A monopoly on the evidence

I guess all writers have their own style. I know I do. For example, I know that I often begin sentences with “I” and “For example.” Anyway, when dealing with a subject that is often misunderstood – like evolution is – I constantly try to seek out new ways to explain the most commonly misunderstood parts. I sometimes try putting my arguments into different words hoping that I strike upon a way to make my point clear. In a conversation I once had with an evolutionist, I happened upon yet another way to make a point I'd already made many times before.

I've said over and over that evidence is neutral. It isn't “for” any theory. Rather, theories are invented in order to explain the evidence. A theory might seem to explain the evidence rather well but then later, the theory could still be rejected in favor of a new theory. As theories come and go, the evidence is always the same. The universe just keeps chugging along like it always has and nothing has changed except the theory.

For centuries, the prevailing model of the universe was that the heavenly bodies circled the earth. It's not an entirely unreasonable conclusion. When we look into the sky, the sun, moon, and stars appear to be moving around us in predictable patterns. At the same time, we don't feel like we're moving. The geocentric model seemed to explain well what we were observing. Of course, as we began to observe more of the universe, there were things that weren't explained well and the Ptolemaic model was eventually replaced by our current understanding. In all this time, though, the “evidence” didn't change; we just found a better way to explain it.

What is true of the sun, moon, and stars, is true for all of the evidence for any theory. Every phenomenon simply is and we invent theories to explain what it is, why it exists, and why it behaves the way it does. That's science.

Does anyone disagree with anything I've said so far? Certainly I've made it all very simple and there are some things I could elaborate on but I can't see any point that could be contended. Right? Okay, then. Creation and evolution are no different than any other theory. The scientific evidence for creation is the same evidence that is used for any secular theory of origins. It's the rocks and the fossils and the oceans and DNA and everything else that exists in the physical universe. So, keeping what I've said in mind, why do evolutionists repeatedly say, “There is no evidence for creation”?

Let me see if I can explain how ridiculous that comment sounds. Take something like rock layers. Evolutionists believe that the strata were laid down gradually over millions of years. Where fossils appear in the strata supposedly approximates the time the creatures lived. Therefore fossils found in lower layers represent creatures that lived before those found in higher layers. Now, because secular theorists have explained the rock layers this way, it seems to be their contention that rock layers cannot be explained any other way. In other words, because evolutionists have explained rock layers with their long age theory, the layers can no longer be used as evidence for a recent creation!

Now, I'm not stubbornly adverse to the phrase, “Such and such is evidence for my theory” because certain evidence seems to lend itself better to some explanations than others. If I saw skid marks on a road after an accident, I would immediately suspect a car had braked hard rather than believe someone had drawn the skid marks on the road with rubber paint. After an accident I might say, “these skid marks are evidence that the car was trying to stop.” However, somebody with a competing theory might have a different explanation. He might say, “The driver wasn't trying to stop. I think he meant to hit the other car. Those skid marks are from a different accident that happened earlier.” In this case, both theories explain the skid marks. However, they are critical to one theory and incidental to the other.

So it goes with any event we didn't witness. We look at the world around us and try to piece together a story that might explain why everything is the way it is. In the end, some things seem better explained by our theories than others and we might say, “this is evidence for my theory” to describe those things we think we've explained well.  Even so, that still doesn't prevent anyone else from explaining the same evidence with a different theory. When evolutionists invoke their theory to explain some phenomenon, it doesn’t support their claim that there is NO evidence for creation.

Evolutionists are playing a game of “dibs” on the evidence. Once they explain anything according to their theory, they refuse to let it be considered in any other light. That is why the rock layers can't be young because they've already said they're old. Similarities in features on different animals can't be because of design because they've already said it's because of common descent. There is no evidence for creation because they've already used it all as evidence for evolution!

Admittedly, some theories seem to explain certain things better than other theories do and if evolutionists want to say their theories explains the evidence better than creation does, we can have that discussion. In the meanwhile, I refuse to sit back and let evolutionists pretend they have a monopoly on all of the evidence. I will not be shamed into silence by the absurd statement that there is no evidence for creation. Perhaps Daniel Patrick Moynihan said it best when he said, “You are entitled to your opinion. But you are not entitled to your own facts.”

Acts 2:38, Repent and be baptized

Some people believe a person has to be baptized to be saved - a belief sometimes called, Baptismal Regeneration.  When asked where in the Bible is that doctrine found, they often cite Acts 2:38:

Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

The correct interpretation of this verse hinges on the word, “for.”  When Peter says we must be baptized “for the remission of sins,” some people understand that to mean, “be baptized in order to obtain forgiveness of your sins.”  Is that the correct way to understand this verse?

Like many other words in English, the word “for” has multiple meanings.  It can mean “in order to obtain,” which is how some people apply it to this verse.  An example of this would be to say, “He went to the store for milk.”  However, the word, “for” can also mean, “because of.”  For example, we might say, “He was punished for his sins.”  

The word that is being translated as for is the Greek word eis (εἰς, Strong’s Word 1519), which Strong’s defines as: to or into (indicating the point reached or entered, of place, time, purpose, result).  It has been translated in various texts as “into, in, unto, to, upon, towards, for, among.”  So, even in the original Greek, the word can mean either “purpose” (as in, he went to the store for milk) or “result” (as in, he was punished for his sins).

A relevant use of the word eis can be found in Matthew 12:41:

The men of Nineveh shall rise in judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: because they repented at (εἰς) the preaching of Jonas; and, behold, a greater than Jonas is here.

In this context, the word eis can only be understood the people had repented because of the preaching of Jonah.  It would be absurd to believe the people repented in order to obtain the preaching of Jonah!  In this passage, then, there could only be one correct way to understand the word eis.  

If we understand that eis can also mean because of, then in Acts 2:38, Peter could be saying, “Repent, and then be baptized because of the forgiveness of your sins.”  In other words, repentance comes first; afterwards, we are baptized in the name of Jesus because He has forgiven our sins.

Having said all of this, I’m not saying that eis in Acts 2:38 can only mean, because of.  What I am saying is that it doesn't necessarily mean in order to obtain.  When I began learning Greek, a rule I was taught is that if the original language is vague, then our translation should be vague.  The temptation is always there to try to interpret as we translate but we must always resist.  The goal is to say in English the same thing the passage says in the Greek. If it’s vague, then the Holy Spirit intended it to be vague as He inspired the hands of the original authors.

I believe the word for is possibly the best word to use when translating this verse.  It has a semantic range of meanings that convey a similar range of meanings as the word eis.  Therefore, we can debate the ambiguity in the same way Christians before us have done.  

It would be wrong to insist this single verse can only have one meaning or the other.  It would also be wrong to hang our doctrine on a single verse - especially on a verse so open to interpretation.  How we are saved is the most fundamental tenet of Christianity and we need to be sure our understanding of it is correct. When considering the correct interpretation of Acts 2:38 - or any  verse - we must view it in the context of all of Scripture.  

Why didn't Jesus tell us to take Genesis literally?

I once heard a theistic evolutionist ask, “If it is so vitally important that Christians take Genesis literally, why did Jesus never once instruct us to take Genesis literally?”  I've always thought it a weak argument to build upon points Jesus didn't make. If it's important that we wash our hands after we sneeze, why didn't Jesus ever tell us to do that?! If it's so important to eat vegetables, why didn't Jesus ever tell us to do that?! It should be obvious that these things are important so the fact that Jesus didn't instruct us about them doesn't prove they're not important. I guess I shouldn't say I've never used a “negative argument” but I still say it's the weaker route.

Now, I don't know everything Jesus said – I only know what is recorded in the Bible. I do know we have no record of Jesus ever having said, “Truly I say to you, you shall read Genesis literally.” Such a statement makes little sense, anyway. I generally do not take things “literally” but I take them in the sense they are intended. Can you imagine having conversations where every word is meant to be literal? How would we interpret expressions like, “scared to death” or “my wife's going to kill me”?

In the Bible, Jesus tells us He is the vine and we are the branches (John 15:5).  He tells us that He is the door (John 10:9).  He commands believers to drink His blood and eat His flesh (John 6:53).  What would any of these verses mean if He meant them to be literal?  To take every word of the Bible literally would make the word of God become nonsense.  It is as grave an error as claiming every word in the Bible should be looked at figuratively.  So Jesus instructing us to take Genesis “literally” would have probably created more problems than it would solve. 

Instead of looking at what Jesus didn't do, let's look at what He did do. We know that time after time, when confronted by His critics (chiefly, the Pharisees), He often responded with, “Haven't you read...” and would then cite an Old Testament passage applicable to the situation. In those situations, rather than offering some “figurative meaning” of the text, He always relied on the obvious meaning of the passage to make His point.

Jesus often quoted passages from Genesis. Perhaps His most relevant comment on the subject is found in Mark 10:6-8 where Jesus refers to both Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 in the same comment. He certainly seemed to be referring to Adam & Eve as real people. In Matthew 23:35, Jesus refers to a history of martyrdom beginning with Abel and ending with Zacharias (the latter apparently recently murdered by the Pharisees). In Luke 17:27, He compared the suddenness of His next coming to the Flood of Noah. In all of these cases, and others I could cite, He names these people as though they are real characters in History. 

How ridiculous would it be to talk about Abel (a fictional character) in the same context as Zacharias (a real person known to the Pharisees) or to compare the Flood of Noah (a fictional event) to the Second Coming (a literal event)?  A real problem with viewing Genesis as myth or allegory is that it casts doubt on the factualness of the New Testament.  Adam and Noah are both listed in the genealogy of Jesus in Luke 3.  If Adam and Noah weren’t real people, then at what point did Jesus’ lineage cease being parable and start becoming literal?  If the Flood wasn’t literal, is the Second Coming literal?  So yes, it is “vitally important” that we interpret the passages that are intended to be literal as literal.  Theistic evolutionists are engaging in very dangerous hermeneutics in their efforts to make the Bible conform with their corrupt theory!

Perhaps I should turn the question around. I believe Jesus treated Genesis as real history. If the historic events of Genesis were not meant to be literal, why didn't Jesus instruct us to interpret them figuratively? That “what Jesus didn't do” argument works both ways. The difference is that the Bible repeatedly shows Jesus treating people and events from Genesis as “literal” and never as “figurative.” By continuously referring to these things as historical, I believe Jesus was indeed instructing us on the correct way to read Genesis.

Why can't evolutionists see their own hypocrisy?

I have a Bachelor of Science degree.  Really!  It may be in business but it’s still considered a science degree - just not that kind of science.  It’s sort of like doctors who aren’t “doctor doctors.”  Since my BS is in Business Administration and not a “real science,” evolutionists sometimes try to bully me for speaking about a subject in which I’ve never had any training.  But I’m not telling you anything you don’t know.  If you’re a creationist, you’ve probably been told you don’t believe in evolution because you don’t understand evolution.  Am I right?

Such an argument is a blatant fallacy of logic.  It leads with an appeal to authority: that is, “Most PhD biologists believe in evolution so it has to be true.”  It follows up with an ad hominem: “You’re not a scientist so you’re not qualified to judge the theory of evolution.”  Finally, it sprinkles in some No True Scotsman: “Everyone who understands evolution believes in evolution.”

Some time back, I came across one staunch evolutionist who was making this very point. He waxed on about the many thousands of scientists who have dedicated their careers to studying evolution and that it was arrogance on the part of non-scientists to reject their conclusions as though we understand better than they. This particular evolutionist went on to ask what other subject exists where the opinions of lay people are given consideration over the opinions of people who are experts in the subject.  He seemed to be asking the question rhetorically thinking the answer was obvious. He believed there is no other subject where people with no formal training in a subject would boldly put forth opinions that contradicted the conclusions of experts of the subject. 

Much to his embarrassment, I suggested this subject: people who have not studied the Bible still feel perfectly qualified to criticize the Bible. They smugly rebuff and deride the conclusions of thousands of theologians who have dedicated their lives to the study of the Bible. The entire extent of these critics’ “research” may be nothing more than using a Google search yet they are thoroughly convinced the Bible is rife with errors, Christianity is a sham, and there is no God.  So yes, there is another subject besides evolution about which lay people feel free to voice their opinions. 

It seems to me evolutionists want to have it both ways. They want to condemn creationists as lay people who are not qualified to judge the truthfulness of evolution. Yet they feel they are perfectly able to judge the truthfulness of the Bible even though they may not be formally trained in theology. People who use this argument paint themselves into a proverbial corner. They need to either acknowledge that people can have opinions (even correct opinions) in subjects they are not formally trained in OR they need to stop criticizing the Bible or Christianity until they receive formal training on the subject. Which is it going to be?

But their hypocrisy doesn’t end there. If they believe non-scientist creationists are not qualified to judge their theory, what makes a non-scientist evolutionist qualified to judge his own theory? If I – as a non-scientist – cannot judge their theory false, then neither can a non-scientist judge the theory true! Alas, no. It doesn’t work that way. To them, people who reject evolution are ignorant fools and people who accept evolution are enlightened thinkers. Acceptance or rejection of the theory is the only test required; no one needs to demonstrate how well they actually understand the theory.

This is something that has always annoyed me about evolutionists.  They will claim they don’t believe anything without evidence but it’s a lie because most of them have never laid eyes on a single piece of evidence for evolution!  Let’s face it, most people aren’t scientists.  They’ve never conducted research, they’ve never worked in a lab, they’ve never been at a fossil dig site, nor have they ever written a “peer-reviewed,” scientific paper.  To be honest, I doubt most evolutionists have even read a peer-reviewed, technical paper.  

Even among practicing scientists, there are only a handful of people in the world who have actually laid eyes on the fossil of an alleged human ancestor.  Most of those fossils are sequestered, leaving only plaster copies made from other plaster copies available for examination.  What’s more, most sciences have nothing to do with evolution - chemistry, physics, astronomy, meteorology engineering, mathematics, etc., seldom ever do any research on evolution.  So a tiny, tiny fraction of people have actually done any research in the theory believed by millions of people - yet the millions claim they don’t believe anything unless they see the evidence for themselves.   //RKBentley rolls his eyes//

At most, lay evolutionists can only claim they’ve read about the evidence written by people who they trust and who claim to have actually done research on evolution.  Well, I can claim the same thing, can’t I?  I’ve studied the evidence for evolution and feel I probably understand the theory as well or better than the average evolutionist!  If they can have an opinion, then so can I.

So let’s wrap this up.  There seems to be a pot-kettle dilemma going on: some evolutionists dismiss creationist arguments because they feel non-scientists aren’t qualified to judge the truthfulness of the theory. However, these evolutionists themselves aren’t scientists yet feel they are perfectly qualified to judge both the truthfulness of their own theory and the truthfulness of the Bible - in which they also have no training!   Do I have that right?  Yep, I guess that about sums it up.  

Can’t evolutionists see their own hypocrisy? Their criticism has no teeth.  They want to silence people with a lazy tactic that is nothing more than a tangle of logical fallacies.  The argument even shines a light on their own ignorance of the theory they claim to believe.  So the next time you hear an evolutionist say, “You’re not a scientist,” you can say back to them, “Pot, meet kettle!”

Misquoted Bible verses

I may be dating myself but I remember the 2000 Presidential debates, where Vice President Al Gore made the following statement:

"And I'm a grandfather now. I want to be able to tell my grandson, when I'm in my later years, that I didn't turn away from the evidence that showed that we were doing some serious harm. In my faith tradition, it is written in the book of Matthew, 'Where your heart is, there's your treasure also.' And I believe that we ought to recognize the value to our children and grandchildren of taking steps that preserve the environment in a way that's good for them."

The fact of the matter is that Mr. Gore quoted the verse backwards. The passage from Matthew 6:21 actually says: “For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.”  In the context of the passage, Jesus points out that we tend to be concerned about our treasure; Jesus was saying we should be concerned about our eternal treasure in heaven rather than the temporary treasures of earth. In Mr. Gore’s misquote, he gave the impression that Jesus was telling us we should invest our treasure in the things our hearts desire.  But Mr. Gore is not alone in misquoting the Bible. I’ve noticed there are many misunderstood verses that have made their way into common vernacular. 

Instead of just citing many commonly misquoted verses, I’m going to divide this into three different sections: misquoted verses, out-of-context verses, and things believed to be in the Bible that aren’t really there.  Let’s get started:

MISQUOTED VERSES

“Money is the root of all evil.”

People who say this are usually trying to disparage anyone who happens to be rich.  It’s as though the money itself is evil and, so, simply being rich is a sin.  The passage from 1 Timothy 6:10 actually says, For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.

We see clearly that it’s the love of money that is a sin.  Some people have made money into their idol and err in their faith while pursuing riches but money, by itself, isn’t the root of evil.

"Pride goeth before a fall."

Younger people might not hear this so much anymore but it was a commonly used saying back in my day.  I suppose it’s not a terrible misquote but the actual verse in Proverbs 16:18 says, Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall.

“The lion shall lay down with the lamb.”

I don’t know if I should call this a misquote or something else.  These words don’t appear in the Bible.  Seriously!  People are often shocked when I tell them this and furiously flip through their Bible to prove me wrong but I’m not.  You can search for yourself and you’ll see it’s not found anywhere.  

I’m not exactly sure why this misquote has become so widely believed and has been so enduring.  There are two verses that may have given rise to the misquote:

Isaiah 11:6,The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them.

Isaiah 65:25, The wolf and the lamb shall feed together, and the lion shall eat straw like the bullock: and dust shall be the serpent's meat. They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain, saith the Lord.

Both of these verses mention a lamb and a lion but neither says they lay down together.  Of course, Jesus is referred to as both the Lion and the Lamb so maybe people lump them together.  

Whatever the source of the confusion, the commonly used phrase is a misquote of the Bible.

“Spare the rod and spoil the child.”

I believe this isn’t intended to be a quote from the Bible but is meant as a paraphrase of a biblical principle.  Proverbs 13:24 says, He that spareth his rod hateth his son: but he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes.

I suppose the paraphrase isn’t terrible but it seems to change the meaning slightly.  The Bible tells us that loving parents will discipline their children when it’s necessary.  The paraphrase almost makes it sound as though we should raise our kids by beating them.

OUT OF CONTEXT VERSES

Sometimes people will correctly quote a verse from the Bible, but will ignore the context and attempt to use the verse to mean something other than the intended meaning.

Matthew 7:1, Judge not, that ye be not judged.

People who cite this verse want us to believe that the Bible forbids us from judging anyone.  From the context, however, we can see that Jesus is clearly talking about being a hypocrite.  Read the entire context of verses 1-5:

Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.

You can see that the passage condemns judging somebody for something while, at the same time, you’re doing the same things or even worse.  Put simply, you are drawing attention to a speck in a brother’s eye while ignoring the beam in your own eye.  

Matthew 7:12, Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.

Many times, people who quote this verse are trying to justify treating someone poorly because the other person has already treated them poorly.  In other words, they want to make the verse mean, “Do unto others as they do unto you.” 

Sometimes, this verse is interpreted in a way that is closer to the intended meaning but still misses the mark.  It’s as though the command is to not do anything bad to someone because we wouldn’t want them to do something bad to us.  They make the verse mean something like, “Don’t do anything to others that you wouldn’t want done to you.”

The Bible sets a higher standard for Christians.  We are expected to treat people in the way we would like to be treated, without regard to how they might actually treat us.  We are commanded to show kindness, grace, mercy, and forgiveness even to those who hate us.  We should never be vengeful nor indifferent.

Matthew 18:20, For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.

Be honest with yourself.  Every time you’ve heard this verse, you envision a Bible study or prayer meeting with a handful of people confident that the Lord is with them in spite of their small number.  Am I right?  Certainly, Jesus promised us that He would be with us always, even to the end of the world (Matthew 28:20) but Matthew 18:20 isn’t referring to that.  

Here is the context of the verse: Matthew 18:15-20, Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican. Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven. For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.

The passage needs little explanation.  It’s talking about church discipline and confronting sin in the church.  It’s hardly appropriate to use it as a description of a Bible fellowship!

THINGS NOT IN THE BIBLE

There are some things people are certain are in the Bible but they aren't.  Here are a few examples:

Adam ate an apple.  

Some commentators say the fruit Adam ate was never identified but I disagree.  The Bible says Adam and Eve were judged for eating the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. Nowhere does the Bible say it was an apple.

There were three Wise Men

The Bible only says that wise men came from the east to worship Jesus.  It doesn’t say how many.  Perhaps three is assumed because they gave gifts of gold, frankincense, and myrrh.  I believe the Bible merely describes what kinds of gifts were given but many men could have given the same gifts.  For example, two men could have given Christ gold, two given frankincense, and two given myrrh.

This too shall pass

This is a proverb believed to have come from ancient Persia but many people think it’s a verse from the Bible.  It’s not.  We do have an assurance from the Bible that Christ has delivered us from death and can trust that He will always deliver us (2 Corinthians 1:10).

The Lord helps those that help themselves

While many adages are meant to convey biblical principles, some are closer to Scripture than others.  This is one of those “others” that really has no basis in Scripture.  In John 15:5, Jesus said, “I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing.”  To believe that we can work in the flesh and God will bless us, is to commit the sin of pride.  To think that we can do anything is to rob God of His glory!

The Lord works in mysterious ways

People say this about God but it’s not a verse found anywhere in the Bible.  It’s most likely a paraphrase from a 1774 hymn by William Cowper:

God moves in a mysterious way

His wonders to perform;

He plants His footsteps in the sea

and rides upon the storm.

CONCLUSION

There are more things I could include but this post has gone on long enough.  Maybe I’ll do a ‘part 2’ sometime but hopefully these examples are enough to demonstrate the ignorance many people have about the Bible - even many professing Christians.  2 Timothy 2:15 commands us to, “Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.”  If we have to study to show ourselves approved to God, what does it mean if we don’t study?  I guess it would mean God doesn’t approve, we should be ashamed, and we can’t rightly divide the word of truth!  

So the next time you’re in a conversation with someone who quotes a favorite verse to you, I suggest you not simply take his word for it.  Go to the Bible and read the passage for yourself.  The Truth might surprise you!