RSS

Category Archives: creation

What is in a Date

We are not talking about the fruit. We are talking about a scientific dating system that enjoys producing unrealistic dates for human history

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2018/nov/07/worlds-oldest-figurative-painting-discovered-in-borneo-cave

A patchy, weathered painting of a beast daubed on the wall of a limestone cave in Borneo may be the oldest known example of figurative rock art, say researchers who dated the work.

Faded and fractured, the reddish-orange image depicts a plump but slender-legged animal, probably a species of wild cattle that still lives on the island, or simply dinner in the eyes of the artist, if one streak of ochre that resembles a spear protruding from its flank is any guide.

The animal is one of a trio of large creatures that adorn a wall in the Lubang Jeriji Saléh cave in the East Kalimantan province of Indonesian Borneo. The region’s rock art, which amounts to thousands of paintings in limestone caves, has been studied since 1994 when the images were first spotted by the French explorer Luc-Henri Fage.

The researchers come up with a 40,000 year date for the paintings using what is called uranium series analysis. If you want to know what that is just click the following link

https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/jres/122/jres.122.044.pdf

This dating system is just another way for secular scientists to justify their rejection of the truth. It is their way to say that creation did not take place 6 to 10,000 years ago. Scientists and other unbelievers claim that their dating systems are independent. But when you take a hard and close look at their dating systems you will see that they are all created by unbelievers using fallible deceived thinking which cannot verify one claim about the dating systems.

Since these dating systems all come from the same source, they are hardly independent and hardly free from error. Even calibration won’t help because the dating systems used to calibrate other dating systems also come from unbelieving sources. There is no independence found in any of the dating systems.

But there is room for doubt. Writing in the journal Nature, the researchers concede that the crusts they analysed had formed on top of a heavily weathered part of the animal painting and that pigment analyses could not distinguish the underlying paint from that of a nearby mulberry-coloured hand stencil.

At least they are honest but that won’t help they case or their cause. Nothing in this solar system existed 40,000 years ago. If we give an honest look at the development of human civilization, let’s use America as an example, why would it take humans 40,000 years to develop, when America went from the stone age to the nuclear age in just over 300 years.

The reasoning is not logical and researchers have to totally dumb down humans to brute beasts to even get close to making any logical arguments about human development. If humans took so long to develop why then did the Minoan society have flush toilets, 2 and 3 floor apartments and homes, hot and cold running water and a lot more modern-day technological advances roughly 3,500 years ago? Why did the ancient societies discovered in India, Europe and other places have grid patterns for their cities, modern day type sewers and more, thousands of years before the current modern era?

Or why did the ancient Babylonians use time capsules, a social security system long before America was a hint in Britain’s eyes? No, evolutionary arguments do not make sense nor can they explain anything about human development. Archaeology alone interferes with their theories. As a side note, it is funny that an anthropologist will find a bone or two near the surface of the earth and declare it too be millions of years old based on the dirt surrounding the discovery.

But an archaeologist digging a mile or to away and goes down over 100 feet only gets dirt dating to a few thousand years ago. Sorry but tectonic plates or other similar theories, pushing up dirt is not a realistic explanation, especially when skeletons are found in pristine condition in that supposed million+ year old dirt. Evolutionary theories do not make sense and neither does the dating of that cave painting.

The work suggests that figurative art may have emerged in south-east Asia and Europe at about the same time,

No the work does not suggest that. The researchers are suggesting that. They have no way to verify that thinking nor do they have any means to determine where cave painting or figurative art originated or who taught who the concept. What they have is paintings done by someone who lived after the creation of the world that used cave walls to tell a story, describe a hunt, graffiti or numerous other explanations for the painting’s existence

Keep in mind that evolutionists also cannot verify one evolutionary claim they make. They cannot produce one piece of verifiable credible and legitimate evidence showing that humans and life developed the way they say it developed. Yet the Bible is dismissed even though not one scientific, archaeological or other research field discovery has yet to prove the Bible false.

We reject that date for the cave paintings and that dating system. They only have one piece of supposed evidence, the date they claim, to justify their conclusions. We have more evidence for Noah’s flood than that. All this does is make the cave painting dating a fairy tale. There is no corroborating evidence supporting the date or the claims made by the researchers. Especially from non-evolutionary sources.

If the supposed supporting evidence comes from evolutionists, then that does not make the new evidence independent. It is like-minded people trying desperately to support their unbelief in the Bible and shore up their nagging doubts that come with the evolutionary theory.

But he is cautious about the dating in the latest study. “Sadly, this work says more about academic competition and the scramble for early dates than it does the emergence of art,” he said. “I welcome the impressive discovery and documentation of a major early art region, but I have considerable reservations about the pertinence of the dated samples to the art beneath. It is not made clear that the oldest minimum ages are clearly and unambiguously related to the figurative art.”

We are not alone in our dissent but our view comes from the truth found in the bible and won’t change when evolutionists wave amagic wand and claim they have supporting evidence. Evolutionists are not promoting the truth, only demonstrating their foolishness by not believing the words of God.

Advertisements
 

Stick to the Truth

In Walsh’s video published by The Daily Wire on YouTube last week, he argued that although he doesn’t “question the sincerity or the faithfulness of six-day Creationist folks,” he positioned that when the belief is preached, it can “inadvertently do some harm” and “put obstacles in the way, especially for non-believers.”

https://www.christianpost.com/news/ken-ham-hits-back-after-matt-walsh-claims-creationists-make-reaching-others-with-christianity-harder-228119/

When talking about the Bible it is best to stick to the truth. Paul told us that the unbeliever cannot do anything against the truth.  The truth does not do any harm to evangelism. Misrepresenting what the Bible says does the harm. If you tell the truth, the only person putting obstacles in the way of unbelievers converting is evil.

Faith and love means that you believe God. If God said he created in 6 24 hour days then our faith and our love have us siding with God over sinful man and his words.

If you state something about the Bible that the Bible does not say, then you are not stating what God said but what you want to believe. You are not evangelizing someone to God’s faith but your own version of it. You are communicating that God cannot even get his own act of creation correct. Who would want to believe in a God like that and who would want to adopt a faith where the adherents do not even believe their own God?

The truth is, God created in 6 24 hour days just like he said. There was no failure by God to communicate his creative act to his biblical writers and their was no altering the creative act because the biblical writers did not understand any alternatives. They wrote what God told them he did and since God cannot lie, there are no alternatives to the creation accounts found in Genesis.

The people who are doing harm and creating obstacles are those who adopt and promote alternatives to the truth.

 

Speaking of Honesty

There have been a couple of articles about how Christians use honorary degrees. The first article is found at

https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2017/december-web-only/ravi-zacharias-case-christian-credential-inflation.html

and talks about Ravi Zacharias and his organization’s use of the honorary degrees he has received. We are not going to talk about the right or wrongness of giving or being given honorary degrees as that is up the institutions and the individuals involved.

Their reasons for giving or receiving these honors are varied, with many legitimate and some…well you know. There are other reasons why these degrees are handed out. The same reasons apply to the secular academic institutions as well.

Up until earlier this year, the RZIM bio had not used the phrase “honorary doctorates;” instead, it had stated that Zacharias had been “honored with the conferring of six doctoral degrees.” The site also previously referred to him as “Dr. Zacharias” through 2014, as did multiple press releases, news features, and event postings.

Our topic is not about Mr. Zacharias’ use of his honorary degrees, it is about honesty. While Christians want to be seen as more credible, more legitimate and accepted more by their secular peers it seems that their credentials are inflated a bit and that is a problem.

“There’s a long and not very edifying tradition of Christian evangelists and speakers inflating their credentials,” said Stackhouse. (from the above link)

One does not lose credibility or legitimacy by being honest about their credentials or their courses of study. They do lose both when others uncover that certain facts have been over-stated or embellished. Also, ones’ Christian work can suffer or the church in general faces the fallout as unbelievers tend to hold everyone at fault when these issues take place.

“Ravi Zacharias is the biggest name in apologetics currently,” said Stackhouse. “As he goes, so goes apologetics so it’s really important that he be scrupulous in everything he does.”

Yes, Mr. Stackhouse is correct. One’s witness, testimony or apologetic presentation is called into question when embellishments are discovered. Then when caught in a lie, it does not help to try and lie your way out of the sticky situation.

Nor does it help to provide a weak defense. We know of one creationist who has done this and he is now only credible to a faithful few. But there are problems everywhere with the handing out of these degrees.

https://www.tnonline.com/should-colleges-stop-handing-out-honorary-degrees

They are seen as rewards for stellar behavior, dedication to a cause or some other high achievement. Sadly, the lives of some who have received these honors failed to be as stellar and have caused some to call for the ceasing of these handouts.

But for Christians, the cost is much higher. They can lose souls over these mistakes. They can turn people permanently off the gospel and Christ when they are dishonest about the honors they are given.

Now most of us will not have to worry about this particular problem. Most of us are not in a position to receive honorary degrees as our work is not well-known, and so on. But we honesty s not limited to the use or reception of honorary degrees.

All believers have little areas in our lives where we need to be honest or our credibility, our legitimacy, our witness and so on is lost. It can be our behavior in athletic competition, taxes, lies to our children and on it goes.

We need to be honest because it is not just God who watches what we do. Even without knowing it we can turn someone off of Christ and the Christian faith. Because all our observers do not let us know they are evaluating our words and actions.

Sometimes those we have been in contact with in less than honest ways tell their friends and families who tell their friends and family and on it goes. The ripple e effect does take place.

BUT do not get into a tizzy or think you will have a nervous breakdown. There will always be people turned off of Christ no matter how honest or good we are. Plus, we believers will make mistakes. It happens. We are not going to be perfect.

The key is correct those mistakes properly and deal with the situation as God directs. One way to help cut down on these mistakes in honesty is to ask God to help you. It may mean a little less money, it may mean not getting everything you want but it is better to live the Christian life right than to gain those desires.

Of course, honesty begins with God and how we treat him, his instructions and commands. How can we be honest with the secular world if we are not honest with him, the author and finisher of our faith?

God is honest with us and keeps things simple. We need to return the favor and be honest with him.

 

Some Words on Carbon Dating

And no, we are not going to make any bad jokes.

We have stated previously that we get a newsletter from Patterns of Evidence. This month, the topic was on carbon  dating. Now if you have read our early articles, you will see that we are not a fan of carbon dating. We do not agree that it can date back to 50,000 even with calibration. We do not think carbon dating can go beyond 11,000 years.

We already know and have known for years that there is a problem with that dating system. You cannot expect infallibility to be the product of fallible people who are often deceived and blind. Carbon dating lives and dies by the assumptions associated with it. In our opinion, calibration does not help but only makes things worse.

Again trying to correct one fallible dating system with another is like trying to correct a thief by using a master thief. It just does not work.  The newsletter goes on to say that a new study is rocking the archaeological world concerning dating biblical and other ancient events. The problem is that carbon dating is not the go-to dating system for archaeologists. Most of them rely on the pottery dating method because carbon dating is just too expensive.

Here is the first excerpt from that newsletter:

Theories about the correct dates for events in the ancient world have been debated for centuries. Even modern archaeology experiences disagreements over what the timelines for different periods should look like. Since 1949, the process of carbon dating has become widely (if not universally) accepted to the point where it has supposedly settled many of those dating disputes.

Adding to the debate was the announcement of a recent study last month in the Cornell Chronicle. Sturt Manning, Professor of Classical Archaeology at Cornell University, and colleagues, recorded a series of carbon 14 dates in tree rings from southern Jordan near Petra that have sent tremors through the field of archaeology.

Manning chose to test juniper trees (Juniperus phoenicea) that were of a type used for building construction at Taybet Zaman, Jordan and could give unbroken sequences of rings back several hundred years. These tree rings were of known dates between AD 1610 and 1940. They showed that the average discrepancy between the known ages and those supplied by radiocarbon dating was 19 years. The carbon dates made the samples appear older than they really were.

Manning noted in the Chronicle that, “Scholars working on the early Iron Age and Biblical chronology in Jordan and Israel are doing sophisticated projects with radiocarbon age analysis, which argue for very precise findings. This then becomes the timeline of history. But our work indicates that it’s arguable their fundamental basis is faulty – they are using a calibration curve that is not accurate for this region.”

Dating the past has never been an exact science. One reason is that the ancient records are scant. The Egyptian Chronology was built on quoted words of Manetho as his original autographs and copies of his work have long been lost. There are other texts involved but they are as fragmented as Manetho.

This also raises the possibility that going further back in time might magnify the problem. When asked about the accuracy of radiocarbon testing, Manning told the Times of Israel, “If you only have radiocarbon but have a good set of data and a known archaeological sequence (e.g. stratified layers at an archaeological site) then you can hope to get within a few decades or so – so high-precision dating,” he says.

But then Manning added a significant disclaimer: “If you have nothing but a few radiocarbon dates, then you are more looking at ca. 50-100 years or so precision.”

The 50 to 100 year probability is not unusual, we are not rocked or shocked by that figure. After all the Exodus ranges between the 15th and 13th centuries BC which is a 200-year difference. The concern about carbon dating’s accuracy should focus on the assumptions made not the results of different tests. There are so many variables in play when a scientist conducts a carbon dating test that it is a miracle if the system gets the date correct.

One of the biggest assumptions is how many C14 isotopes were in the original item when it died. No one ever knows the answer to that problem. Then the next biggest issue is how big was the item, animal, etc. when it died? Organic material decays and as it decays it loses a lot of properties that may help in dating the specimen. There are other problems that arise with carbon dating that do not allow it to be a very accurate dating tool.

At times we accept the dates it provides as long as it stays in the 11,000 year and under category because it is not totally useless.

The Times of Israel article focuses on the threat Manning’s revised dates pose to the archaeology that supposedly supports Israel’s United Kingdom at the time of kings David and Solomon. There are finds in Israel that support a more organized central government emerging during part of the Iron Age, which many have tagged as evidence for the time of David and Solomon. Making those finds several decades younger would disconnect them from their supposed biblical connections. This has led scholars who support these links to downplay Manning’s findings.

This would be nice and good if the unbelieving world was honest. But it isn’t carbon dating leading the charge to disconnect evidence from their biblical identity. That issue falls to those who disbelieve the Bible, like the Minimalists, who discount any biblical event prior to Omri or Ahab. Other unbelieving archaeologists just do not want to prove the Bible true and on it goes. It is not the dating system proving anything but those scientists and archaeologists who have been blinded and deceived by evil who construct theories etc. to condemn the veracity and authenticity of the Bible

Dating systems can be manipulated especially when you use another faulty dating system to correct the first one used. A bad date does not mean the Bible is untrue. There is a problem with the dating system if it disagrees with the Bible.

As Rohl documents in his book Pharaohs and Kings, several of these tree-ring chronologies have had to be withdrawn after it was found that they contradicted each other.

As we said, correcting one faulty dating system with another just does not work. But since the faulty dating systems give what the unbeliever wants to hear, we do not expect any corrections to come any time soon.

You can read the whole article, we hope, at the following link

http://patternsofevidence.com/blog/2018/07/27/carbon-dating-errors-may-rewrite-the-bibles-place-in-history/?utm_source=Email&utm_medium=Thinker121Carbon&utm_term=&utm_content=&utm_campaign=Thinker121Carbon&inf_contact_key=000c53333e858c8b5a63d94d953a87221626af0bf022cac4794f63aedc2309fd

But one thing is for sure, do not think that the blind deceived world can construct anything that will be so accurate that it will prove God wrong. It just won’t happen.

 
Comments Off on Some Words on Carbon Dating

Posted by on July 29, 2018 in academics, archaeology, Bible, church, creation, education, faith, history, leadership, science, theology

 

God Exists

The Bible tells us that the heavens declare the glory of God. When you click on the following link, you will see some of that Glory and declaration. God has provided us with the evidence we need to see that he exists. Just because some people deny that evidence does not mean that God does not exist. it means that the deniers are deceived and need prayer

https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/hubble/multimedia/index.html  

 

 

Peter Enns & Genesis

You can read his full article at the following link. We are only going to address those statements that are interesting and need to be addressed.

https://peteenns.com/blog-post-ask-4-questions-christianity-evolution/

I recently sat down with myself to ask myself some questions that keep coming up
every
single
time

I post anything on evolution.

It is these questions and some of his comments that we will look at here. Strange that he never comes to a different answer than that science trumps God.

#1. why do you think evolution is true?

I believe that evolution is one of the things that science has gotten right, along with many other things we take for granted every day, because this is the resounding conclusion of the scientific community, including Christians trained in the sciences.

We will have to ask a couple of questions that have not been answered by anyone. First, where in the Bible do both God and Jesus say to take science over their words?  They don’t but that doesn’t seem to stop some people from doing it anyways.

Second, who is the scientific community and what authority do they have that they can say God is wrong? Of course, most people siding with science try to make the Bible a human-authored book. This way, in their minds, they are not attacking God but subjective human thinking. Unfortunately for them The Bible is not a human authored work.

We disagree. Science has not got evolution correct. In fact, they change their minds so much about that theory that the theory is useless to anyone. The fact that evolution has never existed seems to escape the mind of Mr. Enns. Another fact that seems to escape Mr. Enns is that the scientific community is made up of unbelievers, the very people Jesus described as lost, blind and deceived. So how can they get our origins right when they do not have the truth or the SPirit of truth helping them

Without actually being trained in the sciences, it would be rather stupid and arrogant of me to feel I have something to say that would sweep all that away.

It is not arrogance to sweep away the lies produced by the scientific community with the truth of God.

#2.But what about the Bible? Doesn’t Genesis have something to say about all this?

Simply put, no—not in the sense that Genesis is a competing “data set” to scientific models of cosmic and human origins.

Uhm, Mr. Enns, the correct answer is — yes. Genesis has a lot to say about our origins. Especially since our origins was not done in a scientific manner. It is science that has no say about our origins. Creation was a one-time supernatural act that was conducted by a supernatural being with all supernatural power. Science cannot comprehend that fact. What science describes is an unverifiable and unprovable alternative created by people who do not believe God and want nothing to do with him or have him part of their scientific work. How can they know more than God?

The stories in Genesis were written somewhere between 2500 and 3000 years ago, and clearly reflect cultural categories older still.

This is absolutely not true. The quoted idea comes from those scholars who do not believe the Bible or that anything prior to Omri actually took place. Usually these scholars are called Minimalists. They throw out most of the OT because they claim that there is no evidence. When shown evidence, they will close their eyes and state that the events did not happen or try to undermine the evidence in some way.

The Bible was not written as Mr. Enns claims. Most of the OT was written prior to the 5th to 7th centuries BC. Then the OT is not an adaption of other civilizations cultural works or beliefs. That would eliminate God, his supernatural status and power. It would also end salvation as we know it and have billions of people running around looking for God and his divine instructions.

Mr. Enns has no idea what his thoughts do or what problems they cause for himself and everyone.

I don’t expect Genesis or any other Bronze or Iron Age text to answer the kinds of questions we can answer today through calculus, optical and radio telescopes, genomics, biological and cultural anthropology.

Briefly, Mr. Enns does not realize it but those research fields, etc., do not answer any of our questions like Genesis does. They usually bring more questions.

#3. But aren’t you forgetting that the Bible is the very word of God? Why are you assuming that science trumps the Bible?

I’m neither forgetting nor assuming anything, nor am I unconsciously enslaved to some deeply held anti-God presupposition.

Rather, I have come to conclusions about these matters.

They are erroneous conclusions which he refuses to change when shown to be in error. We have tried before. Mr. Enns needs to answer the question, how does he think that fallible humans who use only partial evidence can come to the truth over the God who was there, did the did and has all the evidence?

The Bible speaks the “language” of ancient people grappling with things in ancient ways, and therefore what the Bible records about creation or the dawn of humanity needs to be understood against the cultural backdrop of the biblical writers, not the past 200 years of scientific investigation.

No the Bible is a divine revelation to man, who penned God’s words which contain the truth about our origins. There is no grappling being done in those pages of scripture and there is no ancient cultural spin put on God’s words. Science is not a light illuminating the truth to a dark world. Scripture is.

#4. But doesn’t Jesus trump all of this? I mean, he refers to Adam and seems to take Genesis quite literally. Don’t you think you need to obey Jesus rather than science?

The Bible says if you do not believe Moses how will you believe the words of Jesus (paraphrase John 5: 45ff). Obviously, Mr. Enns does not believe Moses and he does not believe the words of Jesus. He is not the person to go to find any answer.

As irreverent as that may seem, it is an implication of the incarnation. Jesus wasn’t an omniscient being giving the final word on the size of mustard seeds, mental illness, or cosmic and biological evolution. He was a 1st century Jew and he therefore thought like one.

So to him Jesus was just an ordinary man who can be trumped by science. Yet does Mr. Enns hold to John 3:16? If so, how can that be if he does not believe Jesus’ words about creation, Adam and Eve and other OT events? Does he pick and choose which words of Jesus he will accept and which ones he will deny? How was Jesus qualified to be our savior if he was not whom he said he was and did not have the final word on everything?

How can we go to Jesus with our problems if he was like Mr. Enns said? Obviously, Mr. Enns demotes both God and Jesus to sub standard deities or humans while promoting science over them. That is heresy, blasphemous and more negatives.

#5. So, to sum up, and since you asked, to reject evolution on Christian grounds would be to claim some superhuman insight into scientific matters that can only be described as idiosyncratic bordering on delusional, to misunderstand the nature of Scripture they are trying to protect, and to sport a heretical Christology that doesn’t take seriously Jesus’s full humanity.

First, the only one being heretical is Mr. Enns as he makes Jesus after his own image and does not grasp the full reality of who Jesus was. Second, Both God and Jesus said to believe them not science so we reject evolution on Christian grounds because it is not the truth. It is a man-made alternative to trick people into destroying themselves.

Third, those of us who know the truth know that the only delusional are those who opt for evolution over God’s word. We know that science is blind, deceived, lost and looking for answers in the wrong places by going down the wrong paths. Science is in need of a savior, it is not the savior.

 
Comments Off on Peter Enns & Genesis

Posted by on July 12, 2018 in academics, archaeology, astronomy, Bible, church, creation, education, faith, family, Genetics, history, leadership, science, theology

 

James McGrath & Inerrancy

James McGrath is another professor we have talked with through his website over the years, until we were banned. We do not see eye to eye on many things, including inerrancy. We are using his meme article as it is short and says the points we like to address. Unfortunately, we cannot copy memes, but will do our best to manually quote them

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/religionprof/2018/06/inerrancy-redux.html

But first a look at his opening statements.

#1. As I emphasized in recent posts, the reason that I abandoned biblical inerrantism is that it is not merely unbiblical, but anti-biblical

What authority makes this claim? if you follow the link in the quoted words, you have to go to his article to do that, you will see that his conclusion is not based on any religious authority, it is not based on God’s words, but merely of his misunderstanding of the bible and the way it was written. His reason is as follows:

The contradictions, discrepancies, and difficulties are there within the Bible, because human beings have put these texts with their differences into the collection we call the Bible.

He cannot prove those claims and most contradictions are not contradictions. The same goes for discrepancies. Rational and logical research has borne that out.

#2. It silences all but at most one of the diverse voices within the Bible, and denies or explains away rather than accepts the evidence that the Bible itself provides for its own human fallibility

Actually, it silences false teachers, false prophets and those who reject the truth.  There is no evidence showing any hint of human fallibility. These are mere accusations to allow someone to pursue and believe their own personal subjective ideas about Christ, God and Christianity. By removing the label of inerrancy, people get to import their personal preferences into the faith and the Bible.

#3. Bible inerrancy has no real impact on making the Bible clearer or making those who read it correct, but rather the only effect of Biblical inerrancy is to make its adherents more dogmatic

Dr. McGrath is in error here as we see that his argument is not really against inerrancy but the truth. He does not like what the Bible says so he needs a way to change it. Instead of providing real evidence, from alternative divinely inspired material, he goes after the softer and easier target. Inerrancy does make the Bible clearer for we see that God created as he said he did and we learn in Genesis 2 that God provides different details about his creative act. If the Bible was not inerrant, then any opinion, theory and conjecture would be clouding the issue.

Confusion is not of God but that is what Dr. McGrath is promoting with these words and his stance on biblical inerrancy. He takes away the answers God gives us and opens the questions up to a multitude of ideas that would overwhelm anyone who didn’t know any better.

#3. Inerrancy is about the desire to have one’s own views regarded as inerrant

There is more to that quote but this is the main point. It is a wild accusation because Dr. McGrath cannot verify this and he cannot state that those people he claims to be presenting their own views are actually presenting their own views over the truth. The above statement also flies in the face of Jesus’ words– ye shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free.

Inerrancy helps us see the truth and know it. Any other status for the Bible does not do that. Those alternatives merely hide the truth from its readers.

and the failure to humbly recognize one’s own human proneness to err… shows that this doctrine is not merely wrong but a direct frontal assault about the Bible’s teaching about God…

What makes that quoted statement wrong is the fact that Dr. McGrath thinks that anyone who disagrees with him is wrong. Changing to the truth actually does show that people recognize humbly that they made an err and now change to what God is saying in the biblical text. Inerrancy helps correct those erroneous views. His words also show that he and others like him are the ones doing the frontal assault on biblical teaching about God. They are changing the Bible and who God is, not those who declare it inerrant.

We are not going to quote more from that article because the issue of inerrancy has ramifications that Dr. McGrath does not like to think about. if the Bible is not inerrant and filled with human thinking, then we have no assurances of salvation or eternity. It is impossible for anti-inerrantists to pinpoint exactly which scripture passage is inerrant and of God and which one is from a human point of view.

Under their thinking, we cannot know God or Jesus and we can never find the truth even though Jesus said we could. In that article, that we quoted from, there were many links to other articles. We took the time to read through some of them and what we found was that Dr. McGrath and others he quotes, do not use one biblical argument to support their view.

It is all their personal opinion and the faulty use of passages that bring them to their conclusions. It is not God leading them to the truth because Dr.McGrath and others like him have never found any alternative divinely inspired scriptures to replace the passages they claim are in error and of human origin. We have made that point before but it is an important point.

Without those verified alternatives, and by verified we mean approved of by the ancient church, written by apostles, etc., they have no foundation for their arguments. Those alternatives have to meet the ancient criteria and not modern ones.

If their arguments are correct, then we must ask, where are the replacement scriptures to guide the church and believers today? Who gets to decide which  scriptures are out and which new ones are in? Obviously, we cannot appeal to the apostles because they have been gone for some time now. We should note that when the apostles caste lots for replacement disciples, they did not impose their personal views or preferences at all. They left the selection up to God. We do not know of one Bible scholar willing to do that today.

The argument against anti-inerrantists is not long. We just point to the passage that says God is not the author of confusion. Anti-inerrantists introduce confusion not bring the truth to light. Who are the anti-inerrantists that they think they know better about the Bible than God does? They do not have any smoking guns, they do not have any historical verification for their words and they do not have textual confirmation for their claims. If you get a chance to compare the ancient manuscripts, you will see that they all basically say the same thing.

Dr. Bart Ehrman and others may claim that there are over 400,000 errors found in the NT alone. According to Dr. Daniel Wallace that is more than the number of words in the NT .Also, according to Dr. Wallace over 99% of those errors do not change a doctrine, an instruction, a command and so on. In other words, anti-inerrantists have nothing to stand on except the fact that they cannot humbly accept God’s word and feel the need to change it according to their personal preferences.

The Bible is inerrant and that should scare a lot of people.

 
 
%d bloggers like this: