Textual criticism made amazingly easy

Critics often attack Christianity by attacking the integrity of the Bible. As is the case with any written work from antiquity, we no longer have the original writings of biblical authors. Critics point out that all we have are copies of copies transcribed over centuries and not all the copies agree with each other. They say the Bible has been copied, translated, and edited until we can no longer have any certainty about what it originally said. Have you heard any of this before? Well, I'm going to explain why we can have confidence in the integrity of the Bible in amazingly easy terms.

Trying to determine the original wording of a document is called, textual criticism. Here's a reading exercise. Imagine the following five sentences were all copied from a single sentence, written on a paper that is no longer available.

The book si heavy

A book is heavy

The Bible is heavy

The book is hard

The book is not heavy

My question is this: if we only have these five sentences as a reference, would it be possible to reconstruct what the original sentence was? Let's look at it word by word.

Four of the sentences say, the but only one says, a. Since the majority of the sentences agree that the first word is, the, it seems reasonable to assume the first word in the original sentence was, the. Do you see how I reached that conclusion? Using that same approach, let's look at the remaining words.

Four sentences have the second word as, book and one says, Bible. I happen to know that Bible is the Greek word for book so the person who copied that might have thought Bible when he saw the word, book. The second word in the original sentence was probably book.

Four of the sentences say, is. The fifth sentence says, si which is not an English word. It probably is simply a misspelling of the word is so the third word is probably, is.

One sentence says, not but none of the other ones do so I suspect not wasn't in the original sentence but, instead, was added to the text. We should probably omit it from consideration.

Finally, the last word in four of the sentences is heavy. One sentence says, hard. Both words start with H so it's possible the transcriber misread the original word heavy and wrote, hard. I think the fourth word in the original sentence was, heavy.

So, having compared every sentence and considered the differences, I believe the original sentence was, The book is heavy. Wouldn't you agree? I would be confident in that conclusion even though none of the sentences above actually say, The book is heavy, because there are enough similarities in just these five to justify that conclusion. Of course, if I had 10 sentences to compare, I would have even more confidence. If I had 100 or 1000 sentences to compare, there would no longer be any room for doubt. In this same way, we can have confidence in the integrity of the Bible – by comparing the manuscripts.

Now, suppose I'm a scribe and it's my job to make copies of the sentences above. But, for the sake of argument, I'm not a very dutiful scribe and I take it upon myself to change what the text originally said to what I think it should have said. I think it should say, Reading the Bible is not hard. That could be a problem. How would anyone reading my copy know I copied it faithfully? Well, there are still the 5 sentences above that could be compared against my copy. My edit is different enough from earlier copies that it would be easily identified as a fake. None of the earlier sentences even have the word, “reading,” for example. Of course, if I were especially nefarious, I could make 5 or 10 copies, hoping that the number of edited copies would overwhelm earlier copies. That might work if there were only 5 earlier copies. However, as was the case before, the more copies that exist, the harder it becomes to add intentional edits later. If there were 100 or 1000 earlier copies that did not resemble my edited copy, they would bear more weight than all of my later copies.

So you can see, the integrity of the Bible hinges upon the number of early manuscripts we have. The more manuscripts that we have to compare, the greater confidence we can have in determining what the originals said and the harder it becomes for forgers to edit the text later. How many manuscripts do we have of the New Testament, then? Greek scholar, Daniel Wallace, tells us the following:

As far as Greek manuscripts, over 5800 have been catalogued. The New Testament was translated early on into several other languages as well, such as Latin, Coptic, Syriac, Armenian, Georgian, Gothic, etc. The total number of hese versional witnesses has not been counted yet, but it certainly numbers in the tens of thousands. At the same time, it should be pointed out that most of our manuscripts come from the second millennium AD, and most of our manuscripts do not include the whole New Testament. A fragment of just a verse or two still counts as a manuscript. And yet, the average size for a NT manuscript is more than 450 pages. At the other end of the data pool are the quotations of the NT by church fathers. To date, more than one million quotations of the NT by the church fathers have been tabulated. These fathers come from as early as the late first century all the way to the middle ages.... NT scholars face an embarrassment of riches compared to the data the classical Greek and Latin scholars have to contend with. The average classical author’s literary remains number no more than twenty copies. We have more than 1,000 times the manuscript data for the NT than we do for the average Greco-Roman author. Not only this, but the extant manuscripts of the average classical author are no earlier than 500 years after the time he wrote. For the NT, we are waiting mere decades for surviving copies.

All we know about ancient people is what has been written down about them. The number of New Testament manuscripts dwarfs any other ancient writing. If we know anything at all about history, then we can be as certain of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus as any other event in history. I've even used the historical certainty of Jesus as evidence for the existence of God.

Skeptics of the Bible can only respond with arguments of incredulity. They can say that Jesus was a myth or an embellishment but they can offer no evidence to support their claims beyond their stubborn disbelief. Where are the uncorrupted autographs that I can compare with our modern Bibles to see the differences? How do they impeach the testimonies of people who claim to be eyewitnesses to the miracles of Jesus – including His resurrection? What am I to do with the Dead Sea Scrolls or the thousands of Greek and Latin manuscripts? It's the right of skeptics to ignore the integrity of the Scripture but I would ask them what other historical figures have as much evidence and which of those with less evidence do they also dismiss as myths?

Even extraordinary claims require only ordinary evidence!

In my last post, I wrote how some critics of Christianity use demands for “evidence” as a way of dodging tough questions rather than dealing with them. In that post, I described a hypothetical example of two strangers: one tells me he has a pet dog and the other tells me he has a pet sloth. In these cases, I would be apt to believe the claim to own a dog but be skeptical of the claim to own a sloth.

I've used the example of pet dog v. pet sloth in the past and people have tried to point out to me that my heightened suspicion of the claim to own a sloth actually contradicts a point I made in that post. Carl Sagan has been quoted as saying that, “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” By me being more skeptical of the claim to own a sloth than a dog, they say I'm engaging in exactly the kind of skepticism Sagan said was necessary before believing an extraordinary claim. I don't think so, but since a few people have accused me of the same thing, I thought I'd use this as an opportunity to expound on this point.

First off, Sagan's claim is self-contradicting. If it were true, then where is the evidence for the claim itself? I'm not even asking for extraordinary evidence, mind you. I mean any scientific evidence whatsoever to justify the claim that claims require evidence? If Sagan were here and I asked him to present the evidence for his claim, I'm sure he would resort to logic and reason which proves my point. Through logic and reason, we can make judgments about the truthfulness of a claim – even a claim for which there may be no scientific evidence! In my example about the sloth, you will notice that not once did I demand to see the sloth. My point in asking more questions was so that I might judge the truthfulness of the claim using only my skills of logic and reason.

But let's examine that a little but further. What if I were an especially stubborn skeptic and demand to see a picture of the sloth? If he pulled out a photo of him holding his sloth, that really still wouldn't prove anything. How do I know he didn't have that picture taken some exotic petting zoo somewhere? How do I know it's not a Photoshop? Maybe he could take me to his home and show the sloth in person. It's still not enough because, if I were especially bullheaded, I could ask for proof that this was his home. You say he has the deed? So what?! Maybe he's leasing part of his property to someone else who actually owns the sloth! No matter what evidence he shows me, I could sit cross armed and skeptical saying, “That's not enough evidence!”

This is my frustration with many unbelievers. I try to give reasoned arguments and ask they consider them objectively yet they respond only with a demand for more evidence. For some people, I could say that it would take God appearing to them personally to make them believe but I know even that wouldn't be enough because they could still dismiss God's appearance as a hallucination. For someone who truly doesn't want to believe, no amount of evidence – not even extraordinary evidence – is sufficient.

Now back up a minute. Remember about the person claiming to own a dog? If I were just as skeptical of his claim, what evidence might he produce that is different than the evidence that I demanded from the owner of a sloth? In other words, how is the evidence that proves someone owns a dog substantially different than the evidence that proves someone owns a sloth? If I am truly a “blank slate” and will never believe something unless I have evidence for it, then the evidence necessary to prove someone owns a dog need not be any different than the evidence necessary to prove someone owns a sloth.

To prove conclusively a person owns a dog or a sloth or even a stegosaurus, it would take roughly the same evidence: 1) look at his address on his ID, 2) drive to that address, and 3) see if the animal is there. One claim may seem more extraordinary than another, but the evidence to prove any of the claims is rather ordinary. The critic might ask, “what if he doesn't really own the animal? Maybe he's caring for a friend's or relative's pet.” Regardless, whatever could be said of a pet sloth could also be said of a pet dog. The evidence to prove either is still the same.

What if I claimed to own a Big Foot? Simple – drive to my house and see it for yourself. What if I claimed to own a unicorn? Drive to my house and see it for yourself. What if I claimed to have a flying saucer in my backyard? Drive to my house and see if for yourself. What if I claimed to have created a to-scale model of the Grand Canyon in my backyard? Drive to my house and see it for yourself. What is so “extraordinary” about the evidence that could prove any of these extraordinary claims?

Besides the famous quote we've discussed here, Carl Sagan also left us the analogy, The Dragon in my Garage. In that story, he pretended to have dragon in his garage and invited his skeptical friend to see it. Of course, the garage appeared to be empty. Sagan explained the dragon was invisible. The friend thought of ways to see if the dragon was there: spray paint the dragon to make it visible, sprinkle powder on the floor to see its footprints, or use a sensor to detect its flames. One by one, Sagan explained why none of these would work. A subtle irony here is that the skeptic only seems to be looking for ordinary evidence: he wants to see the dragon! Owning a dragon is an extraordinary claim. According to Sagan, it should require extraordinary evidence to substantiate that claim but in this analogy, merely seeing the dragon seems to be enough. So even Sagan, who made this famous quote, seems to understand that the proof for owning a dragon really isn't any different than the proof for owning a dog.

In Isaiah 1:18, the Lord says, “Come now, and let us reason together.”  To have the clearest picture of reality requires that we employ our God given gifts of reason and deduction. For someone to set a ridiculously high standard of evidence before believing something is a guarantee to have a distorted view of reality.

The word “extraordinary” is enormously subjective. It says more about the person hearing the claim than the nature of the claim itself. When a claim is labeled, “extraordinary,” it means the person hearing the claim has a hard time believing it. Maybe he just doesn't want to believe it. But even extraordinary claims require only ordinary evidence. To say one claim requires “extraordinary” evidence simply means the skeptic is likely to reject most of the evidence you present because of his own incredulity.

Sometimes, asking for evidence is a red herring

When I discuss the existence of God or creation with unbelievers or evolutionists, I'm often confronted with demands for evidence. I understand. Some things are harder to believe than others. If I were talking with someone I'd just met, and he told me he has a dog, I would tend to believe him. In my 5+ decades of living, I've known lots of people who own dogs. Based on my experience, owning dogs is usual and a claim to own a dog is reasonable.

If, on the other hand, a stranger told me he owned a sloth, I might be more suspicious. I know sloths exist but it's not usual that people own them as pets. I might ask him where he got a sloth and where does he keep it? If he says he found it as a stray and took it home, I would likely conclude he's lying. If he said, instead, that he operates an animal rescue, the sloth was recovered from a smuggler of exotic animals, he lives on a large piece of land outside of town, and now he keeps the sloth there in a secure enclosure, I would not be as quick to dismiss his claim. Now what he is saying is plausible. I could ask him more questions like, what does he feed the sloth and what does he do with it during the cold months? How reasonable his answers are will lend credibility to his claim to own a sloth.

My point is this: we make judgments about the truthfulness of claims all the time. Sometimes we have evidence that helps us make a judgment but often we don't. In fact, usually we don't. An employee is late because, “There was an accident.” Your son says, “I'm spending the night at Johnny's.” A student tells the teacher, “My dog ate my homework.” As soon as we hear claims like these, before we have a shred of evidence, we already begin to form opinions about whether they are true. We're not “blank slates” who approach every question with complete objectivity. We all have biases, experiences, and prejudices that influence our judgment. What is my history with this person? What do I think of his character? How plausible is what he says?

Over my years of studying apologetics, I constantly encounter skeptics who demand “evidence.” They will ask me what evidence do I have for a recent creation? What evidence do I have that the Bible is true? What is the evidence for God? I understand why someone would ask questions like these. It's like me asking questions to the person claiming to own a sloth – he's trying to decide how likely it is that what I'm saying is true. I welcome sincere questions. However, it's my opinion that most of the time, people who demand “evidence” before believing anything about God or the Bible, are using their demand for evidence as a red herring to derail the conversation.

Following are some statements I often hear from skeptics about evidence. I'm sure you've probably heard most of these too. I'm going to use them to illustrate my point.

“I don't believe anything without evidence.”

When I hear people say this, my first response usually is to ask them, “What evidence led you to believe that you must have evidence to believe something?” I ask this to try to get them to see that they really do believe some things without any evidence. Of course, I can't recall a time anyone conceded that point. They usually respond with a lot of bluff and bluster but I've never had anyone actually show me evidence to support this belief.

Here's the case: most people aren't scientists. They don't conduct experiments. They don't have laboratories. They don't do research. They haven't seen any evidence for evolution. Instead, they've heard the secular theories and explanations of the evidence and have chosen to believe them. So they do, indeed, believe some things without evidence. Their demand to creationists to provide evidence is essentially special pleading aimed at forcing creationists to play by the arbitrary rules of the evolutionist.

“Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.”

Carl Sagan made this famous quote but, just like the quote above, it doesn't stand up to its own standard. Some might say Sagan's statement is an extraordinary claim; where is the extraordinary evidence that proves it's true?

The fact of the matter is that even extraordinary claims often require only ordinary evidence. Take a resurrection, for example. To prove someone has risen from the dead, you need only to show he was once alive, that he died, and that he was later alive again. When we discuss the resurrection of Christ, we talk about the written accounts made by people who knew Him intimately during His ministry, who were witnesses to His death, and who later saw Him alive again. They talked with Him, touched Him, even ate with Him after they saw Him die. Yet, instead of trying to impeach this compelling evidence, many critics simply dismiss it saying the Resurrection requires “extraordinary” evidence. So you can see that the demand for extraordinary evidence is a gimmick that allows skeptics to dismiss much of the evidence for God, the Bible, and Christianity without really having to rebut any of it.

Some people have said my example of someone owning a dog versus someone owning a sloth demonstrates how we seek more evidence to support extraordinary claims. I intend to talk about that more in my next post but for now I'll say this: the evidence to prove I own a dog is really no different than the evidence that would prove I own a sloth. The only difference is the subjective term, extraordinary. If I'm willing to believe something, I might have a low standard for the evidence I'd accept. If I don't believe, I will set a much higher threshold. So it's not really about the claim; it's about my level of skepticism.

“Claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.”

By now, you can probably already see the flaw in this statement. Saying, “claims made without evidence cane be dismissed without evidence,” is itself a claim and, so, must have evidence to support it. The critic who makes this claim is basically admitting it would be reasonable if I ignore him!

Even though the statement contradicts itself, critics still employ it as a way to excuse themselves from having to answer logical arguments. Let me give you an example: nothing can create itself. Are we agreed? So for nature to exist, it had to be created by something outside of nature – something “super” natural. Logically speaking, this is a valid argument for the existence of a supernatural Creator. It's so simple, yet so obvious that many critics have difficulty refuting it. Instead, they say, “Well,... do you have evidence for a supernatural Creator?”

Something can be true even with no “scientific” evidence. Where is the evidence for Washington's crossing of the Delaware, for example? No amount of scientific inquiry would discover it. The only reason we know it happened is because people who lived at that time wrote about it. Likewise, much of what we know about God is what has been written down by the apostles and the prophets.

But besides the historical evidence, we do have compelling logical arguments for God. If we know scientifically, that matter/energy cannot be created naturally, then it must have been created supernaturally. We know that complexity and purpose are the characteristics of created things and so point to a Creator. We know that objectivity morality can only exist if there is a transcendent Lawgiver. I'm not asking for anyone to believe in God with a blind faith. I'm asking them to confront the many arguments that have already been made and quit hiding behind a flimsy demand for more evidence.

Is eternal punishment unfair?

I'm in many apologetic groups on FaceBook. In one such group, a member made the following statement:

I've never understood the claim that a sin, no matter how small (say, a failure of cognition) against an infinite God, requires infinite punishment. I understand that many Christians also find that claim to be fatuous, and inevitably adjust their theology to one of universalism, annihilation or a finite punishment.

I've heard similar points made many times so rather than replying on FaceBook, I thought I'd make my reply into a post here. I have several points I can make.

So what if it were unfair?

I've always found it curious how some people have this expectation that the universe must be fair. A cat will kill a mouse. Is it “fair” that the mouse really has no defense against the cat except to hide from it? Where do people – especially atheists – believe cosmic justice would come from? The universe doesn't care what happens. “Fairness” can only exist if there is a real God who administers justice. In the absence of divine justice there is nothing but cruel, indifferent reality.

But assuming that God is real, why must He be limited to our sense of justice. I might think it's unfair to pay a $35 fine for failing to put 25¢ in the parking meter. Apparently, the city of Cincinnati doesn't think that's unfair since that was the amount I had to pay them once for a parking ticket. The laws are made by the person (or people) in authority and they also set the penalties for the people who break the laws. The guilty might feel his punishment is too great for his crime. That doesn't matter.

Now, I'll explain in a moment why God's law is fair. But even if it were to seem unfair by every measure of our sensibilities, what are we supposed to do? Should I conclude that God can't be real because He's not fair? You can see how that doesn't follow. Perhaps you could argue that He isn't worthy of our worship because He is unfair. That is foolhardy because your indignation toward the law doesn't excuse you from being bound by the law. The mouse can protest all it wants but, in the end, the cat will still eat the mouse.

It is far, far better to simply acknowledge the reality of the situation. There is a God who judges sin. Your protests, your finite understanding of justice, and all your moral outrage will not be a defense.

We're all guilty

The question asked on Facebook was why only one little sin will send someone to hell. It's rather optimistic to believe there is anyone who has committed only a single sin. Is it wrong to lie? Most people will say yes. OK, if it's wrong to lie then how many lies have you ever told? It's just you and the computer right now so at least be honest with yourself for a moment. How many lies have you told today? This week? This month? This year? Let's face it – we're all habitual liars.

Thou shalt not bear false witness is just one of the Commandments (Exodus 20:16). How about the other Commandments? Have you always put God first? Have you ever taken His name in vain? Have you always kept the Sabbath holy? Have you always obeyed your parents? Have you ever stolen anything? Have you ever coveted anything? You can see where I'm going with this. It's not like there's someone out there who has committed just one sin; everyone of us broken every Commandment many, many times. We're all guilty. If we want to talk about the fairness of going to hell over a single sin, then perhaps we should ask what is the just punishment for someone who is a habitual, unrepentant sinner?

God is more than fair

In Jeremiah 18:1-6, we read this haunting account:

The word which came to Jeremiah from the LORD, saying, Arise, and go down to the potter's house, and there I will cause thee to hear my words. Then I went down to the potter's house, and, behold, he wrought a work on the wheels. And the vessel that he made of clay was marred in the hand of the potter: so he made it again another vessel, as seemed good to the potter to make it. Then the word of the LORD came to me, saying, O house of Israel, cannot I do with you as this potter? saith the LORD. Behold, as the clay is in the potter's hand, so are ye in mine hand, O house of Israel.

The point of the story is simple. The potter shapes the clay however he sees fit. If he doesn't like how the clay is formed, it is the right of the potter to destroy it and start over. We are God's creation and, so, are subject to His will.

God created a perfect universe where there was no death or suffering or toil. He gave mankind dominion over the entire earth and everything in it was for our benefit. Yet we rebelled. We continously rebel. God has no obligation to conform to our limited sense of justice. He did not have to forgive Adam nor does He have to provide salvation to any of us. If He destroyed all of creation at the very moment Adam sinned, that would have been fair. But that's not what He decided to do.

People sin every day. We've already seen that we habitually break His commandments. If God should decide to destroy us at the very moment we sin, that would be fair. But that isn't what He decides to do.

God could have required us to earn our salvation. If He put some tremendous burden on us, where we had to do 1,000 good deeds to atone for each sin we commit, that would be fair. Since He has no obligation to provide any salvation, even a plan of salvation by works would still give us some sort of chance to be saved. But that's not what He decided to do.

What God did do is leave His heavenly glory to put on a body of flesh, He came to earth in the most humble of circumstances, He lived a sinless life, He was scorned and shamed, and finally He was tortured and put to death on the Cross to pay the penalty that we owed for our sins. After this, Christ rose from the dead and currently sits at the right hand of the Father making intercession for us. Finally, the Bible tells us that God will restore the creation that was marred by our sin and we will live forever with Him in a home He prepared for us.

Praise God!!

What exactly do these critics think is fair? Do they believe they can live their life however they want, they can indulge their flesh, they can spurn God, and they can mock the death of His Son – but if God punishes them for it, then they want to whine that He is being unfair? Yes, I think that's exactly what they want.

Given all these things, the original question seems rather absurd. There's no reason unbelievers should expect fairness. We haven't committed just one sin – we are each one habitual sinners who do things every day which, by anyone's standard, we know are wrong. We've been told the consequences of our sin but the lost continue to rebel against God. Yet even then, and even though He is under no obligation, God still makes eternal reward available to those who will simply confess their sins and accept the free gift of Christ. Why do people still claim that God isn't being fair?!

The subtle lie of definition

Let's pretend, for a moment, that we have no ideas how the mountains were formed. They exist, right? So, have they always existed or did they come into being sometime during earth's history? In search of an explanation, I put on my thinking cap and begin making observations. On beaches, I notice how the waves sometimes make ripples in the sand. In the desert, I notice how sand dunes are formed by wind. These observations lead me to hypothesize that mountain formation is the cumulative effect of millions of years of wind and water moving dirt around. Sounds plausible, right?

Working with this theory, I look around to find examples of mountains being made taller by the wind and rain – but I can't find any. Instead, all I find are mountains being worn by erosion caused by wind and rain. In other words, they're becoming shorter, not taller. Not willing to abandon my theory, I define “mountain forming” to mean “any change in the elevation of a point of land.” Now, even examples of erosion can be used to support my theory.

Do you see what happened?  Instances of erosion may fit my new definition but they do nothing to support my original claim that these processes can form mountains if they just continue long enough. Ideally, I should have abandoned my theory. At the very least, I should change my definition to include, “a rise in the elevation of land....” But I do neither. Instead, I double down on my definition and begin arguing that even a lowering of land elevation is mountain formation because it creates valleys!  I'm not going wherever the facts lead me, but am changing the definition of what I'm explaining to support my theory.  

Clever, huh? Employing such an ambiguous definition actually thwarts criticism of my theory. Such a definition may make my theory somewhat unassailable, but it doesn't make my theory true! Vague definitions like this probably hinder science more than help it. Using this definition, I could continue citing new instances of erosion, call them examples of “mountain formation,” and never once find an example of a mountain truly forming.

So where am I going with this? I've often written about the word games evolutionists play. They constantly want to define terms in their favor. And it's not just scientific terms, they also want to redefine words like “faith.” The word they equivocate over the most is evolution.

If you google the definition of evolution, you'll find that it is usually understood to mean, “the process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth.” When most people hear the word evolution, they think of things like fish becoming frogs, dinosaurs becoming birds, and apes becoming men. Am I right? Yet, when we look around, we never seen examples of things like this happening. Oh sure, we see animal populations change, but they don't change into other kinds of animals.

Enter the ambiguous definition.

Talk Origins, a rabidly pro-evolution website, prefers this definition:

[E]volution can be precisely defined as any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next.

Wow, that sounds fancy. This is THE definition used by most, militant evolutionists. Notice, though, that it doesn't do anything to qualify the kind of change. There's no condition that the change has to add any new characteristics to the population, for example. If a population of gray and black mice were to go from 50% gray to 45% gray over successive generations, then they've evolved according to this definition. Yet it doesn't explain how something like a mouse could turn into something like a bat over “millions of years.”

For evolution to be possible, biological populations have to acquire new characteristics. To turn a dinosaur into a bird, you would have to add feathers. To turn a reptile into a mammal, you would have to add hair. The supposed first common ancestor didn't have feathers or hair. Neither did it have skin or scales or bones or blood or organs of any sort. How many new traits would you have to add to turn a molecule into a man? So just to say a population has “changed” doesn't mean the population is on its way to becoming something else unless the change adds something. Removing the gray mice from a population, for example, can't add new colors to the population.

The definition of evolution most favored and championed by evolutionists, the one cited above, is very much like my ridiculous definition of mountain formation. Any change in a population is called evolution, even though it doesn't add anything new to the population. Indeed, no new traits ever need to be found and evolution could still be said to be happening. In fact, I believe that's precisely why zealous evolutionists prefer it. Consider this except from the same Talk Origins article:

Unfortunately the common definitions of evolution outside of the scientific community are different. For example, in the Oxford Concise Science Dictionary we find the following definition:

"evolution: The gradual process by which the present diversity of plant and animal life arose from the earliest and most primitive organisms, which is believed to have been continuing for the past 3000 million years."

This is inexcusable for a dictionary of science. Not only does this definition exclude prokaryotes, protozoa, and fungi, but it specifically includes a term "gradual process" which should not be part of the definition. More importantly the definition seems to refer more to the history of evolution than to evolution itself. Using this definition it is possible to debate whether evolution is still occurring....”

I have to shake my head. They're right, it's hard to debate whether evolution is occurring if they are allowed to call any kind of change, “evolution.” Just like no one could question my theory of mountain formation as long as I'm able to include mountains being eroded as examples of mountain forming.

This is why evolutionists spend so much time haggling over terms. They want to bolster their arguments by defining words in their favor. It may be clever but it's still a gimmick. It's subtle. It's lying by definition.

Thus saith the Lord

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

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

Hmm... a Ruler born in Bethlehem whose going forth has been from eternity. Who could that be? Pretty easy, huh? Let's look at another passage:

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

Still too easy? Here's one more:

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

Did you have any trouble identifying the subject of any of those verses? Probably not. It's not hard to identify that it's Jesus who is being discussed in each passage. However, there's something very interesting about these verses that critics of the Bible seldom stop to consider. All of these passages are taken from the Old Testament! These passages that so clearly discuss accurate details of His birth, His passion, and His death, were written hundreds of years before the events actually occurred. Furthermore, these are but a handful of the dozens of Old Testament passages that I could have cited.

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

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

Consider the following passage from Isaiah:

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

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

How evolution is like the Tooth Fairy

In the past, I've talked about how theories explain the evidence while the evidence itself is neutral. Statements like, “there is no evidence for creation” demonstrate a misunderstanding about the nature of evidence. The things evolutionists use to support their theory, things like fossils, rock layers, natural selection, etc, are the same things creationists use to support their theory. There is only one universe, after all, and we just have different theories to explain how it got here. But I'm going to tell on myself and admit that I have made statements before like, “there is no evidence for evolution.” What's worse, I didn't say it hastily and without thinking. I was very deliberate. I confess: I have done the very thing I have just chided evolutionists for saying.

Now, you might be asking why I would have made such a statement if I believe it's such an ignorant statement. You may also wonder why I would confess to it so forthrightly. Well, at the risk of sounding hypocritical, when I have said that there is no evidence for evolution, I did not mean it in the same way that evolutionists mean when they say there is no evidence for creation (generally speaking, of course). Let me explain.

Usually, I mean it in the sense that evidence is neutral and theories are merely attempts to explain the evidence. In that sense, there is no evidence for any theory. Evidence doesn't speak and doesn't endorse any theory. One might say that his theory is the better explanation of the evidence but the evidence isn't for the theory.

Having said that, let me go one step further. Do you believe there is a tooth fairy? There are millions of kids out there who do. Why? Well, there are a few reasons. Usually, they're told by their parents that there is a tooth fairy. Also, when they lose a tooth, they put it under their pillow, they go to sleep, and the next morning they find cash in place of the tooth. All of these things certainly convince the kids that there is a tooth fairy but is it really evidence for the tooth fairy? The existence of a tooth fairy would certainly explain all this “evidence” but there's another explanation that happens to be the correct one.

Evolution is kind of like the tooth fairy. It might seem to explain the evidence reasonably well but there's another theory that is the correct one. Some people call creation a fairy tale but evolution is truly a myth. It's been called a fairy tale for grown ups where a frog turns into a prince – over millions of years. For all of its scientific trappings, it's still a myth. The “evidence” for evolution is nothing more than kids findings quarters under their pillow.

God made the world as described in Genesis. It might not be considered scientific but it's the truth. What some people call “evidence for evolution” is just like the evidence for the tooth fairy. It might convince some people, but it's certainly not proof. How can something that's not real be proven? How can something that's not real even have evidence? It's for this reason I've sometimes said, “there is no evidence for evolution.”

The “Distant Starlight Problem” may not even be a problem after all

If anyone were to ask me, “What is the most effective argument to use against young earth creationism?,” I would have to say it's the distant starlight problem. Actually, it's the only objection that even gives me pause. No other argument that I've ever heard in the support of atheism, evolution, or Big Bang cosmology has earned a second thought from me. The only problem I have with any of them is that, it's a big worldwide web and I haven't been able to respond to them all yet. But the distant starlight problem... it's like an itch that I've never been able to scratch.

For anyone not familiar with the problem, let me give you a quick thumbnail of what we're talking about. Genesis 1:14-16 says, “And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so. And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.” If God intended the stars to be for signs and seasons, it makes sense that Adam could already see them. However, some of the stars are very, very, very far away. The distance to stars is measured in units called light-years. Even though a light-year sounds like a measure of time, it's actually a measure of distance – it's the distance light can travel in 1 year, approximately 5.879 trillion miles. We've estimated the speed of light to be 186,000mi/s (the speed of light is represented by the letter, c), so if a star were 10 million light-years away, it should, theoretically, take the light from that star 10 million years to reach us. But if the earth is only 6,000 years old, how can we see the light from that star? //RKBentley scratches his head//

The first thought most people have is that God simply made the star with its light already shining on the earth. This has been called the, “Light in Transit” solution. The problem with that solution is that we sometimes see astronomical events occurring in the skies. We may see a supernova, for example, happening 50 million light-years away but we shouldn't be able to see the supernova until 50 million years after it happened. Did God create a beam of light, that would shine for 6,000 years, and would eventually reveal the nova of a star that never really existed? That hardly seems likely. If the universe is only 6,000 years old, how could the light of a real supernova travel 50 million light-years of distance in only 6,000 years of time and allow us to see it? That's the distant starlight problem!

The distant starlight problem has caused many Christians to doubt the clear words of the Bible. It has even led to the apostasy of some. To them, the science must be true, the universe must be old, so the Bible must be wrong. How sad. What a lot of these same people don't know is that even the Big Bang model has it's own time/distance problem called the Horizon Problem. I can discuss the Horizon Problem in another post, but the fact that old and young universe models have a time/distance problem suggests there is something about the way light travels that we just haven't figured out yet. There's certainly no need to reject the Bible because of it!

In the past, I've talked about my preference for Dr. Russell Humphreys' White Hole Cosmology. I still probably lean toward that theory but, again, I'll have to discuss it in another post because there's another theory that I haven't discussed before. Just recently, I came across a video that opened my eyes to the possibility of a solution that, frankly, I had been dismissive of in the past – namely, that the one-way speed of light is merely a convention. I'm going to link the video below but let me try to explain it in my own words.

Most people would be surprised to learn that we've never thought of a means to measure the one-way speed of light. Speed is usually determined by the distance traveled divided by the time it took (s=d/t). There are some problems, though, when you try to do this with the speed of light. For example, you might try setting up a mile long track with a clock at the end and fire a laser toward the clock, then see how long it takes for the laser to reach the clock. The problem is, how does the clock know when to start counting? Well, you could run a wire from the laser to the clock that would tell the clock when to start; the problem with this solution, though, is that the signal would travel along the wire at the speed of light and wouldn't reach the clock until the laser did! What a pickle. You may be thinking of other ways to try but, before you get ahead of yourself, I should warn you that the video below already deals with the problems with any solution you could probably think of.

The only way we've been able to measure the speed of light is to shoot a laser at a mirror, which then reflects it back to a clock at the start. This way, we know with certainty when the laser was fired and when the laser hit the clock – so we can calculate the time it took to travel the distance to the mirror and back. Yet this isn't the one-way speed of light; it's the two-way speed of light, the time it took to travel both directions. What if light travels at one speed in one direction, and a different speed in another direction? It doesn't matter what speed the light travels either way as long as the entire trip averages out to c. Light could even travel at ½ c in one direction, then instantly in the reverse direction and we would never know it!

This isn't some crackpot idea thought up by creationists. Einstein wrote about this more than 100 years ago where he said that the time it takes light to travel from A to B, will be assumed to be the same time it takes to travel from B to A. In other words, the one way speed of light is a convention, merely a definition we all agree to.

While I was watching the video, my interest was piqued at about 14:02 when the video made the following comments:

Einstein chose the convention where the one way speed of light is always the same. But from an experimental perspective, any other convention is just as valid, up to and including one where the speed of light is c/2 one way and instantaneous the other way. And in that case, it's interesting to think about what each observer is seeing when they look at the other. Mark [a hypothetical observer on Mars] would be seeing the earth as it was 20 minutes ago but earth is seeing Mars in real time, exactly as it is right now. And this effect wouldn't stop at Mars. Look behind it, and you could see stars hundreds of light-years away – not as they looked centuries ago but exactly as they are right this instant.

I'm sure the farthest thing from Veritasium's mind is solving the distant starlight problem for young-earth creationists. They will probably hate me for even using their video while discussing my theory. But if the speed of light toward earth is instantaneous, then there is no distant starlight problem!

Now, skeptics may be asking, Why? Why should we believe the speed of light is different in different directions? Well, there are a lot of things we're still trying to figure out about the universe. If we could solve this piece of the puzzle, it could unlock the other mysteries that elude us. The video describes it this way (beginning at 16:39):

Maybe this is an odd quirk of the universe and there's no good reason for it. Or maybe, when physics takes the next paradigmatic leap, our inability to measure the one-way speed of light will be the obvious clue to the way general relativity, quantum mechanics, space, and time are all connected and we'll wonder why we didn't see it before.

We should never wed ourselves to a scientific theory. Our minds are wicked, our understanding is finite, and our hearts are deceitful and continuously rebel against God. Theories we think are true now, may someday go the way of blood-letting and geocentrism. Only the word of God is sure. Still, I can't help but to think that, as we accumulate knowledge, we are getting closer to the truth. Psalm 19:1 says, “The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.” When I look at the night sky, I can see there are a lot of stars. I can see the universe is big. But is that all there is to it – a big bunch of space with a lot of balls of burning gas? I don't think so. There may be no end to its complexity and the more we learn about the universe, the more I stand it awe of the infinite mind that created it!

Revelation 2:17 – What is our new name?

Revelation 2:17, He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the hidden manna, and will give him a white stone, and in the stone a new name written, which no man knoweth saving he that receiveth it.

In spite of the many criticisms I've heard about the Bible, for the most part, reading it is fairly straightforward and it's not too difficult to understand. However, books like Revelation are admittedly a little tougher. Certainly, Revelation is full of symbolism and while it may not be difficult to understand the words, the meanings of the symbols aren't always clear. Revelation 2:17 is an example of difficult symbolism. What does it mean to eat the hidden manna? What is represented by the white stone? What is the new name given to us? I've read many commentaries that talk about these things but, as for the “new name,” I also have a few ideas of my own.

There are some family names that carry a certain impact. Think of the name, Kennedy, for example. Anyone who is called, “a Kennedy” is immediately identified as a person of wealth, power, and influence. The name, Trump, has come to have a similar ring. Anyone born into these families inherit a certain reputation simply because of their name. Furthermore, it's not always the names of wealthy families that are commonly recognized, names like the Hatfields and McCoys have their own infamy.

In Isaiah 56:5, God said, “Even unto them will I give in mine house and within my walls a place and a name better than of sons and of daughters: I will give them an everlasting name, that shall not be cut off.” Names like Vanderbilt or Rockefeller might impress people in this world. However, the name Jehovah surpasses them all. In eternity, we will be called His people. That's a family name worth having.

Besides family names, the names of certain individuals carry their own baggage. A person's name is often the equivalent of his character. Abraham Lincoln was renown for his honesty; “Honest Abe” they called him. Other names are notorious. Benedict Arnold was a brilliant general who led his troop to many victories over the British yet now his name is synonymous with traitor. John Wilks Booth was a handsome man and acclaimed actor. Even though he was the Brad Pitt of his day, when people hear his name, they only remember him as an assassin.

God is the perfect Judge. When we stand before Him, our earthly reputations mean nothing. No matter how many good things I may have tried to do here on earth, when I stand in judgment, I will be known only by my sins. I will be called a liar, thief, adulterer, blasphemer, sluggard, and murderer. In Christ, though, I am justified. I won't be remembered forever as the person I am now. I will be called righteous, redeemed, ransomed, reconciled, and loved. I will be called a child of God.

Your sins don't necessarily define you. What's more important is your relationship with Jesus. No matter what your past, you can be called forgiven. We can rejoice that Revelation promises us a new name!

Rebuttal: InspiringPhilosophy's 10 Biblical Problems for Young Earth Creationism: Conclusion

I don't recall when I first came across the ministry, InspiringPhilosophy (IP). According to their “About us” page, they are an apologetics ministry and describe themselves as, “a nonprofit Christian organization with the goal of spreading and defending the Gospel of Jesus Christ.” I'd say they're sincere. I've seen a lot of their videos on YouTube and some of them are really good. Of course, there's probably not anyone with whom I agree 100% of the time and my point of contention with IP is their confrontational attitude toward young earth creationism (YEC).

There are other Christian apologists who compromise on the issue of origins but not all of them are as in your face about it as IP. IP doesn't just disagree with creationism; they produce a lot of material to try refute it. One particular video they've made is TOP TEN Biblical Problems for Young Earth Creationism. As the title suggests, they present 10 passages from the Bible which, they claim, don't reconcile easily with a young earth. I invite you to watch the entire video for yourself.

I've been writing a point by point reply to each of the video's 10 arguments. This will be my last point in this series. Links to all my previous videos in this series will be listed at the bottom.

POINT #1 (beginning at 17:09): Genesis 1:1, “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.”

The video alleges, This may come as a shock to you, but the very first verse of the Bible can create difficulties for young earth models. The reason is, over the last few decades, scholars have noted the first verse lacks a definite article in Hebrew. So the way we translate it may not be accurate. Instead, scholars... have argued, it would make more sense to translate it as, “When God began to create the heavens and the earth,” What this would mean is that verse one is no longer a complete sentence, but what we would call a dependent clause and an incomplete sentence. So this would mean that verse 1 is dependent on the following clause, which is in verse 2. So Genesis is really saying, “When God began to 'bara' the heavens and the earth, the earth was formless and void.” In other words, when God started 'bara'-ing the heavens and the earth, it was already there as formless and void.

Wow. Just as I had discussed in my last post in this series, the video seems to leave open the possibility that Elohim is not the Creator of the universe. IP only portrays God as continuously shaping already existing matter but they never seem to definitively attribute the creation of matter to God. It's very strange.

It's always been a pet peeve of mine when people appeal to the original language to claim the passage doesn't really mean what the translation says. When I began learning Greek, this practice began to annoy me even more. I understand that translation is more of an art than a science but if you read the same verse in several translations, even a lay person can have a very good understanding of the author's intended meaning in the original language. To suggest that a verse in its original language means something radically different than its translation is a tactic usually employed by groups like Jehovah's Witnesses.

IP is making an argument about how Genesis 1:1 should be translated. I doubt that Michael Jones (IP's founder and the video's narrator) can actually read Hebrew. I'm almost certain that most of the English speaking people who watch his videos cannot read Hebrew either. As such, most people lack the ability to judge the credibility of the video's translation.

Now, in all fairness, I don't read Hebrew either. But since I'm fairly well studied in Greek, I've learned a few things about how grammar works in different languages. Since most people who read my blog are English speaking, I'm going to primarily discuss the errors in IP's English grammar but I'll show you how it applies to the Hebrew at the end. Sound fair? I don't want to make this whole post a grammar lesson but there's going to be a lot grammar being discussed. I apologize in advance.

IP's argument hinges on the fact that the word “beginning” in Genesis 1:1 lacks a definite article. Really, that's the entirety of their argument. They're saying the Hebrew says beginning and not the beginning and somehow that changes the entire meaning of verses 1 and 2. So I'm going to start by explaining articles.

In English, the definite article is the word the. We also have an indefinite article – the word a – but Hebrew lacks an indefinite article. Generally speaking, the use of a definite article, narrows the scope of the noun it modifies. A book becomes the book, for example. However, even in English, nouns may not have an article at all. If I said, “John plays baseball,” John is still a definite noun even though it lacks the definite article. In another example, if I'm talking about a movie I'd seen, I might say, “Its ending dragged on.” In that case, ending is still a definite noun even though it lacks an article. After all, the movie had only one ending, right?

Now that we're clear on articles, you also need to understand parts of speech. In English, do you know the difference between begin and beginning? Here's a hint: begin is a verb and beginning is a noun. OK, that was more than a hint but I want you to see clearly that these are different parts of speech. This one is a little harder but do you know the difference between created and to create? Created is a simple, past-tense verb and to create is an infinitive.

Are you still with me? Now we'll look at the subject verse. First, as we've already seen, the lack of a definite article doesn't necessarily mean the noun is indefinite. To insert the indefinite article would render the translation as, “In a beginning,...” which is nonsensical. Just as the movie in my example above only had one ending, so also did the universe have only one beginning. Therefore, “In the beginning...” is the most obvious translation. By the way, John 1:1 in Greek also lacks a definite article and translators insert the in there was well: In the beginning, was the word....”

After saying all that, here is the glaring problem with IP's argument: In order to accomplish their dubious translation, they have to change the noun beginning into the verb began and they have to change the verb created into the infinitive to create all on the flimsy grounds that beginning lacks a definite article! Begin and beginning may resemble each other, but they are still different parts of speech. Basically, the video is trying to conjugate a noun! It's rather hilarious. I know Mr. Jones isn't a Hebrew scholar but even his grasp of English is suspect.

Nerds, er... I mean people... like me, who have studied languages, understand a concept known as morphology (word forms). English is not considered to be a heavily inflected language – that is, our words don't change form much, regardless of how they are used in a sentence. Take the noun, child, for example; the plural is children and the possessives are child's and children's. That's 4 forms for one word. In Greek, there are 10 forms for a normal noun (singular and plural nouns used in 5 different cases).

I bring up morphology because we can recognize words in other languages based on their form. In Genesis 1:1, the word translated as “In the beginning,” is a single word, reshith (בְּרֵאשִׁ֖ית, Strong's word 7225). We can tell by its form that it is a singular, feminine noun being used as a preposition. In other words, the Hebrew morphology of this word shows us – without question – that this is a noun. It's not a verb! It's not debatable.

As IP said, it's only been “over the last few decades” that liberal scholars have come up with this notion that the lack of an article somehow turns a noun into a verb. Yet, keep in mind that we've studied the OT for millennia and Hebrew is a language that is still spoken! How is it that no one has come up with this unusual translation before now? I ask rhetorically because the reason is obvious. No one translates it that way because Hebrew doesn't work that way. I don't want to slight the Hebrew scholars that IP relies on to arrive at their understanding because, for all I know, they are misrepresenting those scholars just as they misrepresent Scripture. But I dismiss the the video's translation in its entirety. It's amateurish and demonstrates how a little knowledge can be dangerous.

Conclusion

In the first few minutes of the video, the narrator accused young earth creationists of believing, “that Christians, who believe the earth is old, have to misconstrue or reinterpret passages to make the Bible fit with an ancient earth and the theory of evolution.” After having reviewed all 10 points, I hope that you can see clearly that misconstruing and reinterpreting Scripture was all that the video offered to support its claims.

According to this video, God may not actually be the Creator who made the universe out of nothing, death may not be the penalty for sin but was something God had planned all along, and Adam wasn't even the first person but came after a world full of people had already lived and died. It's bizarre when someone claims to believe the Bible but never seems to understand the ordinary meaning of any passage he reads.

I didn't think any of the 10 points presented a problem for young earth creationism. Instead, I believe it highlights the dangerous gospel of theistic evolution. It's easy for people to say the creation account is merely poetry; but when they try to dig in and explain what Genesis “really means,” we're left with a confusing message that turns Scripture into gibberish. To say there was no Creator, no Adam, no first sin, and no judgment but you still need Jesus is a gospel that saves no one!

I remind you of Jesus' rebuke of the Pharisees in John 5:39-47:

Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me. And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life. I receive not honour from men. But I know you, that ye have not the love of God in you. I am come in my Father's name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive. How can ye believe, which receive honour one of another, and seek not the honour that cometh from God only? Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father: there is one that accuseth you, even Moses, in whom ye trust. 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?

Read the entire series:

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Part 4

Part 5