Some Points to Ponder 2

27 Jun
1. Genome by Matt Ridley (book) pg. 21-2

“The three letter words of the genetic code are the same in every creature…The genetic code, bar a few tiny local aberrations, mostly for unexplained reasons in the ciliate protozoa, is the same in every creature. We all use exactly the same language.”

Evolutionists use this and other similarities between humans and animals to claim that all species evolved from a common ancestor. The shared genes and other organs is their evidence for this supposed process. But the err greatly because they do not take into account one major factor.

Humans and animals, with a few exceptions, must share the same environment. They have to breathe the same air, drink the same water and eat basically the same type of foods. If animals and humans were completely different, to satisfy the evolutionist demand for the theory of evolution to be untrue, then they would not be able to survive in the present natural environment, either the human or the animal world would die out.

Since evolutionists have no idea what the original conditions were when their claimed origin of life took place, it would be pretty impossible for life forms as we know them today to come into existence. Something would have to prepare the life forms for the then and current atmosphere and dietary needs.

God did that when He thought of creating everything. He put 1 atmosphere, the same one as today, in place then designed both the animal world and his two human beings to fit that environment. He made sure that they would survive without the process of adaptation.

Yes animals and humans have a lot of similar genetic structures but that is so they can survive in a common environment and such design does not provide evidence for the evolutionary theory but God’s wisdom.

2. Ibid. pg. 10

“Human beings accumulate about one hundred mutations per generation, which may not seem much given that there are more than a million codons in the human genome, but in the wrong place even a single one can be fatal.”

This quote illustrates the weakness of the evolutionary theory. As evolutionists have explained over the years the theory has no origin for these limitations found in life. Where did this boundary come from and why would the process of evolution allow it to be part of its work?

Evolutionists claim that the process of evolution is a non-thinking, non-feeling, non-knowing, non-intelligent entity which somehow brings change to life forms, who possess the very qualities it does not.

With the theory of evolution too many questions arise that are left unanswered or are given such weak responses that the solutions are laughable. In the evolutionary world, there should be no such limitations, no such thing as disease or death for the theory doesn’t make room for it nor provide any answers to their origin.

God, in the Bible, does provide answers to the existence of all these things. We know why there are limitations in the gene structure—it shuts the door on alternative ideas like evolution. We know why there are weaknesses in the genetic code and why death and disease are in existence but the secular man does not want to think about those answers because it means they have to deal with God, His Son and their eternal destination.

Nothing the evolutionist comes up with to explain what we find in life or how it got here makes any sense, for there is no reason for any of it to exist in the evolutionary world. Their ‘answers’ only brings more confusion, mystery and questions not clarity or satisfaction. The more science investigates the more we can see that evolution does not work nor does it exist {and the same goes for natural selection}.

3. The First Human by Ann Gibbons (book) pg. 144

“Three months later, on Sept. 22, 1994, the cover of Nature featured the baby molar set in the jaw like a diamond mounted in a setting from which a few other gems had fallen out—and held up like a prices ring between a man’s thumb and two fingers. The red headline underneath said simply, Earliest Hominids.”

This quote is just one example of the many instances where anthropologists construct a whole species out of a lone tooth, a lone toe bone, or a lone knuckle. Rarely do they have more to work with when they do their work.

This is the problem with the secular science world, they raise Cain when the believe uses faith to believe about the flood (and we have much more evidence to work with than anthropologists do) yet they use faith with no evidence when it benefits their work.

The theory of evolution is a theory of speculation not evidence, it is a theory of assumption not fact and it is a theory of desperation not security. They build mountains out of molehills and cannot provide any evidence to support their ideas. They have to use millions and billions of years to avoid the embarrassment of failing to produce real evidence to back their claims.

Pg. 234 backs me up as it says there: “For now, they will have to stick to the teeth and jaw fragments for direct comparisons between these early hominids…if we had skeletons…” The evolutionist has nothing.

4. Ibid. pg. 194-5

“He was walking along an ancient streambed when he saw something sticking out of the red dirt on the ground at his feet. He looked closer and saw teeth…he saw a bony ball sticking out of the red dirt. It was the head of a left thigh bone…he also drew a sketch of the site in his journal, noting that the fossils came from a layer of sediment that was at the base of the Lukeino formation, below a layer of basalt dated to 5.65 million years by Hill’s team. Therefore, about 6 million years, he noted.”

This is one of the problems with anthropology. They think that a fossil on the surface of the earth actually dates back 6 million years and they had to do no work. Meanwhile 100 miles down the road an archaeological team, digging in the same dirt, has to dig 30-100 ft. into the depth of the earth just to go back a few thousand years.

Yes the anthropologist claims that the grounds shift pushing up ancient rock to the surface but the problem with that is, in all the archaeological digs in the world over the past 200 or so years has never come up with any evidence for that claim. The archaeologists must have been lucky and missed those spots even though their digs can cover acres of ground.

The other problem here in those quoted words is that the anthropologist assumes that what he finds comes from the same species of animal or from the same human. The construct these discoveries based upon their own ideas and have nothing to verify their results or claims that it is a new species or even human.

These are all conclusions based upon a modern man’s biased perspective who immediately claims the discovery for evolution without being able to verify anything about the fragments found or how they really go together. Nor can they proof that evolution was responsible.

5. The Beginning of All Things by Hans Kung (book) pg. 137

“We still do not know for certain how life first arose from the inanimate. We do not know for certain what precise events introduced biogenesis. But we do know one thing: however this transition to life is explained in detail, it rests on biochemical regularities…’

This is secular science being honest. It doesn’t know much about the past. In fact, science and scientists cannot prove what you had to eat for breakfast last week let alone what activities filled your day. It can surmise, speculate, assume but it cannot prove the past. It is too limited which disqualifies secular science from being an authority or final determiner.

We do know how life arose and it was not from the inanimate. It was from God’s will and power. We do know the precise events which introduced biogenesis and they are revealed to us in Genesis 1 and 2. We do not need men and women working thousands of years removed from the event to tell us how things went in the beginning, we have the only eye-witness telling us how they exactly went.

Science can be useful to Christians, if they let it and they do it the right way. It is not a tool to talk about origins for that is something outside the scope of that field. It is a tool to discover what God has done when He created everything and to see how things went wrong when Adam sinned.

We can use science to figure out the causes of disease and discover their cure. We can use science to see how plants and trees work, how our bodies operate and on it goes but at no time does this ability promote science to the final authority of life. It is too fallible and corrupt to be anything more than what it is—a simple tool to investigate things on earth, in the sea and in space.

Secular science is operated by men and women who are deceived, fallible, and easily influenced as their desires and agendas are not the same as God’s. If there is a conflict between science and the Bible, then it is science that is wrong. The same for archaeology; when it disagrees with the Bible then the archaeology made the error.

The other sciences, like astronomy, physics and so on, all fall into the same category. They are not supreme beings but imperfect tools run by imperfect and unredeemed people.

6. Tell el-Hamman run by Dr. Steven Collins (dig site)

“As is now widely accepted, Tall el-Hammam remains a logical candidate for biblical Sodom based on a detailed analysis of the relevant biblical and historical materials regarding the chronology and location of the city”

Why is an archaeological dig and website placed among these books and articles Simply because it demonstrates that Christians or those who claim to be one do go wrong and go against the Bible.

For about 10 seasons now Dr. Collins has been trumpeting the Tell el-Hamman site as Sodom even though everything he finds contradicts the Bible when it talks about Sodom and Gomorrah. The archaeologist in charge continues to find artifact after artifact through archaeological era after archaeological era which should have been a clue that he is digging in the wrong place for the city of Sodom (which has been found in a more desolate area, one that reflects the Biblical teachings on the city).

But he doesn’t care and he doesn’t care that he is leading other believers and non-believers down the wrong path. That is a dangerous thing to do and no matter how much one informs him of his error, he continues in his arrogance, re-interpreting the Biblical passages to fit his desires.

The Christian has to be careful and they need to make sure they are right before announcing to the world they have something no one else has found for their testimony, their reputation is on the line and bad errors can raise stumbling blocks to Christ amongst the unbelieving world. It happens with the Noah’s ark debacle continuously.

If the Christian realizes he or she has made a mistake they should be humble about it and correct it; not continue to follow the wrong path, mistaking the correction as ‘persecution’. The wrong kind of pride cannot enter into the Christian’s process for that will leave a bigger more devastating mark on others than if the Christian humbly admits a mistake and changes his tune.

Also, the believer needs to be aware of the fact that if their work contradicts the Bible, then it is not the Bible that is in error and they need to find out where their mistakes lie. Believers follow God and His word, not change it to fit their own desires. The world is watching and if the Christian doesn’t believe or follow God and His word, how can they expect the non-believer to do so?

7. The Search for Noah’s Flood By Ronald S. Hendel; Editor, H. S. (2004; 2004). BR 19:03. Biblical Archaeology Society.

“Biblical scholars will tell you that the Flood Story in Genesis 6–9 (actually stories in the plural, since there are two versions woven together in these chapters) derives most directly not from an actual event, but from earlier stories. The earlier stories are from ancient Mesopotamia, best known from the Gilgamesh Epic (Standard Babylonian version, c. 1100 B.C.E.) and the Atrahasis Epic (Old Babylonian, c. 1700 B.C.E.).”

Christians really need to be wary when scholars, archaeologists and others accuse the Biblical authors of copying other nations. Such accusations do not have any evidence to give them credence and all these unbelieving academics have are discoveries of documents written prior to the compilation of the Bible.

We need to remember that the Bible is a work done over time and that it speaks of events that took place long before Babylonia, Sumer and Akkadia were even in existence. That means that even though there are myths recovered from the earth and are older than the Bible it doesn’t mean it they were first written.

The Bible traces the timeline quite thoroughly and it shows that there has been a continuous line of God’s people who knew of these events long before the secular civilizations did. Since Noah and his sons re-started the world’s population they told all their descendants what they experienced and as these descendants drifted from God, their re-telling of the story was altered and changed to reflect their growing unbelief

Noah lived 350 years after the flood and Shem lived 500 years thus the original account was told for a long time after the event. If academics believe in oral tradition as they claim then the Biblical account preceded the secular written accounts by a very long time. Who knows, maybe Noah, or his family actually wrote down what they went through and the secular versions were copies of those writings.

Either way, the Biblical authors did not have to copy the secular world because they possibly had Noah’s accounts to use and they had God who was there to help them get it right. Oldest discovered does not mean original all the time.

8. Enigmatic Bible Passages: The Plain Meaning of Genesis 1:1–3 by Harry M. Orlinsky

Editor, G. E. W. (1983; 2003). Biblical Archaeologist: Volume 46. American Schools of Oriental Research.

“There is no doubt that a desire for fidelity to the Word of God is commendable. It is something that a great number of people, notably translators of the Bible, have shared through the ages. It should be pointed out, however, that although the translations of many of the passages on which scientific creationists particularly base their views may be literal, they are not necessarily accurate portrayals of the meaning of the original language”

This passage portrays the problem found in biblical work today as well as in centuries past. Everyone who learns a biblical language thinks they know what the correct word God wanted to use in certain passages. It is not uncommon to hear pastors and academics say ‘the Hebrew says…’ or ‘the Greek says…’ when they are explaining the meaning of a particular passage of the Bible.

What needs to be remembered is that God has not called anyone to change is word and make Him say something He did not. People who learn the biblical languages need to remember that they still need the Holy Spirit to direct them to the correct meaning and that they cannot change what a translation says simply because they disagree with a passage or they think they found a better meaning.

God has promised to preserve His word till the end and those believers who learn the biblical languages need to fall into step with God and make sure they are following His leading to ensure His promise is kept. The world has too many false translations and too many over-eager bible students who want to input their own fallible ideas into a text.

The Bible warns of false teachers who come and will preach their false gospel and one of the ways to lure unwary believers away is to change the word of God to support their ideas. The Jehovah Witnesses do it, the man who wrote The Message did it, Hugh Ross does it and so many others try to do it so they can justify their alternative beliefs

When one learns a biblical language they are given a responsibility to ferret out those false teachers and their deceptive practices and inform the believer of the correct way the Bible should read. They are NOT to impose their own ideas or change God’s word to fit culture or modern times.

The Christian world does not follow the secular one, It leads the way to God’s kingdom even if it means being literal and archaic.

9. Bricks Without Straw? By Charles F. Nims {Wright, G. E. (2001, c1950). Vol. 13 numbers 1-4: Biblical Archaeologist  : Volume 13 1-4. Biblical Archaeologist volume 13 numbers 1-4. (electronic ed.). Philadelphia: American Schools of Oriental Research}

“The evidence of both ancient and modern methods in the manufacture of mud brick in Egypt indicates that while brick are occasionally made without straw, this practice is far from common.”

Does archaeology prove the Bible true? The answer is ‘it depends’. It depends upon what is being discovered and how the Bible talks about it. In this case, where the Bible speaks of the harsh punishment of making bricks without straw put upon the Israelites by the Pharaoh of that time, the account is verified that bricks were and could be made without straw.

 Does it prove that the Israelites made those exact bricks? NO. There is no possible way for anyone to learn who made those bricks without straw. We content ourselves with the fact that the Bible did not mistakenly refer to a procedure that was impossible to accomplish and was true in its account. The Israelites were punished and the punishment was real and accurately recorded for the world to read about.

What is an example of archaeology proving the Bible true? We can look to the scripture Ecc. 1:9 where it says ‘Nothing is new under the sun.” Archaeology shows the truthfulness of that verse all the time. The modern world thinks it has something the ancients haven’t but when one studies the past they see that the ideas of modern inventions were present in the past.

One example—flight. They may not have been able to build airplanes but the idea of flight was present in ancient Greece and other societies. Leonardo Da Vinci is known for his drawings of a helicopter.

Another example would be sewage systems. Waste has been an issue since the beginning and it had to be disposed of to maintain the health of the ancient societies . We read how the Minoans had a sewer system as did the Romans and many other ancient civilizations as well.

The Greeks had a computer, though it was not like today’s models, they still had the idea. Archaeology is full of proof that the Bible is true and in ways does prove it so. We can look at the Patriarchs and see that their names were in use at the exact time Abraham, Isaac and Jacob lived which again verifies the accuracy of the Biblical record.

Does it mean that those people we read about in ancient manuscripts were the Patriarchs? Not necessarily and a strong doubtful but we take strength in knowing that the Bible recorded their names correctly giving us the reassurance that God did not lie, did not make a mistake and did not lead one astray.

For further reading:


Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: