdom.” And Jesus said, “Today shalt though be with me in paradise.” 

Pilate gave in to the mob out of fear. The thief joined the mob to side with the majority. The mob itself was driven by envy.

Although it all worked out in the end – Jesus died, darkness fell over the Earth, the ground trembled, and the temple veil was ripped in two, and three days later, Jesus rose from the dead, giving all people the promise of everlasting life - here was the stark choice, to be repeated like Nietzsche's eternal recurrence: Jesus or Barabbas?

Liberals say Barabbas: Go with the crowd. C'mon, everybody's doing it – it's cool. Now let's go mock Jesus. (As is so often the case, the mob said, “Kill the Jew.”) 

Conservatives – sublimely uninterested in the opinion of the mob - say Jesus.

Loving God with our Minds: A Series in Logic. Part 1

In Matthew 7:24-26, Jesus gives us a parable of two men: one man hears the words of Jesus and heeds them. Jesus says he is a like a wise man who builds his house upon a rock and it is able to stand against the wind and floods. The other man is a foolish man who does not heed the teachings of Jesus. He is like a man who builds his house upon the sand. When the rains come and the winds blow, the house cannot stand because it is built on sand.

As Christians, we are commanded to always be ready to give an answer to those who ask about our faith (1 Peter 3:15). While we do this, we must keep in mind who we are dealing with – foolish people. We are dealing with people who have built a worldview upon sand and their arguments cannot stand up to scrutiny. Over the many years that I've engaged critics of the Bible, I've consistently found that nearly all of them resort to some logical fallacy in their arguments. It's unavoidable, really. When one's worldview begins with a premise that there is no God, he stands in stark contrast with reality. Every other belief he builds upon that faulty foundation is simply another brick he adds to the house he's built on sand. It won't stand.

The word translated as answer in 1 Peter 3:15 KJV is the Greek word “apologia” (ἀπολογία). This is where we derive the English term, apologetics. Like many Greek words, it's a compound word. “Apo” is a preposition of separation. It means away or from. We see it in the English word apostrophe, which is a mark that sets a letter apart from the rest of the word. “Logia” is derived from the Greek word “logos” which is usually translated as word. It's used in John 1:1, “In the beginning was the word....” When we talk about something like “the Word of God,” we're not referring to any single word but rather to everything God said. It's the entire body of thought. This is where we get the common suffix -ology as in biology or anthropology. From logos we also have the English word logic. Apologetics, therefore, literally means, “from words” or “from logic.” We are to give the critic a logical and reasonable defense of the Faith.

As we debate nonbelievers, we must always be careful of the arguments we are using and be alert to the arguments they are using. Remember that we have a house built on a rock while theirs is upon the sand. If we are not careful, we can get caught up in their foolish arguments and become removed from our strong foundation. Proverbs 26:4-5 warn us that we should not answer a fool by acting like a fool. Instead, we need to show him how foolish he is.

Studying formal logic is one of those things that intimidates a lot of people. Because of this, many people avoid it all together. It's really a shame, too, because the Bible says that we should love God with all our heart, soul, strength, and mind (Mark 12:30). Since we are commanded by God to give a reasonable defense of our faith, we owe it to Him to engage in a little mental exercise and study logic.

I don't know if I can say that God invented logic. God Himself is logical therefore logic has existed for as long as God has existed. Since nature reveals the glory of God, we see some of His logical nature revealed in His creation. Logic, is also absolute. It exists as certainly as anything exists. One cannot credibly argue that logic does not exist because he could not logically defend such a position. Any argument the critic could articulate must presuppose that logic exists. Therefore, any argument against logic only proves that logic is real!

Since God is logical, Christians have a rational basis to use and apply logic. However, an atheistic worldview has no rational reason to believe there should be uniform laws of logic. If the universe is without purpose, there is no reason to expect order or uniformity. Of course, this doesn't stop atheists from appealing to logic to defend their beliefs. Such a tactic is demonstrative of their irrationality. If atheists were consistent with their worldview, they would have no foundation on which to base a logical argument. Logic exists only because God is real yet they appeal to logic to argue that God doesn't exist! In his book, The Ultimate Proof of Creation, Dr. Jason Lisle uses the analogy of a man who argues against the existence of air. It is only because there is air moving past his vocal cords that he can form words. It is only because there is air to carry the sound waves that his argument can be heard. The more someone argues against air, the more he proves there is air. Yet this is what a fool does.

I thought it would be a good investment of time to do a short series on logical arguments and logical fallacies. Over the years, I've heard evolutionists and atheists use nearly every logical fallacy you could imagine. A Christian can hardly discuss anything with a critic without hearing some logical fallacy. Therefore, I have many real life comments that I can use for examples. I'm not sure how long this series will be but please check in often.

Further Reading

Part 2

Part 3

Part 4

Part 5

Part 6

Part 7

Part 8

Some Churches Just Don't Get It

Christmas is usually the time I restock my library. When friends and family ask me for gift ideas, I often suggest books I'd like to read. At least part of any cash I get is also spent on books. The other day, I was browsing for some book ideas and was reading the reviews of the book, Already Gone. By the way, it bugs me that sometimes people use Amazon book reviews like a debate forum but that's not my point now. The premise of the book is that nearly 2/3 of teens and young people who attend church now will likely not continue to attend church after they leave home. One reason for this mass exodus is that they don't see the Bible as being relevant to the “real world” and a lot of the reason revolves around the creation/evolution issue.

One critic of the book, who claims to be a former youth leader took exception with the book's premise and said, “[K]ids 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,... 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.”

No where in his criticism did he actually claim to have read the book. He merely takes exception with the premise. His solution is to engage in the very practice that the book identifies as the problem. He says, “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 guess some churches just don't get it. There is no “harmony” between a belief in evolution and the Bible. The only way the two beliefs can be reconciled is to believe the Bible doesn't mean what it says. People who claim to believe both the Bible and evolution either pigeon hole the differences and not think about them or they ascribe to the Bible the genre of allegory/parable/myth. Thus they create the contradiction in kids' minds: the Bible isn't the “real world.”

Jesus made it very clear that people who reject the Old Testament also tend to reject Him. Consider just the following three verses:

John 3:12, “If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?”

John 5:46-47, “For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me; for he wrote of me. But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?”

Luke 16:31, “And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.”

All of these were spoken by Jesus. They demonstrate clearly how there is a causal link, an “if-then” condition, that if someone rejects what the Bible says about worldly things (which must include the creation) then he will also reject Jesus. It's expected really. If the Bible is wrong about one thing, then how can it be trusted about anything? Even more so if the Bible is wrong at the very first verse!

The sad fact is that many churches have compromised on this fundamental point. Some see it as a divisive issue and therefore avoid discussing it. They might give lip service to defending the Genesis account of creation but won't proclaim it too loudly lest they offend some evolution-believing members of their church.

Other churches, like the one represented by the critic above, openly proclaim that evolution is true and they use science as their paradigm to interpret Scripture. To them, Genesis can't mean what it says because science says otherwise. Obviously, their opinion of science is higher than their opinion of the Bible. This is a dangerous path to trod. Science also says that virgin women cannot conceive children. Science also says that dead men don't come back to life. Do these events in the Bible belong in the same “non-literal” genre as the creation? If we don't trust the plain meaning of the words of Scripture, then in what part of the Bible can we ever have confidence?

Read the critic's quote again. Note carefully how he condemns young-earth creationists for saying that, “"The Flintstones" represents real and true history.” Should I remind him that I believe the plain meaning of the words of the Bible? He is essentially saying that the Bible presents a Flintstones-like representation of history and creationists are stupid for believing it.

It's no wonder that many churches fail to reach the lost. What is their gospel? That it's OK to not believe the Bible – just believe in Jesus? What kind of gospel is that? Though these churches may claim to follow Christ, their attitude lies in direct opposition to what Christ taught. He said that if someone doesn't believe the Bible then neither will he believe in Him. They just don't get it.

A Nation of Wimps!

Last night, on Face Book, my former pastor and Face Book friend posted a video of Gianna Jessen, a woman whose mother attempted to abort her but she survived the abortion and was born alive. It was a touching video of her giving a pro-life speech in Melbourne Australia (you can watch it here). It prompted me to look for similar stories on YouTube. Apparently this has happened on other occasions as well. A woman named Melissa Ohden posted a short video describing a similar experience (here). Their testimonies are moving and rebut the lie that abortion advocates are “pro-choice.” Certainly the babies in these abortions are not given a choice and it's wonderful to hear these intended abortion victims give a voice to the millions more who have been killed.

Abortion is a plague that haunts America. It is our holocaust. A majority of people identify themselves as “Pro-life” and overwhelmingly believe that abortion should be illegal or legal in only certain circumstances. Yet we either lack the will, the political courage, or the political savvy to do anything about it. We have let the fringe minority set the agenda and now have abortion on demand. If a woman wishes, she can, for any reason, have an abortion at any time during her pregnancy.

But my main point of this post isn't to talk about abortion.

I also came a across a video series (parts 1, 2, and 3) about a woman named Carly who had an abortion and regretted it. Near the beginning of the first video, she talks about how she and her boyfriend became sexually active at the very beginning of their relationship. Certainly one component in a woman's decision to have an abortion is the relationship with the father. Many women having abortions aren't married to the father. But then again, many women having babies aren't married to the father. The logical conclusion is that many women are having sex with men they aren't married to. Our society glorifies sex and ignores consequence.

But neither is my main point about out of wedlock sex or illegitimate births.

The main point of my post is the role of men in the above examples. In the cases of the abortion survivors, what were the fathers doing while the mothers were trying to abort their children? In the case of Carla, we know what the father was doing: he was being a selfish jerk pressuring Carla into having an abortion while he himself was too scared to walk into the abortion clinic with her. And what were they thinking while they were having sex with these girls? Did it not occur to them that they might make these women pregnant?

I read a book a few years ago called, The Power of Myth. Even though the author, Joseph Campbell, was an atheist, he did raise a least one good point. In many cultures around the world, boys of certain ages are subjected to a rite of passage where, afterward, they are treated as men. Among Jews, for example, there is a bar mitzvah. It is a defining moment in their lives – a clear distinction where they understand they need to stop acting like boys and start acting like men. Like Paul said in 1 Corinthians 13:11, “When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.”

Here in the US, we have no formal tradition where this occurs. This is why we have adult men who still act like teenagers. There are certain milestones in our lives that would be good candidates for a rite of passage (turning 18, graduating from high school, etc) but in many of these cases, the older generation continues to treat the man like a boy. If an 18 year old man were to talk to his parents about marriage, they would likely tell him he is still too young. They might tell him to wait, go to college, save his money, and then get married at some unidentified moment in the future when he is “ready.” In my opinion, this only perpetuates adolescence. Instead of getting married, the 18-year-old will heed his parents advice about marriage and simply continue having sex with his girlfriend-of-the-moment. And what is the parents' advice about having sex? Probably something like, “Well, you know how kids are. They're going to have sex.” What a cop out! Instead of telling them it's OK to act like kids, why don't we tell them to grow up and start acting like adults?!

We are a nation of wimps. Our men refuse to act like men. They're old enough to work, drive, have sex, and do all the things a man does but they refuse to take on the responsibility of being a man. They want a life without consequences. The out of wedlock sex, illegitimate births, and abortions are merely symptoms of their childish behavior. “Wimps” is certainly an appropriate description but I guess I could also call them “babies.” Actually, “babies” is a little too tame since babies tend to cry over little things. Here, we are talking about matter of importance.

What else might we call them? “Idiots” works. I mean, even a simpleton can understand that having sex could lead to pregnancy. Obviously some men haven't figured that out. They can't think beyond the 15 minutes in bed. Besides pregnancy, they are also risking contracting and spreading STDs so these men are demonstrably stupid. “Selfish” comes to mind too. I don't care what they say, these men have only one thing on their mind – their own gratification. They don't care one whit about the women they are having sex with and if they claim they do, then I also call them “liars.” If they really cared for the women beyond sex, then why don't they just marry them?

“Cowards” might be the strongest word I could use to describe these men. That Carol's boyfriend wouldn't walk with her into the abortion clinic didn't make him a coward; he was already a coward and that act merely made it evident. These men are only pretending to be men while they abuse women to slake their own lusts. They're afraid to do those things that truly identify someone as a man: things like taking responsibility, making a commitment, providing for a family, raising your children, and being a role model.

Yet even worse than cowards, these men are “sinners.” God made marriage an earthly model of our relationship with Christ. Men are supposed to love their wives like Christ loves His Church and gave His life for it (Ephesians 5:25). Christ endured the cross to redeem His Bride but these men surf the net for porn. They aren't even interested in a “bride.” They aren't the shepherds of their family like Jesus is but they are the thieves and robbers who only come to steal, kill, and destroy (John 10:10). They're also “idolaters” who put the needs of their own flesh above obedience to God.

Lest anyone should think I'm just being proud and judgmental, I assure you that I was young and dumb once too. It was only by the grace of God that I grew up before becoming a victim of my own stupidity. Take it from someone who knows. My advice to all of you is repent. Show some responsibility. Stop thinking of yourself and start thinking of others. Be a man!!

The Stones Cry Out: Why the Bible Trumps Archeology

On my way to a doctor's appointment today, I grabbed a book so that I'd have something to read during the inevitable wait I would have. I picked up, “The Stones Cry Out.” I had read it several years ago but had forgotten some of the better points of the book. It's probably a little dated now (it was originally published in 1997) but in just the second chapter, it raised a few great points that are timeless.

All in all, archeology has been friendly to the Bible. Several archeological finds have marvelously confirmed facts previously only known from Scripture. Even so, some difficulties remain. Critics will sometimes claim certain details in Scripture have not been verified by archeologists. Indeed, some current evidence seems to contradict Scripture. Can the spade of modern archeologists overturn the authority of the Bible? Heaven forbid! Early in the book, Dr. Randall Price outlined why he believes the Bible trumps archeology.

1) “Only a fraction of what is made or written survives”: We have found a lot of things which had been written down by the ancients but the overwhelming majority of what they wrote simply no longer exists. At the time “The Stones Cry Out” was published, no sizable archive has been discovered in the Land of Israel. What certainty do we have that what survives is representative of the whole body of what was written?

2) “Only a fraction of the available archeological sites have been surveyed”: In Israel and the Near East, there are thousands of unexcavated tels. Sites that are surveyed cannot keep pace with the many more that are being discovered. Many of these sites will never be properly explored because of political disputes and lack of resources. Many are also being destroyed by population growth and construction.

3) “Only a fraction of the surveyed sites have been excavated”: In Israel, military spending takes priority over archeological excavation. Most work in this area is done by volunteers or by archeologists who make their real living as professors. These people must raise money for their expeditions from private resources and can only work a few weeks out of the year. Because of all these factors, only 2% of surveyed sites in Israel have been excavated.

4) “Only a fraction of an excavation site is actually examined”: Due to limited time and resources, archeologists tend to invest the majority of their time in sites they suspect have the best chance of yielding a sensational find. A big find helps in future fund-raising. Strategic sites, such as Tel Hazor, have been repeatedly excavated yet there is so much ground that Tel Hazor still remains the largest unexcavated tel in Israel.

5) “Only a fraction of what is excavated is eventually reported and published”: There was a forty year delay between the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls and the release of just their photographs. It is a simple fact of archeological research. There are tens of thousands of cuneiform texts in museum storage rooms all over the world and there is simply not enough time, expertise, and resources to review it all.

Dr. Price concluded his points with these insightful words:

“In the final analysis, it must be remembered that the Bible itself is our finest example of an archeological document. While we have only a limited number of archeological artifacts from the biblical period, the Bible represents the most complete literary record we possess of ancient times. Surviving in one form or another since its first books were penned by Moses some 3400 years ago, it remains the most accurate and trustworthy account of antiquity in the archeological record. For this reason it is improper to elevate other archeological inscriptions above the Biblical text in order to challenge the latter's integrity.”

In this area, I believe Dr. Price has really nailed it. I'm going to finish re-reading the book and may write a full review in the future.

A Review of Coming to Grips with Genesis: Biblical Authority and the Age of the Earth

Over the last decade or more, I've spent more than a few hours discussing evolution and creation. When speaking to atheists, the discussion usually revolves around science. It's a different story, though, when debating Christian evolutionists. I've heard any number of ways these folks have “reconciled” their belief in evolution with Genesis. It can be frustrating to converse with someone who claims to believe the Bible but still insists it doesn't mean what it plainly says. They usually retreat to claims that Genesis is “allegory,” "poetry," “metaphor,” or even “myth” intended and understood to convey a “spiritual truth” rather that a literal one.

I refer you to Coming to Grips with Genesis: Biblical Authority and the Age of the Earth which puts to bed any compromise of Genesis – whether it be the gap theory, the framework hypothesis, the day-age theory, etc. It is a thorough treatment of the weaknesses in the most common areas of compromise and lays a Biblical foundation to address any novel idea you might encounter. In a real sense, this book is unlike any other book in the creation apologetic genre as it defends a young earth from a purely Scriptural perspective. It's more a combination of a history book and Bible commentary. The book is edited by Drs. Terry Mortenson and Thane Ury who both contribute along with 10 other authors to approach the issue from a variety of angles including the views of the church fathers, the genre of Genesis, the accuracy of genealogies, the views of Jesus and the apostles, and theodicy.

Be warned that this is not a light read. One complaint I sometimes have about certain books on creation (at least on some of the older books) is that they seem to lack gravitas. This book pushes the other extreme. I wouldn't say it is overly scholarly but it might be over the head of someone who is normally a casual reader. There is much to learn from this book but it will take a greater investment of time and energy than what some people usually invest.

When debating any proponent of a non-literal Genesis, this is an invaluable tool. It's thorough, convincing, and well documented. It is a “must have” for anyone interested in hearing what the Bible really says about the subject.

More Intolerance Toward Christians

I've said before that if there is going to be a supposed “separation of church and state,” it must go both ways (here). Some folks obviously don't get it. I know they don't want students being taught creation in public schools. OK, I'm fine with that as long as teachers understand that neither should they be allowed to make comments on the students' beliefs. Alas, it doesn't work that way.

A recent example of their glaring double standard is unfolding in Knoxville, TN. The schools there are using a science book called, Asking About Life. Page 319 of the book describes creationism as, “the biblical myth that the universe was created by the Judeo-Christian God in 7 days.” Do you see how that might be offensive?

Never mind that I disagree with the truthfulness of the above statement, it's wrong on a number of levels. First, if this is supposed to be a book about science, why does it even discuss beliefs? Just the title of the book, “Asking About Life” suggests that the goal of the book goes beyond merely discussing science. Some evolutionary apologists have made comments like, “science tells how and religion tells why.” The title of this book seems to contradict that.

Beyond all this, however, there is still the nagging problem of the separation of church and state. If liberals object to a public school teacher endorsing creationism under the umbrella that it would endorse a religious belief, then why are they not equally concerned about using a text book that specifically denounces a religious belief? I ask rhetorically, of course, because we already know why: when liberals invoke separation of church and state they mean to say they want to be free from religion.

Liberals are blind to their own hypocrisy. They are hypersensitive to even the most subtle religious observance – such as a teacher wearing a cross – yet they see nothing wrong with calling a student's religious belief a “myth.” And let's be clear, they specifically see nothing wrong with attacking a Christian student's belief. Had this book made an insensitive comment about a Muslim belief, the book's editor would likely have already been prosecuted for a hate crime.

Kurt Zimmermann, a father in the Knoxville school district, has asked that book be banned due to its bias against Christians. Knoxville County School superintendent, Jim McIntyre, disagrees and refused to remove the book from use. The school review committee agreed with McIntyre though a few did think some of the material in the book was “questionable.” Even so, they agreed to here an appeal from Zimmermann on May 7.

The issue should be cut and dry. Public school teachers, as representatives of the state, are supposed to remain neutral toward religion. They should not endorse a particular religious belief and neither should they condemn one. You would think a school superintendent or the members of the review committee would understand such a simple concept. What part of “prohibiting the free exercise thereof” is ambiguous? Perhaps I'm expecting too much from these school board members; maybe they too are victims of public school indoctrination!

James 2:14: Can Faith Save?

Τί τὸ ὄφελος, ἀδελφοί μου, ἐὰν πίστιν λέγῃ τις ἔχειν, ἔργα δὲ μὴ ἔχῃ; μὴ δύναται ἡ πίστις σῶσαι αὐτόν;

James 2:14

I am indebted to Dr. Wallace for his chapter on the use of the Greek article in his book, “Greek Grammar: Beyond the Basics.” That single chapter is worth the price of the book alone. It has opened my eyes and helped me move past the mundane “definite/indefinite” view of Greek nouns. This much debated verse from James has been cast in a whole new light for me.

The KJV translates this verse as: “What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?” The controversy lies in the the second half of the verse (14b). At first hearing, it sounds as though James is saying that faith alone cannot save anyone. As much as I enjoy the majesty of language in the KJV, I must admit it often is somewhat lacking as a translation. In this case, I object to the KJV's treatment of the article in v.14b.

You will notice in 14a, the word πίστις (pistis, “faith”) is anarthrous (that is, it lacks an article). In 14b, the word now has an article (“the faith”). It is my opinion that this is an “anaphoric” use of the article which refers the reader back to the same word in 14a. Thus, 14a refers to “faith” and 14b refers back to the same “faith.” Let me offer a paraphrase:

“What is the profit, my brothers, if someone should claim to have 'faith' but does not have works? This kind of 'faith' is not able to save him, is it?”

Other translations do a better job of capturing this meaning:

What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him? (NIV)

What use is it my brethren, if someone says he has faith but he has no works? Can that faith save him? (NASB)

What good is it, dear brothers and sisters, if you say you have faith but don’t show it by your actions? Can that kind of faith save anyone? (NLT)

What doth it profit, my brethren, if a man say he hath faith, but have not works? can that faith save him? (ASV)

Considering the context of the entire chapter, we can in see that James is not referring to a genuine, saving faith. Beginning in 14a, we see instead that he is referring to a particular kind of faith – a psuedo-faith which some claim to have so that they might earn the respect of others (James 2:1). The shallowness of their faith is demonstrated by their works. They love to associate with the wealthy members of the congregation but they despise the poor.

John talked about this same attitude in his letter 1 John 3:17-18. “But whoso hath this world's good, and seeth his brother have need, and shutteth up his bowels of compassion from him, how dwelleth the love of God in him? My little children, let us not love in word, neither in tongue; but in deed and in truth.” Also in 1 John 4:20, “If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar: for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen?”

The message of James is not at odds with any other part of the Bible. We are saved by faith and James affirms this. Saving faith is evidenced by our works. James condemns those people who claim to have faith but are betrayed by their works. Theirs is a faith of social expedience. James correctly asks, “can this kind of faith save”?