Rebuttal: InspiringPhilosophy's 10 Biblical Problems for Young Earth Creationism: Part 2

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'd like to write a point by point rebuttal of each item. As much as I dislike writing series, I see no choice but to respond in a series of posts. Depending on the length of my reply, I will respond to 1 or 2 points at a time. Please keep checking back.

POINT #9 (beginning at 3:30): Genesis 8

When discussing Noah's Flood, the video seems to question the meaning of the term, whole earth, being used by the Bible. I've transcribed much of the point so you can understand IP's claim.

https://unsplash.com/@1mann

When Genesis records that God flooded the earth it should be understood as literally the entire globe because it said the waters covered the face of the whole earth. But there is a problem with this view in Genesis 8. Verses 4 and 5 say the ark came to rest in the mountains of Ararat or Aratu and the tops of the mountains could be seen at this point. However, later in the chapter Noah releases a dove and it returns to him because the waters were still on the face of the whole earth. But didn't verse 5 say the tops of the mountains were seen? So verse 9 cannot mean the waters were literally covering the whole earth, implying the entire flood account might be hyperbolic in its description of the flood.

In other words, since verse 5 says mountains could already be seen, then verse 9 cannot literally mean waters covered the whole earth. I guess the conclusion IP wants us to draw is that whole earth never means the entire face of the earth anywhere in the Flood account. Am I presenting that fairly? OK, let's address that.

I admit that it's rather ordinary for people to sometimes use words like “all,” “whole,” or “every” and still not mean, “universal.” It was done in the Bible and we still do it today. However, sometimes words like this do indeed mean “universal.” Let's look at example in the context of the Flood.

Genesis 7:21-23, “And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man: All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died. And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark.”

My question then is this: When it says every man outside the Ark perished in Flood, does that mean absolutely every one? I ask rhetorically because obviously it does. This is significant because, in exactly the same context, it also says every living thing on dry land which breathed air also died. Can you see how that would be a problem for a local flood theory? If Noah's Flood were a local flood, only a tiny fraction of animals – namely, those living in the flood area – would have been affected. By no ordinary use of language would someone understand animals dying in a flooded area to mean every living substance was destroyed from the earth!

Consider, too, the language used to describe the extent of the Flood in Genesis 7:18-20, “And the waters prevailed, and were increased greatly upon the earth; and the ark went upon the face of the waters. And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered. Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered. ”

This language is also significant. Certainly, the peak of a mountain cannot be under water unless the entire mountain is under water and this passage says all the high hills under the whole heaven were under more than 20 feet of water. If this is intended to describe a global flood, I'm not sure how the Bible could have been more descriptive!

But doesn't the Bible say that the tops of the mountains could still be seen? Yes, but it was only after the waters began to abate. Genesis 8:1-5, “And God remembered Noah, and every living thing, and all the cattle that was with him in the ark: and God made a wind to pass over the earth, and the waters assuaged; The fountains also of the deep and the windows of heaven were stopped, and the rain from heaven was restrained; And the waters returned from off the earth continually: and after the end of the hundred and fifty days the waters were abated. And the ark rested in the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the month, upon the mountains of Ararat. And the waters decreased continually until the tenth month: in the tenth month, on the first day of the month, were the tops of the mountains seen.”

I feel like I could say more but I don't see the need. The text indeed is clear, just read the passage for yourself. It was only after months of the water retreating before the tops of the mountains could be seen yet, even then, waters still covered virtually the entire earth. In a few more passages after this, the Bible continues using the term whole earth, but we can understand that to mean virtually the entire earth. Yet it is from these later verses that IP argues that whole earth never means global.

Shame on them.

Point #8 (beginning at 5:00): Genesis 2:24, “Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.”

https://unsplash.com/@jonathanborba

The video explains, In my debate with Kent Hovind, I asked if he takes all of Genesis 1 and 2 literally, and he replied... [shows a clip of Hovind], “Absolutely!” But this is actually impossible because Genesis 2:24 cannot be understood literally. After Adam is introduced to Eve, it reads, “Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.” Since married couples are new sewn together this obviously cannot be understood as literal.”

We see, yet again, how the video is conflating the terms “literal” and “plain” reading. The narrator is trying to pull a gotcha with Kent Hovind when he asks if Hovind believes Genesis, “literally.” Hovind may have been rash to say, “Absolutely,” but I know what he means. Hovind and I believe mostly the same things about the days of Genesis described in Chapters 1 and 2. The six days are literal days and the events happened exactly as how they are described.

Even Genesis 2:24 is more literal than IP would have us believe. When God introduced Eve to Adam, his first words were (v. 23), “This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.” Remember that God made Eve from one of Adam's ribs. She was literally his flesh and blood!

Today, married couples aren't literally the same flesh as was the case of the first couple. Even so, marriage is a significant event, just as God had intended it to be. We sometimes call our children, siblings, and parents our “flesh and blood.” We do this because we have a very close, biological relationship. Normally, our spouse would never be that closely related to us. However, marriage unites us in a very real way. Our spouse becomes as close a kin as our biological siblings or our own parents. This is why we even call a married couple by the same name!

This may be anecdotal but I think it illustrates this point very nicely. My mother has made it a tradition every year at Christmas to give money to her children, grandchildren, and their spouses. The first year my wife had Christmas with us, my mother gave her money. My wife was surprised and told my mother she didn't have to do that and that she wasn't expecting anything. My mother said, “Why not? You're a Bentley, aren't you?” Yes! My wife is a Bentley. She is my flesh and blood – my kin – and is as much a Bentley as I am.

The video has made 2 errors in this point. First, Adam and Eve were one flesh in the literal sense. And second, the video here is doing the same thing it did in point #9; it's taking a single figure of speech and using that as evidence that the entire passage is figurative. They're saying that because a figurative expression is being used in one verse to describe a very real uniting of husbands and wives, then none of Genesis 1 and 2 can be literal!

Shame on them again.

Read the entire series:

Part 1

Part 3

Part 4

Part 5

Conclusion

Rebuttal: InspiringPhilosophy's 10 Biblical Problems for Young Earth Creationism: Part 1

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 and then moves on. 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'd like to write a point by point rebuttal of each item. As much as I dislike writing series, I see no choice but to respond in a series of posts. Depending on the length of my reply, I will respond to 1 or 2 points at a time. Please keep checking back.

INTRODUCTION

The video starts by saying, “If you haven't heard, there are millions of people today who believe the earth is only about 6,000 years old and, about 4,000 years ago, there was a worldwide flood that destroyed all life on land except for a few people and two of every animal that survived in an ark. The basis of this theory comes from many who say that we ought to take a literal or a plain reading of the Bible, the Holy Book of Christianity.”

Right from the start, IP is in error. They seem to have the impression that a “literal reading” and a “plain reading” of the Bible are the same thing. Most people should understand that a plain reading of any text will take into account the use of literary devices. A literal reading would mean that even figures of speech would be taken as a statement of fact – so when Jesus said, “I am the vine,” it would mean He is literally a vine!

It's alarming that IP would conflate the two as though they are the same thing.

The video continues, “The rational behind this young earth view, is that they are just taking the plain reading of the text...”

Do you see why IP conflates plain and literal readings? By doing this, they are able to make the plain reading of the Bible seem extreme. 2 Peter 1:20 tells us, “Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.” In other words, there is no hidden meaning to the Bible. The most obvious meaning of any passage will likely be the intended meaning. If millions of people believe there was a global flood, it's because that's what the Bible seems to say. IP acts like reading the plain words of the Bible is questionable hermeneutics.

The video continues, “and 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.”

Well, if the shoe fits.... Look, when God gave the Law to His people, He said, “Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: But the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work,... For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it” (Exodus 20:8-11). Do you think any of the Jews stopped to ask how long God meant by six days? Yes, to make the seven days described in Genesis fit with an old earth and evolution, compromising Christians necessarily misconstrue and reinterpret this passage!

The video continues, “But what many young earth creationists don't realize is that there are several passages, within the Bible itself, that create problems for the young earth theory. Meaning, if we took the plain reading of the text in many places, it would actually contradict the view that the earth and the universe are only about 6,000 years old.”

IP still seems to be saying that a plain reading the Bible isn't the correct way to understand it. If it's not, I have no other way of knowing how to read God's word. Even as I listen to the video, I take its words at their face value. If words never mean what we ordinarily understand them to mean, it would be impossible to communicate!

As I begin to examine the 10 points, keep in mind that wherever it says plain reading, it means the passage really isn't saying what it seems to be saying!

https://unsplash.com/@dustt

POINT #10 (beginning at 1:11): Genesis 17:17, “Then Abraham fell upon his face, and laughed, and said in his heart, Shall a child be born unto him that is an hundred years old? and shall Sarah, that is ninety years old, bear?”

In this verse, the video suggests that Abraham laughed because he thought it was “biologically impossible” for a 100 year old man and a 90 year old woman to have a child. The claim is that this seems to contradict the genealogies of Genesis where many people lived long ages, so having a child at age 100 shouldn't be such a big deal. There's an old adage that says, a text without a context is a pretext. Looking at this verse by itself, the video's interpretation might seem reasonable but we need to consider the entire context of Abraham's relationship with God.

Abraham was only 75 years old when he left Heran. At that time, God told him, “Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father's house, unto a land that I will shew thee: And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing” (Genesis 12:1-2). We see then that God didn't appear to Abraham at age 100 and tell him he would have a son. He promised him that many years earlier.

In Genesis 15:2-3, many years later, Abraham is still childless and he argues with God, “And Abram said, LORD God, what wilt thou give me, seeing I go childless, and the steward of my house is this Eliezer of Damascus? And Abram said, Behold, to me thou hast given no seed: and, lo, one born in my house is mine heir.”

Still a few years later, Sarah begins to believe she will always be barren. In Genesis 16:2, she tells Abraham, “Behold now, the LORD hath restrained me from bearing.” Out of frustration, Sarah tells Abraham to take her handmaid, Hagar, and have a child with her. They do this and Abraham has a son, Ishmael, with Hagar when he was 86 years old (Genesis 16:15-16).

Turning now to the subject verse, when Abraham laughed, I don't believe it was because he thought it was “biological impossible” for an older man and woman to have a child. If he laughed because he doubted God, it was more likely because he had resigned himself to the idea that Sarah was hopelessly barren, seeing that she had not yet had a child after so many years of trying.

I said if he doubted because it's even possible that Abraham's laughter was rejoicing, and he marvelled that God would finally give them, even in their old age, the son they for which they had waited so long! In the same chapter, after his conversation with God, he immediately obeys God's commands and is circumcised along with Ishmael and all the men in his house. He doesn't act like someone who didn't believe God's promise!

Concerning the patriarchs, we can't say with certainty that Abraham knew how long people lived before the Flood. Antediluvian people may have lived to be 900+ but lifespans dropped radically after the Flood. Abraham wouldn't have known anyone 900 years old so 100 may have seemed old in his day. But consider this: Genesis 25 tells us that Abraham remarried after Sarah died (at the age of 127 according to Genesis 23:1-2) and continued having children with his next wife until his death at the age of 175. There's no reason to believe he ever thought a 100 year old man having children was “biologically impossible.”

By the way, at 2:27, the video makes a mathematical faux pas. Well, it's more like a bone-headed mistake. It tries to say that Abraham's father, Terah, was himself 130 when Abraham was born. It reaches this number by claiming Genesis 12:4 says Abraham was 75 when Terah died at the age of 205. They need to go back and read the text again. Genesis 17:26 clearly says that Terah was 75 when Abraham was born. Genesis 12:4 says, “So Abram departed, as the Lord had spoken unto him; and Lot went with him: and Abram was seventy and five years old when he departed out of Haran.”

I wonder, does IP believe Abraham lived to be 175 or that his father lived to be 205? What do these numbers mean if they don't mean what they seem to be obviously saying? Any Christian who believes in evolution will reject the possibility that people ever lived hundreds of years. So how do they know which numbers are meant to be literal and which are merely symbolic? For example, what does the Bible mean when it says Abraham was 99 and Ishmael was 13 when they were circumcised? Regardless of what the text plainly says, IP has to misconstrue and reinterpret the very passages the video cites, in order to make them fit the evolutionary point of view!

Read the entire series:

Part 2

Part 3

Part 4

Part 5

Conclusion

Josephus Talks About Noah's Flood

If Noah's Flood were a real event (which it was), it would be an understatement to say it was a significant event in history. Of all the people alive in the world at that time, only the eight members of Noah's family who were on the Ark survived the Flood. No doubt they would have told their children about the event. Such a remarkable event would certainly be told and retold generation after generation so that, even centuries after the Flood, everyone in the young world would know about the Flood even if they didn't experience it first hand. We could even predict that every ancient culture would include some account of this Flood in its lore. That's exactly what we find.

The ubiquity of Flood legends isn't just the topic of modern creationists. At least one ancient historian noticed the same thing. In his book, The Antiquities of the Jews, 1^st century, Jewish historian, Flavius Josephus penned this paragraph:

https://unsplash.com/@pangare

Now all the writers of barbarian histories make mention of this flood, and of this ark; among whom is Berossus the Chaldean. For when he was describing the circumstances of the flood, he goes on thus: "It is said, there is still some part of this ship in Armenia, at the mountain of the Cordyaeans; and that some people carry off pieces of the bitumen, which they take away, and use chiefly as amulets, for the averting of mischiefs."--Hieronymus the Egyptian also, who wrote the Phenician antiquities, and Manases, and a great many more, make mention of the same. Nay, Nicholas of Damascus, in his ninety-sixth book, hath a particular relation about them; where he speaks thus: "There is a great mountain in Armenia, over Minyas, called Baris, upon which it is reported, that many who fled at the time of the deluge were saved; and that one who was carried in an ark, came on shore upon the top of it; and that the remains of the timber were a great while preserved. This might be the man about whom Moses the legislator of the Jews wrote.

Josephus had a lot to say about Noah and other characters attested in the Bible. Being Jewish himself, a lot of what he said is simply his retelling of the events from the Bible. What is significant about this passage is that he takes note of how other, non-Jewish historians corroborate details of the Flood revealed in the Bible – namely that there was a great deluge, that a man survived in an Ark, and that the Ark came to rest in the mountains.

Josephus did not know about the Australian aborigines or American Indians. He wasn't familiar with the Aztecs or Incas. I'm not even sure how much he new about the people of the Far east. But he understood that the many Flood legends among the western cultures gave weight to its authenticity. As western civilization made it's way into the entire world, we've discovered many more Flood legends among even remote populations everywhere in the world. What Josephus knew then is even more true today. The number of Flood legends among so many cultures strongly suggests it was a real event in history.

Luke 7:11-17: A funny thing happened on the way to Nain

https://unsplash.com/@mahdibafande

Luke 7:11-17, And it came to pass the day after, that he went into a city called Nain; and many of his disciples went with him, and much people. Now when he came nigh to the gate of the city, behold, there was a dead man carried out, the only son of his mother, and she was a widow: and much people of the city was with her. And when the Lord saw her, he had compassion on her, and said unto her, Weep not. And he came and touched the bier: and they that bare him stood still. And he said, Young man, I say unto thee, Arise. And he that was dead sat up, and began to speak. And he delivered him to his mother. And there came a fear on all: and they glorified God, saying, That a great prophet is risen up among us; and, That God hath visited his people. And this rumour of him went forth throughout all Judaea, and throughout all the region round about.

Besides His own resurrection, there are three other times recorded in the Bible where Jesus raised someone from the dead. The resurrection of Lazarus usually gets the most press but it's hard to say that one resurrection could somehow be more “impressive” than any other. As far as life lessons, it's my opinion that this account, where Jesus raised the widow's son at Nain, paints the most remarkable picture of a relationship with Jesus.

In the early, first century, being a widow was especially difficult. The usual trades of people in this area – fishing, farming, and shepherding – were often too physically demanding for an older woman. What's worse, Roman and Jewish laws concerning property rights favored men. Women often could not defend themselves against aggressive creditors nor thieves.

When a man died, the role of leadership would usually fall to his oldest son. Since this woman is identified as a widow, her husband had obviously already died and her son would have assumed the role as "man of the house." Now her son – her only son – had died also. She had virtually lost everything. As she led the procession to bury him, she not only mourned the loss of someone she loved, she also must have been worrying about her own fate.

Then Jesus came along.

Just as the widow had a large crowd following her, Jesus also had a large crowd following Him. It's very likely, too, that in the crowd that followed Jesus, there were some widows. There were probably also some people who had lost sons and daughters. In many ways, the crowds resembled each other. They would have both had men and women, old people and young, and widows and orphans. The primary difference between the two groups is that one followed Jesus and the other didn't.

It's hard to not compare these two groups to the saved and the lost. In most ways, Christian's lives are not significantly different than unbelievers'. Matthew 5:45 affirms that God sends rain on both the righteous and the unrighteous. When we become saved, we're not promised a life of ease. We face all the same trials that the lost face. The difference is, we now have Jesus.

Look at the differences Jesus made at Nain:

One group was sad; the other group was happy.

One group mourned someone who had lost everything; the other group celebrated the One who had made everything.

One group had seen sick people die; the other group had seen sick people healed.

One group was on their way to a tomb; the other group was on their way to a resurrection!

What a difference Jesus makes! The widow was on her way to bury her son and Jesus was on His way to raise him to life again.

When we face trials, we should never despair because we don't face them alone. I'll leave you with the words of John 16:33: “I have told you these things, so that in me you may have peace. In this world you will have trouble. But take heart! I have overcome the world.”

Believers in Poofism

Where did matter come from? That question strikes at the heart of the problem with all secular explanations of our origins. Natural science has no theory or even a credible story to explain the ultimate origin of matter. In fact, matter (or energy) simply appearing naturally seems to contradict the well established, scientific principle that matter/energy can neither be created nor destroyed; it can only change forms. The mere existence of matter lends itself strongly to the idea that there was a supernatural cause for the universe. I have even used the existence of matter/energy as evidence for biblical creation.

Evolutionists have a very short list of possible replies to what is, by any standard, a very reasonable question. Their replies can usually be assigned one of four categories: 1) They will try to divorce the question of origins from the entire rest of science, 2) they will apply divine-like qualities to matter by saying it is eternal, 3) they will resort to a pseudo-philosophical “uncaused” origin of matter, or 4) they will admit they know of no natural explanation but will still not consider the possibility of a supernatural explanation. None of these options are very scientific.

The question, “where did matter come from?” is more profound than some people might realize at first hearing. Without the Big Bang, there is no “where” from which matter can come. Neither is there a “where” to which matter can come because there was not even space. Neither was there a before the Big Bang because there was not even time. There was nothing. No space. No time. No matter. Literally nothing! Then, suddenly, there was everything. All the matter/energy that would ever exist suddenly appeared. Even space and time just appeared. Out of nothing, instantly there was everything. Poof!

Of course, I've heard some people invoke “exotic” theories like quantum mechanics and other principles of physics in an attempt to explain the non-origin of everything but that just begs the question. Where did physics come from? One cannot invoke any natural law to explain the origin of the universe without first presupposing the “uncaused” existence of natural laws. If natural laws – like gravity – exist, then they too must have poofed into existence with the rest of the universe.

I think we should change the name of the Big Bang to the Big Poof!

Poof! Time began!

Poof! There was space!

Poof! There was matter!

Poof! There was energy!

Poof! The matter began to expand!

Poof! Chemicals became alive!

There was no cause. There was no purpose. There was no god. These things just happened all by themselves.

Sometimes, evolutionists ridicule creation by calling it, “magic.” It's a rather blatant attempt to make creationism sound unappealing by describing it with loaded words. I usually try to avoid using such a lazy argument myself but, in this case, I'm not sure how else to describe it. People who deny a supernatural origin of the universe are believers in poofism.

Carl Sagan's Invisible Dragon

Carl Sagan is perhaps best remembered as the host of the PBS series, Cosmos, but another, enduring legacy he left us is his analogy, “The Dragon In My Garage.” I invite you to read it for yourself but here's a summary. Sagan claims to have a fire-breathing dragon in his garage and invites you to see it (he refers to the reader in the second person, “you”). However, when you enter the garage, you see nothing. Sagan then claims the dragon is invisible. So how do you know it's there? You think of a few possible ways to try to detect the dragon: flour on the floor to see if it leaves footprints, spray painting the dragon to make it visible, or an infrared sensor to detect the heat from its flames. However, Sagan has an excuse that shoots down each experiment: the dragon flies so it doesn't leave footprints, it's incorporeal so paint won't stick to it, and its flames don't produce heat.

The story is meant to be an analogy of how atheists see Christians' belief in God. It's clever in a couple of ways. First, Sagan predicts a few possible objections to his argument and attempts to address them in the story. This isn't necessarily novel since most apologists will try to consider possible objections to any point they make, but the fact that Sagan does it here shows that he thought through his analogy a little better than the ordinary critic.

The other clever thing that Sagan does in his story is refer to the reader as, “you.” By doing this, he attempts to put the reader in the shoes of the atheist, making him sympathetic to the atheist's plight. He's very complementary to the reader, making him feel very fair, open-minded, and inquisitive. The reader almost forgets that the skeptic in the story represents atheists! Sagan deftly paints atheists as being painfully open-minded and their skepticism as being healthy, ordinary, and rational. Also, since Sagan makes himself the keeper of the dragon, he is able to portray Christians as deranged or delusional without seeming to direct these insults toward them.

Consider these two quotes from the story:

Imagine that, despite none of the tests being successful, you wish to be scrupulously open-minded. So you don't outright reject the notion that there's a fire-breathing dragon in my garage. You merely put it on hold.

… the only sensible approach is tentatively to reject the dragon hypothesis, to be open to future physical data, and to wonder what the cause might be that so many apparently sane and sober people share the same strange delusion.

Do you see what I mean? “You” (reader) = atheist = enlightened thinker; Sagan = Christian = loon. It's clever to the point of being maniacal. I can almost hear Sagan laughing as he wrote it, “bwa ha ha!”

I disagree with his characterization of atheists. It's been my experience that atheists in general aren't merely withholding judgment about the existence of God until they see more evidence. Instead, they reject a priori any possibility of there being a God. Any evidence for God, like miracles, is rejected in favor of a natural explanation – even in those instances where no natural explanation exists. Dawkins, for example, would rather believe that life on earth was planted by aliens than believe God created life. Some atheists go even further. Rather than simply not believing in God themselves, Dawkins, Myers, and others of that ilk openly mock and ridicule the idea of believing in God. They aren't anything like the friendly skeptic in Sagan's story, optimistically looking for any evidence for the existence of the invisible dragon.

Regardless of how clever the analogy is, it fails on the grounds that it doesn't accurately represent the way Christians believe in God. In other words, it's a straw man. There are several subtle ways the story is wrong but the primary error is this: Christians don't ask people to believe in God while offering excuse after excuse why there is no evidence that He exists. To the contrary, Christians offer many reasons why people should believe in God and it's the atheist, the supposed “open-minded” skeptic in the story, who rejects them one by one.

First, God is revealed in His creation. The simple fact that the universe exists strongly suggests there is a cause behind it. To believe that God is the First Cause seems far more reasonable than believing that the universe just poofed into existence without a cause. Furthermore, the universe doesn't just exist, it's also sublime. The enormity, the beauty, and the complexity all suggest design. Design always suggests purpose, purpose always suggests intent, and intent always suggests a designer. To believe that “uncaused” matter randomly, purposelessly arranged itself into the complex cosmos is far less credible than believing it was intended to be so by the design of an intelligent Creator. The existence of the universe and the design of the universe is evidence for God whether or not the skeptic wants to accept it.

But the greatest evidence for God is the Bible. While the universe might reveal there is a God, the Bible tells us Who He is. The Bible is a written record, the testimony of people who were first hand witnesses to God. These are the people who have heard His voice and seen His miracles. He is Jehovah of the Old Testament, the One Who spoke the universe into existence; He is the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; He is the One who delivered the children of Israel out of Egypt and made them a great nation. He is also Jesus of the New Testament, the I AM Who was before Abraham; He walked on water, calmed the storm, healed the sick, and raised the dead; He shed His blood on the cross as the payment for our sins and, three days later, rose from the dead; He now sits at the right hand of the Father making intercession for us.

The words and miracles recorded in the Bible bear witness that there is a God. Critics are welcome to suggest natural causes for the miracles. They're welcome to suggest the history of Bible is somehow not as trustworthy as other books of antiquity. However, they cannot credibly say the Bible cannot be considered by Christians to be evidence for God.

There are more things I could discuss as evidence for God but it really isn't necessary. The analogy fails. No matter how cleverly it was written, it doesn't accurately represent Christians, nor does it fairly depict how skeptics evaluate the evidence for God. It's a straw man. It has endured only because it is an amusing straw man.

If the only thing that would convince someone that God exists is that he saw Him with his own eyes, then perhaps he will be disappointed because that's not likely to happen. Even so, I suspect that even if it did, it wouldn't convince some people anyway. Regardless, there is plenty of evidence for God available to anyone who truly seeks Him.

The time I met J. Warner Wallace

Over the decades that I've been involved in apologetics, I've read a lot of material from skeptics. I study them because when I reply, I want to be sure I'm replying to their arguments – not straw men representations of skeptics' arguments presented by other apologists. I also try to respond with original arguments, spoken in my own words, and not simply parrot (or worse, cut-and-paste) rebuttals given by other apologists. Of course, I don't mean to say I never study arguments made by other apologists. No one can be an expert in everything and, since apologetics touches on a lot of different subjects, I like to see what the Christians who are experts in each area have to say about the matter.

One expert to whom I've turned often is J. Warner Wallace. There's a funny story behind how I happened across him. I've only ever blogged part-time and when I would write a new post, it usually received only 200-300 views over the next couple of weeks. In a month, my blog usually had only around 5,000 visitors. Some years back, I had written a post titled, Textual criticism made amazingly easy. I thought it was a good post. I'll probably polish it up and republish it sometime, by the way. As is my practice, I tweeted a link to the post to sort of advertise it on social media. Much to my surprise, the post started receiving hundreds of views. In no time at all, it had racked up a couple of thousand views.

I wasn't sure where these views were coming from. My stat counter said the views were coming from Twitter but Twitter showed my tweet had very few clicks. I searched Twitter for my blog's title and found that Wallace apparently had read the article and tweeted a link to it from his own account! He has a much wider reach on social media than I do and the clicks were all coming from his audience. Over the next few years, he would tweet my articles from time to time. It was a great boon to my blog and it literally tripled the amount of traffic I received.

I don't want to give the wrong impression.  It's not like he and I talk, text, or hang out together.  Even though he's shared my blog on his social media, I've only met him once.  A couple of years ago, I saw that Wallace was going to be in Louisville where I happen to live. I was free that weekend so I planned to attend. I don't believe there was a charge for admission but I honestly can't remember. There was a pretty good-sized crowd there, and his presentation was interesting. I'll talk more about it in a moment but I remember him mentioning that, as part of his ministry, he regularly posted articles published by other Christian apologists. When I met him afterward, I mentioned I was one of the bloggers he would occasionally cite. I told him the name of the most recent post I'd written that he republished and he seemed to remember it. But then again, maybe he was being polite. Anyway, I had my picture taken with him and he signed one of his books that I had bought, Cold Case Christianity.

For anyone not familiar with J. Warner Wallace, we can read the following from his bio:

J. Warner Wallace is a Dateline featured cold-case homicide detective, popular national speaker and best-selling author. He continues to consult on cold-case investigations while serving as a Senior Fellow at the Colson Center for Christian Worldview. He is also an adjunct professor of apologetics at Talbot School of Theology (Biola University) and Southern Evangelical Seminary, and a faculty member at Summit Ministries. J. Warner became a Christ-follower at the age of thirty-five after investigating the claims of the New Testament gospels using his skill set as a detective. He eventually earned a Master’s Degree in Theological Studies from Gateway Seminary.

Evolutionists often brag that their theory is supported by so many different sciences. It's rather hilarious because not only is evolution not true, neither is the theory relevant to any other area of science. In an article by Dr. Jerry Bergman: a survey of college text books showed that most barely discuss evolution. The anatomy and physiology text books examined didn't mention evolution at all. Of the colleges surveyed in Ohio and Michigan, biology majors were required to only take one class in evolution. Also from the article, National Academy of Science Member and renown carbene chemist, Professor emeritus Dr. Philip Skell of Pennsylvania State University (see Lewis, 1992), did a survey of his colleagues that were “engaged in non-historical biology research, related to their ongoing research projects.” He found that the “Darwinist researchers” he interviewed, in answer to the question, “Would you have done the work any differently if you believed Darwin's theory was wrong?” that “for the large number” of persons he questioned, “differing only in the amount of hemming and hawing” was “in my work it would have made no difference.”

I say all that to say this: Christianity is not only true, it can and has been examined in many different ways. Being a detective, Wallace uses modern investigative techniques to examine the veracity of the eyewitness accounts recorded in the gospels. He made an appearance in the movie, God's Not Dead 2, where he played himself as an expert witness in a trial. I've included the clip so you can understand his work in his own words.

In his presentation here in Louisville, Wallace greatly expounded many of the points he discussed in the video and in his book. He also included a lot of additional material, most of which was from his perspective of a cold-case detective. Wallace is a valuable resource to apologists and I encourage everyone to visit his website and following him on social media. His is a unique approach to apologetics and yet another affirmation that the Bible is the revealed word of God.

How to answer, “The Bible says bats are birds” and similar criticisms

In an effort to attack Christian faith as a whole, many critics attempt to discredit the Bible. Many of their criticisms are similar and can be grouped into a few categories. Most of the criticisms in one category can be rebutted in pretty much the same way so it's important that Christians learn how to identify common criticisms so that we can give a proper response (1 Peter 3:15).

One such category is “reverse etymology” (as identified in “Exegetical Fallacies” by D. A. Carson). Reverse etymology occurs when we force our modern understanding of a term onto the original meaning. Words in different languages rarely have exactly the same semantic range of meaning. It is an unfortunate yet unavoidable consequence of translation that every word we choose when translating, will project onto the original text the English reader's understanding of the English word being used. Consider the following example:

Leviticus 11:13,19 NASB, “Moreover, these you shall detest among the birds; they are detestable, not to be eaten: the eagle, the vulture, and the buzzard,... the stork, the heron in its kinds, the hoopoe, and the bat.”

https://unsplash.com/@rigels

In English, the word bird has a specific meaning. In this verse from Leviticus, the Bible lists a bat among the types of “birds” not to be eaten. Certainly in modern English, bats are not birds. Critics will pounce on this fact as evidence that the Bible is wrong. The problem with this criticism is that when the Bible was written, the English word bird did not even exist. You have to understand that dictionaries don't write languages; languages write dictionaries! There is no immutable, transcendent standard that establishes the meanings of words. Words mean exactly what the majority of people understand them to mean. Whatever we think of as a bird (feathered, egg-laying, etc) is not what the original readers of this passage would have thought.

The word being translated as bird (fowl in the King James) is the Hebrew word oph (עוֹף, Strong's word 5775). According to Strong's, oph means, “flying creature.” In English, we may not label a bat as a bird. Yet, regardless of how we understand the word bird, we have no grounds to say the ancient Jews were wrong to describe bats as flying creatures!

With that in mind, consider these passages that describe the creature that swallowed Jonah. In Jonah 1:17, the KJV says, “Now the LORD had prepared a great fish to swallow up Jonah. And Jonah was in the belly of the fish three days and three nights.” In Matthew 12:40, when Jesus was talking about His death and resurrection, He said, “For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.”

Looking at these verses side by side, it looks like the Bible is calling a whale a fish. However, just as in the case of birds/bats, the “error” is only the result of us projecting our understanding of the word fish (scales, gills, etc) onto the original meaning of a Hebrew word. Furthermore, the Greek word translated as whale in the KJV (kētos, κῆτος, Strong's word 2785) could also have been translated as a great fish so, technically, there isn't even a perceived error.

We don't know the exact species of critter that swallowed Jonah. It shouldn't be a surprise that a swimming creature, large enough to swallow a man, might be called a huge fish or a whale. Regardless, it would be the epitome of word-snobbery to believe the writers of the Bible should have used these words (words that didn't even exist when the books were written) in exactly the same way we understand the them in the 21^st century!

There are other examples I could cite but these are enough to demonstrate the flaw with these types criticisms. They aren't problems with the Bible. They stem from the ignorance of critics who seem to not realize the Bible wasn't written in English.

Revelation 3:11: Taking our crown

https://unsplash.com/@roma_kaiuk

Revelation 3:11, “Behold, I come quickly: hold that fast which thou hast, that no man take thy crown.”

If you were to compare this verse in several Bible translations, you would find them all to be virtually the same. Yet for being such a simple verse to translate, I think most translations fail to convey the full meaning of the original Greek. The full impact of the verse seems to hang on the translation of the word, take.

A problem in translating is that words in different languages rarely have exactly the same semantic range of meanings. Certainly the word take is an acceptable translation, however, to say in English, “Someone took my crown,” could imply there was theft, force, or some other type of unlawful seizure. I don't think that's what is being discussed here.

The word being translated is the Greek word, lambanō (λαμβάνω, Strong's word 2983). According to Strong's, the definition is “to take, receive.” It's the same word used in Matthew 7:8 (NASB), “For everyone who asks receives (λαμβάνω), and the one who seeks finds, and to the one who knocks it will be opened.” Nothing unlawful is implied by the word. It's not theft, as in kleptō (κλέπτω, Strong's word 2813). It's not seizing by force, as in harpazō (ἁρπάζω, Strong's word 726). If you see a display in a store with a sign that says, “Free samples. Take one,” that's the same meaning of the word lambanō being used in the subject verse.

So looking back at Revelation 3:11, we see that Christ is not warning us to be on guard against people who would steal our crowns. He is commanding us to be faithful – to be busy doing the work He expects of us. If we are slothful, no one steals our crown; he simply receives it. We have forfeited our reward and it goes to another person who deserves it. Consider this possible translation:

“I am coming quickly. Hold fast that which you have so that no one else should receive your crown.”

Revelation 21:4 says there will be no crying in heaven. However, I can't help thinking how sad it would be to stand in front of Jesus and have no reward. It would be to my shame to stand there empty handed while others are casting their crowns at His feet (Revelation 4:10). The worst part would be knowing that I didn't lose my reward – I squandered it!

Humans are not like apes!

A while back, I wrote about the persistent lie told by evolutionists, that human and chimp DNA are 98% similar. The reality is that this amazing similarity only exists in about 82% of the genome. You might say, the parts that are similar are very similar but the entire genome...? Not so much. A letter by letter comparison of the two genomes shows the actual similarity is probably somewhere between 70-80%. Yet militant evolutionists would have us believe we are nearly identical to apes. In his book, The Ancestor's Tale: A Pilgrimage to the Dawn of Evolution, Richard Dawkins put it this way:

[H]umans and bacteria have some genes that have hardly changed at all since the common ancestor, their equivalent of Nostratic. And the genetic code itself is virtually identical in all species and must have been the same in the shared ancestors. One could say that the resemblance between German and Dutch is comparable to that between any pair of mammals. Human and chimpanzee DNA are so similar, they are like English spoken in two slightly different accents. [bold added]

If you watched Sesame Street a long time ago – like I did – you may remember a part of the show where they sang the song, “One of these things is not like the others....” It was a little exercise where they would show 4 objects; 3 of them were similar and 1 was different. It wasn't a hard game, even for a 5-year-old. Usually the differences were very obvious. They might show 3 squares and 1 circle, for example. In those games, the most obvious answer was always the correct one.

As adults, we might have a tendency to over think the game. If you think about it, there are a number of ways we could compare the shapes. If 2 squares and the circle were blue, we could correctly say the red square was different. Perhaps I might compare the area of the different shapes and see that 3 are more similar in size than the other. The more minutia I examine, the more ways I might find to compare the different shapes. At the same time, though, the more I might loose sight of the most glaring difference: 3 are still squares and 1 is a circle!

In their zeal to support their bankrupt theory, evolutionists go to great lengths to convince us how similar we are to apes. Besides the alleged similarities of our DNA, they will point to things like chimps' use of tools, their ability to grasp objects, their intelligence, their social order, and even things like male-pattern-baldness. Yada, yada, yada. It's nonsense!

Photo by RKBentley, 2Peter119.blogspot.com

Several years ago, on one particular occasion when I took my son to the zoo, there was an exhibit there that encouraged kids to compare themselves to gorillas. As far as I'm concerned, the more we compare humans and apes, the greater the differences that we can see. Human feet do not even remotely resemble apes' feet. Even our hands are dissimilar. The proportion of our limbs to our bodies is different than in gorillas. Our hips, our knees, our faces, our skulls, etc. - they're all different. Do I really need to list all the differences? This is a game played by first graders, after all, and the differences are just as easy to spot now as they were on Sesame Street.

And what about intelligence? I have to laugh when I see scientists marvel at a chimp using a stick as a tool – all they while they are recording the event in 4K video! It's easy to see who is the greater master of tools. Remind me again what scientists hope to learn from studying chimps.

Photo by RKBentley, 2Peter119.blogspot.com

Are there any similarities between humans and apes? Of course there are. However, in most cases, I believe the even similarities are greatly exaggerated – as in the DNA comparisons. But think about this, even if there were only a 2% difference in our DNA, the human genome is so enormous that even 2% represents tens of millions of base pairs. Just look at how that difference is expressed in our bodies.

Besides the obvious anatomical differences between apes an humans, there is also a spiritual difference. In Genesis 2:19-20, we read, “And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof. And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.” Adam could see that the animals were not like him. Genesis 1:27 says that man was created in the image of God.

So the next time you hear an evolutionist calling chimps our closest cousins, or apes our nearest relatives, remind yourself how different we really are from the apes. You can see the differences for yourself. And remember that simple exercise you learned all the way back in the first grade – one of these things is not like the others!

Photo by RKBentley, 2Peter119.blogspot.com

Now creationists are white supremacists. Wait, what?

Sometimes I long for the good ol' days when everything was about global warming. You know, like how McDonald's was destroying the planets because cow farts produce methane. Leftists got all worked into a frenzy and sane people got to laugh at them. Good times!

We still get to hear about global warming from time to time, but it doesn't consume the left like it used to. They have a whole new boogeyman to obsess about now – racism! Now, everything is racism. Working full time is racist. Driving a car is racist. Arresting rioters is racist. And now, even denying evolution is racist! You heard me right; if I don't believe in evolution, it's because I'm a white supremacist.

You think I'm kidding, right? You think I'm exaggerating or I'm making too much over some crackpot's tweet. You think someone made a slip of the tongue or posted a poorly worded sentence that could be misconstrued to imply creationists are racist. Nope. Just read the headline for yourself. According to Scientific American, “Denial of Evolution Is a Form of White Supremacy.” From the article Allison Hopper writes:

“I want to unmask the lie that evolution denial is about religion and recognize that at its core, it is a form of white supremacy that perpetuates segregation and violence against Black bodies. Under the guise of “religious freedom,” the legalistic wing of creationists loudly insists that their point of view deserves equal time in the classroom.”

I often cite Scientific American (SA) on my blog. I do this for several reasons: they post a lot of material, they write pop-science articles geared toward a lay public, and they talk a lot about evolution/creation (always on the side of evolution, of course). Their arguments are trash, but at least they're fodder for blogging. This article, though, is a new low – even for them. It's a hot mess of straw men and non sequitur. I shouldn't have to waste my time rebutting any of it but since SA felt it compelling enough to publish, it must represent the views of at least a few people so I will do what I can to ridicule them for it.

The first thing I noticed was a little point of contradiction. In one paragraph, Hopper wrote, “The global scientific community overwhelmingly accepts that all living humans are of African descent. Most scientific articles about our African origins focus on genetics. The part of the story that is not widely shared is about the creation of human culture. We are all descended genetically, and also culturally, from dark-skinned ancestors” [bold added] Maybe it's a quibble by me, but if the claim that we're all descended from dark-skinned ancestor isn't “widely shared,” why does she think denying it is the primary factor motivating creationists? Wouldn't that produce a sort of Barbara Streisand effect, where going to great lengths to cover up something merely draws more attention to it? I guess I was just struck by the irony of the comment. It seems to undermine the entire premise of her article.

Moving on, then, Hopper wrote, “At the heart of white evangelical creationism is the mythology of an unbroken white lineage that stretches back to a light-skinned Adam and Eve. In literal interpretations of the Christian Bible, white skin was created in God's image.” I noticed Ms. Hopper didn't include any chapter or verse that white evangelicals are interpreting literally to mean God has white skin. I can assure you, no such verse exists. Of course, skeptics are welcome to prove me wrong and point one out to me. Go ahead. I'm listening.

What is going on is a text book, straw man argument. She's making a claim that there's something in the Bible that really isn't there. She's also saying this thing that doesn't exist is central to “white evangelical creationism.” The fact of the matter is that nowhere in the Bible is anyone described by the color of his skin. Moreover, there are very few descriptions of any person's physical appearance at all. We're not even sure what Jesus looked like. If I had to guess, I believe He would have been dark-featured like most other middle-eastern people.

Ms. Hopper is so grossly ignorant of the creationist movement, that she seems totally unaware that nearly every mainstream creationist organization agrees that Adam probably had brown skin! From Ken Ham, posted on Answers in Genesis, September 1, 1991, we can read the following: “I suspect Adam had a middle-brown skin shade. All humans have the same basic skin color, just different shades, because of a brownish pigment called melanin... In The New Answers Book 1, it is explained that from two people having the right mix of dominant and recessive genes for the amount of melanin, all shades of brown in humans could arise. Thus, if Adam and Eve were both a middle-brown shade, all shades from dark through to light could be accounted for in their children and future generations. For the same reason, Adam and Eve probably had brown eyes and dark hair.” So for 30 years, AiG, perhaps the most prominent creationist organization, has been telling people Adam was likely brown-skinned!

Hopper further parades her ignorance of the Bible with this comment: “Dark skin has a different, more problematic origin. As the biblical story goes, the curse or mark of Cain for killing his brother was a darkening of his descendants' skin.” Wrong! Wrong! Wrong! The Bible does not say that Cain or descendants had dark skin or that their skin was darkened. Genesis 4:15 only says, “the Lord set a mark upon Cain, lest any finding him should kill him.” It doesn't even say the “mark” was passed on to Cain's children. Jeez!

Hopper continues, “Historically, many congregations in the U.S. pointed to this story of Cain as evidence that Black skin was created as a punishment.” I have heard there are Christians who have claimed this. I've never met anyone who actually espouses it, but I've read from reliable sources that reported hearing similar statements. Let's say for the sake of argument, it's been said. Any supposed Christian who would actually believe this would be, at best, in the fringe minority. It's not found anywhere the Bible, and such teaching is rejected by the majority of Christians – myself included. It's not fair to paint all of Christianity with comments made by a handful of bigots. Should I trot out quotes made by evolutionists that describe Caucasians as more evolved and Negros as closer to apes?

Hopper next claims, “The fantasy of a continuous line of white descendants segregates white heritage from Black bodies. In the real world, this mythology translates into lethal effects on people who are Black. Fundamentalist interpretations of the Bible are part of the “fake news” epidemic that feeds the racial divide in our country.”

You may have noticed a pattern. Hopper continuously claims there are fundamentalist interpretations of the Bible being used to fuel racism yet nowhere does she cite the alleged passages that are being abused. Indeed, there are none. They are merely her chicken little rantings about dangers that don't exist! So let me cite exactly a few passages from the Bible that should dispel the racial divides.

Acts 17:24-26, “God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands; Neither is worshipped with men's hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things; And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth.” Creationists in particular believe that all different people of the world are descended from the first couple. There aren't different races – there's only the human race.

Genesis 3:20, “And Adam called his wife's name Eve; because she was the mother of all living.” Did you catch that? It doesn't say she was the mother of whites only; Eve is the mother of everyone! Creationists believe that – evolutionists don't.

I've gone too long so let me wrap up with this. Christianity breaks down the barriers that the world has used to divide us. As far as I'm concerned, there are only two kinds of people in this world: those who are alive in Christ and those who are dead in sin. Galatians 3:26-28 says, “For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.”

https://unsplash.com/@terrenhurst