In a recent feedback article, David Wright wrote the following:“So then how does anyone know which parts [of the Bible] are true and which parts are untrue?”
Well, we don’t know, do we? The things that can be proven are true (i.e. the Hittite civilization, the birth and life of Christ [as proven by writings other than the Bible], and the fulfillment of prophecy, to name some). The things that cannot be proven cannot be proven. You cannot prove the original intentions of the Genesis author. Most theologians agree that the Creation story is not literal history. Therefore, not only do scientists disagree (based on science) with your assertion that God created in six literal 24-hour days, but theologians (people who know a lot more about the Bible than anyone else) also disagree with you based on Scripture.
Have you ever considered that you are wrong in your interpretation of the Bible? You’ve got good evidence to support your beliefs, but you fail to consider that your interpretation of the Bible cannot be the sole authority on a topic until your interpretation of the Bible's statements are proven. So far, you have not disproven evolution, no matter what you think. There is better scientific evidence against six-day Creation than there is against evolution.
I am a Christian, and I don’t know what to think. Creationist and Christian fundamentalist arguments are silly at times. Dr. Henry M. Morris wrote in the book “The Bible Has the Answer” the following very weak statement: “Regardless of what modern promoters of ‘gay liberation’ might wish to believe, sexual perversions are not inherited genetically but rather are learned behaviors and wilful sins.” Very cocky. In another book (I do not recall the title, but it is an annotated Bible), he asserts that the ONLY reason Satan rebelled against God is because he believed in evolution. Perhaps you can find me that right quote (it comes from Ezekiel). He provides NO EVIDENCE AT ALL other than Scripture that what he says is true.
Scripture has been re-written and changed and altered so many times that the Bible he uses as evidence is an unreliable source, unless a statement can first be proven. First the proof must come, then the trust in Scripture.
I believe in God with all my heart and soul and I love Him endlessly, but the King James Version of the Bible is probably not His word. It contains elements of His word (the stuff that can be proven and the stuff that relates to His love for us and things of that nature), but the Bible must be proven reliable FIRST.
—B.S., U.S.
In a recent feedback article, David Wright wrote the following:“So then how does anyone know which parts [of the Bible] are true and which parts are untrue?”
Well, we don’t know, do we? The things that can be proven are true (i.e. the Hittite civilization, the birth and life of Christ [as proven by writings other than the Bible], and the fulfillment of prophecy, to name some). The things that cannot be proven cannot be proven. You cannot prove the original intentions of the Genesis author. Most theologians agree that the Creation story is not literal history. Therefore, not only do scientists disagree (based on science) with your assertion that God created in six literal 24-hour days, but theologians (people who know a lot more about the Bible than anyone else) also disagree with you based on Scripture.
Although my statement was taken out of context, you are correct in that we cannot prove anything (by material means) to be absolutely true, including events in the Bible; and the reason for that is because they happened in the past. Nor would we attempt to “prove” the veracity of biblical claims. To do so would set us up as the authority over God and His Word. However, the Bible does have fulfilled prophecy and is accurate where we can check it (see Get Answers: Bible for some reasons to trust the Bible as the inerrant Word of God). In order for truth to exist, the God of the Bible has to exist and we must have a standard of truth that comes from Him (i.e. the Bible is truth).
You cannot prove the original intentions of the Genesis author.
Sure we can. The intent of the author, Moses (under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit (2 Timothy 3:16), thus Moses was merely mirroring the intent of God Himself), was to write a historical account of what happened. This is made clear when he states “This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made earth and heaven” (Genesis 2:4; emphasis added). The intent there is pretty straightforward. Let’s not forget that God Himself even confirmed this when He said that He created in six days, “For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day ...” (Exodus 20:11). Also, Jesus understood the creation account to be true and historical (Matthew 19:3–8, 24:37–39; Mark 10:5–9; Luke 11:50–51, 17:26–29; John 3:12).
Planting seeds
I just wanted to take a moment to thank the AIG staff for all the energy they put into this innovative website. I'm on here every day and I learn something each time. Despite the negative feedback that is occasionally posted (much of it harsh, unscientific, and often ridiculous), the rebuttals are always done with the utmost class and logical support. I send articles out to my friends, both Christian and non-Christian, constantly. Even if they just delete them, I know that I'm at least presenting the biblical truth to them in a scientific way. Hopefully seeds will be planted that bloom into salvation for those who don't know Christ. Thank you again and keep it up.
—J.H., U.S.
Looking into the Word
I just read your article on why we can see light from distant stars in a young universe. It is By Far the best, most honest such article I've read in any Young Earth resource. It truthfully deals with some of the real difficulties involved, and does so beautifully. It graciously and properly concedes that scientists are justified in believing they are seeing real events. I applaud you for this forthrightness, which sad to say is sometimes missing on the Christian side of this debate almost as much as it is on the atheist side. I am interested in investigating this event horizon idea. I remain an Old Earth Creationist--for now. As to the Biblical question, which of course trumps any merely scientific one, I believe that the text itself (of Gen 1) mandates a non-standard use of the term "day," which Origen also believed. Then again, I could be wrong about that....
—D.N., U.S.
Thank you for your kind words. We invite you to take a look at Jesus, evangelical scholars, and the age of the earth for an in-depth discussion of the original Hebrew and what Jesus taught about Genesis. We are praying that you will continue to examine what God’s Word says.
Most theologians agree that the Creation story is not literal history.
Since when does majority opinion make something right? If that sort of philosophy is what makes things right or correct, then you have no choice but to agree that what Hitler and Nazi Germany did to the Jews was right because the majority opinion in that country at that time was that it was right to murder Jews and other “undesirables.”
Besides there are plenty of theologians who disagree and believe that Genesis is literal history. Also, and much more importantly, Jesus and His apostles believed Genesis was literal history. Interestingly enough, the non-literal view became the majority view after the church, generally, surrendered its belief in the authority of Scripture to naturalism and millions of years (see Jesus, evangelical scholars, and the age of the earth). So, is truth subject to temporal issues?
Therefore, not only do scientists disagree (based on science)
Actually, it is mostly secular scientists that don’t agree, and their disagreements are not based on science but their strict religious faith in naturalism.
“Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion—a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit that in this one complaint—and Mr [sic] Gish is but one of many to make it—the literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.
“... Evolution therefore came into being as a kind of secular ideology, an explicit substitute for Christianity.”
– Ruse, M., How evolution became a religion: creationists correct? National Post, pp. B1, B3, B7, 13 May 2000.
“We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.” (emphasis original)
– Richard Lewontin, Billions and billions of demons, The New York Review, p. 31, 9 January 1997.
with your assertion that God created in six literal 24-hour days,
We believe it because that’s what God, the all-powerful, all-knowing Creator, told us He did (Genesis 1-2; Exodus 20:11). It is not our assertion but God’s proclamation. Your issue is with God, not us.
but theologians (people who know a lot more about the Bible than anyone else) also disagree with you based on Scripture.
No, they disagree based on their own ideas that do not come from Scripture. Besides, as I said before, there are hundreds, if not thousands, of other theologians that believe Scripture wholeheartedly. And more importantly, Jesus and His apostles believed Genesis was literal history.
Have you ever considered that you are wrong in your interpretation of the Bible?
Had you looked at our Statement of Faith you would have seen that Scripture interprets Scripture [(B) 2.]. We let God interpret His own Word for us. So, since God is interpreting His own Word and since we know He cannot lie (Titus 1:2) and since we are relying on His interpretation, then we can’t be wrong. This is not to say we will get every detail right however, we are imperfect human beings (see Can Creation Models Be Wrong?). Additionally, God’s Word is the only eyewitness account, whereas all secular ideas are mere speculation.
You’ve got good evidence to support your beliefs, but you fail to consider that your interpretation of the Bible cannot be the sole authority on a topic until your interpretation of the Bible’s statements are proven. So far, you have not disproven evolution, no matter what you think. There is better scientific evidence against six-day Creation than there is against evolution.
What interpretation? It is a straightforward reading we espouse. Those who believe that long ages can fit into supposed gaps in Scripture “interpret” to accommodate extrabiblical ideas.
Because the Bible is the true history of the world, all evidence is evidence that confirms the Bible and there is no such thing as evidence for “geode-to-geotechnical engineer” evolution. Supposed evidence for “biochemical soup-to-psychiatrist” evolution has just been (incorrectly) reinterpreted to fit with the naturalistic worldview (i.e., one that cannot include a supernatural being or supernatural processes).
I am a Christian, and I don't know what to think.
That’s great to hear that you have received Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior. It’s the best and most logical decision anyone could make. We encourage you, then, to test what you hear from others and from us against what God says to see if it lines up. Acts 17:11 encourages us to examine men’s arguments against Scripture.
Creationist and Christian fundamentalist arguments are silly at times.
We agree and that’s why we have the article Arguments creationists should NOT use; however, we would argue that it’s not just fundamentalists that can have silly arguments.
Dr. Henry M. Morris wrote in the book “The Bible Has the Answer” the following very weak statement: “Regardless of what modern promoters of ‘gay liberation’ might wish to believe, sexual perversions are not inherited genetically but rather are learned behaviors and wilful sins.” Very cocky.
That’s not cocky. Dr. Morris was just basing his statement on what God clearly said about homosexuality in the Bible. Once again the issue is not with Dr. Morris but with God and His Word. God makes it very clear that homosexuality is a sin; see Leviticus 20:13; Romans 1:21–27; 1 Corinthians 6:9–11; 1 Timothy 1:8–11. Although Dr. Morris singled out the sexual sin of homosexuality in that quote, all sin, sexual or not, is worthy of death (Romans 6:23). And we all have sinned (Romans 3:23), so there is no room for us to judge. God, however, has that right as the Creator and Judge of all the earth (Genesis 18:25, Romans 14:10).
In another book (I do not recall the title, but it is an annotated Bible), he asserts that the ONLY reason Satan rebelled against God is because he believed in evolution. Perhaps you can find me that right quote (it comes from Ezekiel). He provides NO EVIDENCE AT ALL other than Scripture that what he says is true.
This comes from his Defender’s Study Bible. It is mentioned in his commentary notes on Ezekiel 28:17. And you’re right there is no scriptural evidence for his assertion, but you must remember Henry Morris’ commentary notes are not the inspired Word of God, they are Morris’s ideas, so they’re not really pertinent here. Though I can see the point he’s trying to make, it is not necessarily supported by Scripture. However, Scripture is quite clear about Genesis being literal history. That is what God said, and it was not born from man’s ideas.
Scripture has been re-written and changed and altered so many times that the Bible he uses as evidence is an unreliable source,
How do you know? What sort of evidence or source of information do you have to confirm this? This is not a viable argument, as it is based on conjecture and prejudice (against the truth of the Bible), and there is actually no substantiation to it. Our Get Answers: Bible and the Fall 2007 issue of Answers magazine cover this topic thoroughly.
unless a statement can first be proven. First the proof must come, then the trust in Scripture.
Really? So what’s the proof for the statement you just made? Since there is no proof for what you just said the statement is self-refuting. If we are to first trust in “proof,” then we raise up evidence, or rather man’s interpretation of the evidence, to be greater than God’s own words. And whose proofs are you willing to trust? Have you personally examined the evidence that supposedly disproves the clear statements of Scripture? And if you haven't, do you then have “faith” that man’s ideas about evidence are more accurate and truthful than God’s own words? If so, then that means man’s ideas are greater than God’s words and therefore greater than God. If that is the case, then the Bible cannot be God’s Word at all. And if man is greater than God then He is not God at all. This point is made abundantly clear in the book of Isaiah.
Isaiah 55:8–9
“For My thoughts are not your thoughts, nor are your ways My ways,” says the LORD. “For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are My ways higher than your ways, and My thoughts than your thoughts.”
I believe in God with all my heart and soul and I love Him endlessly,
Then why do you not believe what He says about creation and the sin of homosexuality? Since you believe in the God of the Bible, why do you not believe everything He has said? If you have truly believed Him for your salvation why will you not believe Him when he speaks of earthly things?
John 3:12
“If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you heavenly things?”
The basis for our salvation is found in Genesis. If you do not believe Genesis is historical, especially the Fall in chapter three, then what is your salvation based on? Why did Jesus Christ die and shed His blood?
but the King James Version of the Bible is probably not His word.
The KJV is a translation of His Word. But I really don’t see what this has to do with your argument.
It contains elements of His word (the stuff that can be proven and the stuff that relates to His love for us and things of that nature), but the Bible must be proven reliable FIRST.
Unfortunately you have raised man’s fallible interpretation of evidence above God’s Word. Besides, science has “proven” that virgins do not have babies and that dead men do not rise from the dead. Now, if you are to be consistent with your view, you need to first prove that virgins can have babies and that dead men can resurrect without using the Bible. Is it that you have faith that Christ can do those things but not create the universe in six 24-hour days? I want to encourage you to trust everything that God has said and not just bits and pieces.