CHALLENGE

"...but try the spirits whether they are of God..." (1 Jno. 4:1)

. VOLUME FIVE, NUMBER ONE SPRING 1997

REPRINTED FROM THE SKEPTICAL REVIEW...

THE WISDOM OF THE WORLD

Farrell Till

Have you ever thought about the implications of Adam's and Eve's sins? They ate of the tree of knowledge (Gen. 3:6), and act that opened their eyes (v:7), and so God drove them from the Garden of Eden, because "the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil" (v:22). In other words, their sin was the acquisition of knowledge. It was a sin so great that the petulant Yahweh not only banished them from the garden but pronounced an everlasting curse on them and all their descendants.

The condemnation of knowledge implied in this story established a policy that was generallybut not alwaysfollowed by the other biblical writers. That policy was to discourage and even sometimes to condemn the acquisition of knowledge. Perhaps no single biblical writer ridiculed knowledge any more than the apostle Paul, who is considered by many scholars to be the real founder of Christianity. His strongest denunciation of knowledge was made in his first letter to the Corinthian church:

For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness, but to us who are saved it is the power of God. For it is written, "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent." Where is the wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the disputer of this world? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe. For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness. But unto them who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God. Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men. For you see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called. But God has chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the things that are mighty; and the base things of the world that are despised has God chosen, yes, and the things that are not, to bring to nothing the things that are: that no flesh should glory in his presence (1:1829).

Ever since Paul penned this statement, Bible believers have used it to justify every form of ignorance imaginable. If anyone dares suggest that the idea of a human sacrifice for the vicarious atonement of the sins of mankind is ridiculous, the Christian will merely see this as proof that his belief is right. "Yes," he will say, "that is exactly what Paul said. It pleased God to save the world through the foolishness of preaching. You can't understand it because you seek after worldly wisdom, but God chose the foolish things of this world to confound the wise, and this is exactly what has happened to you. You have allowed the wisdom of the world to blind you to the truth. God's wisdom is greater than man's wisdom, and when you understand that, you will understand why the sacrifice of his son for the sins of mankind was necessary."

Yeah, right. And if the Christians who parrot such nonsense as this ever learn to recognize circular reasoning, they might begin to see the foolishness in their own "wisdom." With that type of reasoning, one could justify any kind of belief. Flatearthersand believe it or not there are somedismiss all scientific evidence for the rotundity of the earth as just "the wisdom of the world." Creationscientists (an oxymoron if ever there was one) reject as "man's wisdom" all scientific findings that dispute their youngearth, creationists views. Just cite any kind of scientific or scholarly information that conflicts with what the Bible teaches, and bibliolaters will poohpooh it as "the wisdom of the world."

In the "Mailbag" column of this issue (p.12) [The Skeptical Review], we are publishing the letter of a subscriber in Texas, who boasts of having a faith that is stronger than ever after having read "all issues of TSR, plus other publications, debates, etc. of Mr. Till and other skeptics, current and past." Readers will see that he takes refuge in the wisdomoftheworld bastion of Bible fundamentalism. He dismisses Till and other skeptics who write for TSR as "wisdomolaters," who have "sold their souls for a mess of pottageman's wisdom." A detailed response follows this letter in the "Mailbag" column, so here we will merely not that history has proven repeatedly that this "mess of pottage" that skeptics have sold their souls for is superior to the "wisdom of God" that bibliolaters have put their trust in. Presumably by the wisdom of God, Jesus attacked human illness by casting out devils, but the wisdom of the world invented microscopes, discovered microbes and viruses, and then conquered diseases with vaccines and drugs. The wisdom of God rebuked Galileo, but the wisdom of the world has long confirmed that he was right about the heliocentric nature of our solar system. The wisdom of the world discovered that smallpox could be prevented through vaccination, but through the wisdom of God, preachers opposed it as witchcraft and the work of Satan. Whenever the wisdom of the world has clashed with the "wisdom of God," the wisdom of the world has had a consistent way of proving itself right.

So let bibliolaters scoff at the "wisdom" of the world all they want to. In this controversy, we will put our trust in the side with the better track record. Flatearthers, for example, are absolutely right when they say that the Bible teaches a flat-earth cosmology, but one would have to be hopelessly naive to accept that view over the compelling scientific evidence that proves the earth is spherical. Bible fundamentalists are also right when they say that the Bible teaches that life on earth resulted from acts of special creation that God performed over a period of six days about 6,000 years ago, but geology, archaeology, paleontology, microbiology, chemistry, astronomy, and various other branches of science indicate an entirely different scenario. According to Richard Dawkins, whose scientific credentials are known world-wide, "Darwin's theory is now supported by all the available relevant evidence, and its truth is not disputed by any serious modern biologist" ("The Necessity of Darwinism," New Scientist, April 15, 1982, p.130). To Bible fundamentalists, however, this is merely "the wisdom of the world" speaking, and no matter how many worldclass scientists like Dawkins say that Darwin's theory is supported by all the available scientific evidence, they are going to continue pressing to have their nonsense taught as "science" in our public schools. Ron Patterson pegged them right when he said, "Socalled scientific creationism is really nothing more than an attempt to give credence to an ancient Hebrew myth by trying to prove that virtually all the world's biologists, geologists, and paleontologists are a bunch of incompetent buffoons" (The Freethought Exchange, September/October, 1994,p50).

The right course to take in controversies like these can easily be determined by application of a principle that Bob Hypes stated in a recent TSR article: "No reasonable person can believe that the guesses of preliterate man, upon which the myths of gods and the supernatural are based, were true" ("Religion and How I Lost It," Winter, 1995, p.11). This, of course, is a difficult worldview for Bible fundamentalists to accept, but perhaps they should take notice of something the apostle Paul said in the passage quoted earlier: "For you see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh... are called" (1 Cor. 1:26). Sociological studies have confirmed the truth of what Paul said here. The more educated people are, the less likely they are to practice orthodox religion. Religious orthodoxy, therefore, depends on ignorance. Many beliefs of today's most radical Bible fundamentalists would have been considered rank heresy by the most educated Christians of a thousand years ago. Knowledge caused the change and will continue to change religious thinking, because not even the most fanatical Bible fundamentalist can live in our scientific era without absorbing at least some of the "wisdom of the world" that is so despised in fundamentalist circles.

Meanwhile, knowing the threat that knowledge poses to them and the institutions from which they derive their livelihood, clergymen will continue to ridicule the "wisdom of the world" in order to cultivate the colossal ignorance that is necessary for fundamentalist religion to survive [Farrell's address is P.O. Box 717, Canton, IL 61520-0717]

THE WISDOM OF INFIDELS VS. THE WISDOM OF GOD

Jerry D. McDonald

Mr. Till prides himself on being a great intellectual, and refuter of the Bible inerrancy doctrine. He always has the answer for everything, or at least so he seems to think. In his article "The Wisdom of the World" which you have just read, he begins by telling us that Adam's and Eve's sin was "the acquisition of knowledge." According to this great intellectual, their sin was, "so great that the petulant Yahweh not only banished them from the garden but pronounced an everlasting curse on them and all their descendants.

If Mr. Till was one fraction of the intellectual that he wishes to make his readers believe he is, he would know that Adam and Eve's sin had nothing to do with the acquisition of knowledge. Their sin was, they disobeyed God. Since the scriptures is our main authoritative source, about Adam and Eve's sin, we should take what they say as fact concerning the matter. The scriptures tell us what the command was that God gave: "And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die" (Gen. 2:15,16). The scriptures also tell us what command they violated: "And the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit therefore, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat" (Gen. 3:6). When God questioned them about what they had done, he asked Adam: "Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat?" (Gen. 3:11). So their sin was not the "acquisition of knowledge" as Mr. Till contends, but rather a disobedience to the command of God: "thou shalt not eat of it." That was their sin, in part and in whole.

Well, is it possible that, "the acquisition of knowledge" was a consequence of their sin? No! The consequence of their sin was the "acquisition of knowledge between good and evil." Before they partook of the forbidden fruit, they were in a pure state, having no knowledge of the difference between good and evil. They could have had all the of knowledge they wanted, in their pure state. They could have had scientific knowledge, without knowing the difference between good and evil. They could have had knowledge of botany without knowing the difference between good and evil. They could have had knowledge of their origin without knowing the difference between good and evil. They could have had the knowledge of that which is good, without knowing the difference between good and evil. They could have had knowledge of many things this world has to offer without knowing the difference between good and evil. The only thing that they could not have had knowledge of without knowing the difference between good and evil, is the knowledge of what evil is. That (the knowledge of what evil is) was the consequence of their sin. Because they allowed evil to come into their lives, they not only suffered for it, but every human who has ever lived and reached the age of accountability, since then, has had to suffer the consequence of their actions. They opened the door for sin to come into the world, and the world has had to suffer for it ever since. And if Mr. Till was even a fraction of the intellect that he wants us to believe that he is, he would have known that.

Mr. Till tells us that, "(t)he condemnation of knowledge implied in this story established a policy that was generallybut not alwaysfollowed by the other biblical writers. That policy was to discourage and even sometimes to condemn the acquisition of knowledge." There never was any policy set forth by any inspired writer of the Bible to condemn or discourage knowledge. The scriptures are replete with passages that condemn a lack of knowledge and encourage one to gain knowledge. Hosea wrote: "my people are destroyed for a lack of KNOWLEDGE" (Hos. 4:6). Paul wrote: "Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not be ashamed, but rightly dividing the word of truth" (2 Tim. 2:15). He also wrote: "Till I come, give attendance to READING, to exhortation and to doctrine" (1 Tim. 4:13). These are just three of the many passages where the Bible upholds knowledge while condemning a lack of it.

There is no policy that condemns every kind of knowledge. The Bible gives us historical knowledge, scientific knowledge, knowledge about our origin, spiritual knowledge, and even human relation knowledge. The only kind of knowledge that the Bible condemns is the knowledge of evil. Man would he able to get along fine in this world if we did not have the knowledge of evil. Adam and Eve, before they partook of the fruit, had no knowledge of evil, and judging from the things that have happened since, they would have been better off had they not acquired it.

Paul's statement to the Corinthian church does not condemn all knowledge, but knowledge of evil. The wisdom of the world is that the preaching of the cross is foolishness. However this socalled foolishness is wiser than the wisdom of man. The wisdom of the world cannot even begin to comprehend God's wisdom, which man calls foolishness. That is why the infidel does not understand why Christ had to die on the cross. Infidels understand little about the Word of God. Joseph Wheless, for example, falsely accused Jesus, in Mk. 9:1 and Mt. 16:28, of saying that some of those who he was speaking to would not die until they had seen his return (Is It God's Word ?, p.361). He said that since Christ has not returned, that he had taught false doctrine in those two instances. However, because he did not think spiritually, he did not take the time to understand those passages. Thus, he never did pick up on the true meaning; that Jesus said that some of those who stood there that day would not taste death until they had seen the coming in of the church of our Lord. The phrase "the son of man coming in his kingdom" in Mt. 16:28 has reference to the establishment of the kingdom on Pentecost. Jesus said that the comforter (the Holy Spirit) would not come of himself, but he would be there as a representative of Christ. He would come in Jesus' name or by his authority (Jno. 14:26). So when the church came into its established state Christ was there because the Holy Spirit was there in his name, or by his authority. Now, Farrell can complain about our telling him that he does not understand the scriptures all he wants, but the plain truth is, he doesn't understand them. His thinking is carnal and the carnally minded cannot comprehend spiritual things (1 Cor. 2:14). The statement from Wheless' book is but one example of the many blunders that infidels make in falsely accusing God and his word. Their worldly wisdom does not allow them to see what God really had to say on the matter. So why should we apologize for telling Till, and others of his faith, that they do not understand the wisdom of God because they seek after worldly wisdom? It's the truth!

They do not understand why Christ had to die on the cross because they do not understand that God cannot allow sin into heaven. Sin found its way into heaven once, and look at all the problems it caused. There was war in heaven, Satan and his band of followers were dispelled. Satan came to earth and because of Adam and Eve giving in to the temptation he put before them, sin came into the world. If man is to enter heaven, he must be cleansed of his sin. The only thing that will take care of sin is the blood of Christ (1 Pet. 1:18,19). Man had sin in his life and therefore had nothing to offer God to have his sins removed.. Man could not do it himself. Therefore, Christ came down to earth, lived a sinless life (Heb. 4:15) and died upon the cross for man's sins. He could redeem man with his own blood, his own life because he lived sinlessly. He had something to offer. Thus, it was the only way that man could come to God. God loved man so much that he allowed Jesus to do that so that man could have eternal life (Jno. 3:16).

You know, I find it difficult to believe that I would have to lecture to a former church of Christ preacher on this simple topic. It makes me wonder if the man was ever truly converted to Christ. O, he says he was, but when I read statements like what he made in the article, "The Wisdom of the World" it makes me wonder. He is on record as saying that he never understood how there could be three distinct personalities in the Godhead and yet there be only one God. Well, if he never understood that simple concept, how can he claim that he ever truly converted to Christ? It's as simple as saying that a husband and wife are two people but they are one flesh (Eph. 5:31). It's as simple as saying that there are many members of the church, but there is only one body (1 Cor. 12:20). The members of the church are to be one (united) as Jesus and the Father are one (united), and they are even to be one (united) in God (Jno. 17:2021). Why is that so difficult to understand? Yet, somehow Farrell Till, in all his worldly wisdom, does not understand simple concepts like what we have mentioned.

Farrell talks about how if we could ever recognize circular reasoning, we would see the foolishness of our own wisdom. He really needs to lecture us on begging the question (circular reasoning) doesn't he? The man does not even understand what constitutes the fallacy of begging the question. I have been dealing with him for more than six years and he begs the question more than any man I have ever met. For example, in our written debate I charged him with teaching that the Bible has contradictions in it because it was written solely by humans. He replied with: "I believe that there are contradictions in the Bible, because there are contradictions in the Bible. I have seen them many times." You talk about circular reasoning, that one takes the cake. He believes that there are contradictions in the Bible because there are contradictions in the Bible? This proves nothing, it reasons in a circle. It's like saying I believe that there is a God because there is a God! Now how long do you figure it would take Farrell to accuse me of circular reasoning if I were to say that? He would no doubt point out the fact that my statement did not prove that there is a God, it rather assumed the existence of God. Nor would the statement prove why one should believe in God's existence. It simply asks the hearer to accept that assumption, as fact, with no proof. Well, if it works for him, it works for us. His statement does not prove that there are contradictions in the Bible. His statement does not show why one should believe that there are contradictions in the Bible. It simply assumes that there are and then asks the hearer to accept that assumption as fact without his having to give any proof. So he should not be lecturing on circular reasoning. He has no room to talk.

He says when we tell him that he doesn't understand the wisdom of God because he doesn't understand the crucifixion, it is the same as flatearthers dismissing scientific evidence for the rotundity of the earth as "the wisdom of the world." Well, maybe the flatearthers do make such an argument, but the Bible talks about the rotundity of the earth in Isa. 40:22 where it says that God sits "above the circle of the earth." The word for circle is the word "Khoog" which when it is in the masculine gender, means a "circle, a sphere" (The Analytical Hebrew And Chaldee Lexicon, p.249). I made this argument in the very first issue of this publication and invited Farrell to respond to it. His response was that it did not matter what the word "Khoog" meant ("Khoog, SchmoogIt Does Not Matter, Challenge, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 3,4). He tried to pit Strong and Young against Davidson to make his case. He also went to several liberal translations to make his case. However, he never proved that the word "Khoog" when in the masculine gender did not mean: "a circle, a sphere." Flatearthers cannot logically say that the evidence for the rotundity of the earth is the wisdom of the world because Isaiah wrote about the world being round centuries before modern man came to the conclusion.

Then he tells us that those of us who believe in the Bible teach that the socalled scientific evidence for evolution is just the wisdom of the world. What scientific evidence has determined that evolution is a reality? By definition the word science means: "knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws esp. as obtained and tested through scientific method" (Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, p.1026). Scientific method is defined as: "principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses" (Ibid). Have I missed something somewhere? Have scientists been able to observe and experiment with evolution? Have they tested their hypotheses' on evolution? What data have they collected through observation and experiment to prove that evolution is fact? Unless I am misreading Webster, science has to be observed through one or more of the empirical senses. Since there is no empirical evidence for evolution, it cannot be called a science. What category does evolution fall into? Philosophynot science.

Why do we call evolution the "wisdom of the world"? Simply because there is no truth in it. Christians do not consider true science as the wisdom of the world. We only consider false science as the wisdom of the world. The wisdom of the world is always that which is false. The true Christian has no problem with the shape of the earth (Isa. 40:22), or the paths of the sea (Psa. 8:8), or that there is life in the blood (Gen. 9:4) or anything else that is truly science. What we do have problems with is when men call evolution a science though it cannot be proven scientifically (tested by the five empirical senses). Why is it, then, that evolutionists argue that evolution has been proven scientifically? They look at changes taking place within a species and they argue for evolution on that basis. However, what they need to understand is that they are not seeing changes in one species becoming another (i.e., monkey becoming a man), but rather changes within their own species.

Mr. Till informs us that Jesus attacked human illnesses by casting out devils. However, he says that the wisdom of the world "invented microscopes, discovered microbes, and viruses, and then conquered diseases with vaccines and drugs." I would like for him to show one place where the Bible claims that Jesus healed diseases by casting out devils. He healed plenty of people, and he casted out devils, but he did not heal by casting out devils. If he thinks he can show where the Bible makes such a claim, let him produce it. Perhaps he refers to Matthew 17:1518 where the Bible says that a man brought his son to Jesus to be healed and Jesus casted out a devil. Verse 16 says that the boy was a lunatic. Some versions mistranslate and say that he was epileptic. However, the word there is "selaniadzetai" which comes from "selainai" and simply means: "to be lunatic" (The Analytical Greek Lexicon Revised, p.365). The word "lunatic" means: "...insane..." (Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, p.678). There is nothing here about epilepsy. Don't you think that if a devil entered your body that you might become a lunatic? Well, I am sure that Mr. Till has other passages to bring up, so we will allow him the space to do that if he wishes.

Till tells us that "the wisdom of God rebuked Galileo, but the wisdom of the world has long confirmed that he was right about the heliocentric nature of our solar system." Question: "Where does the Bible ever teach that the sun is not the center of our solar system?" Maybe he is talking about where the scriptures talk about the sun rising and setting. Genesis 15:17 is one such place: "And it came to pass, that, when the sun went down...." Another place is Mark 16:2: "And very early in the morning the first day of the week, they came unto the sepulchre at the rising of the sun." Mr. Till doesn't seem to realize that we use the same terminology today when we talk about sunrise and sunset. The weather forecasters use those phrases every time they give the weather. Are they ignorant of science? In answer to the question: "Why do we say that the sun rises and sets?" the answer was given: "The sun only appears to rise in the east, climb higher into the sky, then sets in the west. (Astronomers call this apparent motion.) (The Book Of Knowledge, Vol. 1&2, p.44). So when the Bible talks about the sun rising and setting, it is not using prescientific terminology any more than our weather forecasters do when they use the same terms.

The scriptures have never taught that diseases such a smallpox came about by witchcraft or as the work of Satan. Preachers may have taught this, but preachers have been known to teach all sorts of things. Some preachers taught, centuries ago, that the Bible taught that the world was flat, but we have already seen that the Bible teaches no such thing. Some preachers teach that the Bible teaches the "faith only" doctrine and that baptism is not essential to man's salvation. However, even Mr. Till knows that this is not the case. Even he knows that preachers teaching the "faith only" doctrine does not make the Bible teach such. Why, then, will he contend that the Bible teaches the flatearth concept simply because preachers (past and present) say that it teaches such? Simply because he needs the argument on the "flatearth" concept to shore up his flimsy position that the Bible is not inspired by God.

He says that Bible fundamentalists are right "when they say that the Bible teaches that life on the earth resulted from acts of special creation that God performed over a period of six days about 6000 years ago...." We do not know exactly how long ago God created the earth; conservative scholars speculate that it was done somewhere around ten thousand years ago. However, we do know that evolution geologists have not proven that the earth is billions of years old. There is simply no way that they can possibly know that. There are too many problems with the evolutionary theory to accept it as fact. While it is not our intention to discuss the evolutionary theory, in this article, I would like to invite Mr. Till to prove Dr. Dawkin's statement in debate on the subject of creation vs. evolution. I will gladly run it in Challenge if he will just agree to debate me. However, I deny that all available relevant evidence proves Darwin's theory. For a comprehensive discussion on Darwin's theory read Bill Carrell's article "Natural Selection" beginning on page 13 of this issue. Maybe Mr. Till would like to respond to it.

Mr. Till tells us that the more educated people are the less likely they are to practice orthodox religion. He tells us that religion orthodoxy depends upon ignorance. I beg to differ with him on both accounts. There are many very educated people who continue to be strong Christians. Men such as Thomas B. Warren who holds a Ph.D. in Philosophy, Dr. Bert Thompson who is a scientist in the field of Biology and many others seem to trust the Bible more with every bit of education that they get. Orthodox religion is nothing more than established religion. Christianity depends upon knowledge of God's word. As earlier pointed out, the Bible does not condemn knowledge, but it does condemn knowledge of evil. Worldly knowledge is not medical knowledge, nor is it scientific knowledge. Worldly knowledge is fleshly knowledge, the knowledge of evil.

Till quoted Paul in 1 Cor. 1:26: "For you see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh...are called" in an attempt to show that men who are educated in medical and scientific knowledge will not be believers in God and his word. However, Paul said that "not many wise men after the flesh...are called." The words "after the flesh" comes from the Greek words "Kata sarka." The word "Kata" simply means "according to." The word "sarka" means: "flesh, mere humanity, human fashion" (The Analytical Greek Lexicon Revised, p.362). This passage has absolutely nothing to do with medical or scientific knowledge. It simply means that those who are wise in mere humanity or human fashion (because they are so devoted to doing for themselves that they) will not be interested in doing for God. When Farrell says that this has reference to scientific or even medical wisdom he is doing nothing more than taking the passage out of its context to shore up his flimsy position that the Bible is not the inspired word of God. Yet, what can we expect from a man who contends that we cannot go to the context of a passage to find out what it says; who contends that every verse must stand upon its own merits?

He tells us that "(m)any beliefs of today's most radical Bible fundamentalists would have been considered rank heresy by the most educated Christians of a thousand years ago." I'm not very sure of the truthfulness of that statement. Agreed there were many who called themselves Christians who held many false beliefs concerning science, but they did not get this knowledge from the Bible. The Bible has always taught that the earth is round. The Bible has always taught that life is in the blood. The Bible has always taught that the sea has paths. The Bible is not a science text book, but where it has spoken concerning science it has spoken correctly. How did religious people of a thousand years ago get their false scientific and medical views? Probably because those were the popular views of the day, and they adapted the popular views. The Bible surely has not changed. It says the same thing today that it said a thousand years ago.

Till says that preachers (because our paychecks come from the church) know the threat that atheism poses on us, so we suppress knowledge and teach ignorance. Right! That is why I put both sides of the issue in Challenge, because I am afraid to give atheism a fair hearing. I want my readers to be ignorant, so I put both sides in my paper for all to see. Give me just a small break. Till thinks that preachers are so ill equipped as far as knowledge of other things to make a living at, that we would do anything to protect our jobs. Myself, I can be a machinist and make far more money than what I make here. I worked for TRW for several years as a machinist and set up man. For four years I was a boiler technician in the Navy and could, by far, make more money than what I make as a preacher. I made a very good liv- ing selling Life, Accident, Homeowners Auto and Health insurance, and could easily go back to that if I suddenly found myself without a place to preach. I am certified by the State of Missouri as a police officer and work as a (Reserve) deputy sheriff for the county Sheriff's department where I live. I worked as a manager trainee for Radio Shack in Kansas City. I only need one more year of schooling to become an electronic technician. Man I have so many things that I could do, other than being a preacher, I would not have to worry one bit about what would happen to me financially if I suddenly found myself without a place to preach. Every one of those, except maybe being a policeman, would pay me far more than what I make as a preacher. I make a good living, but I do not do it for the money. I am sure that most preachers are in the same position I am in. They had to come from somewhere, but Till makes us sound like that we could not do anything else if we suddenly were without a place to preach. So, according to him, we work hard to keep people in ignorance so we can keep our paychecks coming in.

I preach, so that souls can be saved. If I warn people about atheism it is, not, because of my fear of losing a job, I am afraid of people being eternally lost. So do not impugn the motives of every preacher in the world. But that, too, is the wisdom of infidels. They speak without ever looking to see if their statements will hold water.

The wisdom of infidels vs. the wisdom of God. Paul rightly asked: "Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world...God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise" (1 Cor. 1:20,27). The world calls the word of God foolishness, but it cannot overcome the word of God. The disputers of this world can ridicule the word of God, they can weaken people's faith, but they will never destroy the word. They cannot understand the word of God because they have the wisdom of infidels and the word of God is the wisdom of God.

Letter #508 from JM Continues from Last Month (Part ff)

[Point #21 in our pamphlet was: If God created everything (Col. 1:16, Eph. 3:9, Rev. 4:11, John 1:3) then he created the world's evil (Isa. 45:7, Lam. 3:38). Thus, he should be held responsibleED]

JM's Defense is: This gets back to objection #3. God made everything, but he did not make it evil. Satan rebelled against God, and Adam and Eve allowed sin to come into the world through their disobedience. Man uses things that God gave for good, to make evil things. This is hardly God's fault, and it is unfair to blame God with it.

Editor's Response to Letter #508 (Part ff)

Again, JW [sic], we see that logic is not one of your strong suits. Either God created everything or he didn't. There is no inbetween. Scripture says in Col. 1:16 and Eph. 3:9 that God created everything and you also stated, 'God created everything.' That settles the matter. In groping for an answer you say God create everything but he didn't create evil. That's a contradiction. If Satan rebelled against God and Adam and Eve allowed sin to come into the world, then god did not create everything. But you are drifting off into the secondary consideration of how sin came about according to Christian theology which is irrelevant. What matters is that God either is or is not the source.

Letter #508 Continues (Part gg)

...There are places in the Bible, however, that seem to indicate that God does do evil.... How can these things be reconciled with the fact that God does not do evil? Simply by realizing that whatever God allows, is attributed to him. God is the ultimate source of power and authority. This being the case, we need to realize that even evil must be allowed by God, or else it would not exist. Thus in that sense God creates evil. When one looks at the overall context of the Bible, there is no problem with the Bible at all. The figure of speech used here is 'anthropopathea' or the ascribing of human attributes to God....

Editor's Response to Letter #508 (Part gg)

Don't be silly, JM; of course there is a problem and your 'God allows' subterfuge just won't fly. You not only said he created everything, which by definition means he must have created evil, but key verses clearly show that God didn't just 'allow' evil, he created it, he's the source, it's his idea. Through a subtle ruse you are trying to say he didn't created everything. You might want to read our commentary on God in the July 1992 issue of BE. There aren't just places in the Bible that 'seem' to indicate that God does evil. There are verses that flatly state he is the source. Biblical readers are not ascribing attributes to God; the Bible is, and it is doing so in no uncertain terms.

Letter #508 Continues (Part hh)

[Point #22 in our pamphlet was: In Psalm 139:711 we are told God is everywhere. If so, why would God need to come down to earth to see a city (Gen. 11:5) when he already here and how could Satan leave the presence of the Lord (Job 1:2, 2:7)ED]

JM's Defense is: Again the figure of speech 'anthropopathea' is used here, in another one of its aspects. God does not need to come down to see what is going on, but he is said to come down so that man may understand him. Satan cannot literally leave the presence of the Lord, but he is said to be able so that men could understand God.

Editor's Response to Letter #508 (Part hh)

You can bring in more irrelevant verbiage, JM! Who cares why he came down or if he needs to come down at all. That doesn't address the basic problem. How can he come down if he is already there? That's the issue! Don't try to change the focus. And where are you getting this stuff about him coming down 'so that many may understand him'? Where is that in Scripture, or is this another concoction. [sic] And what do you mean, 'Satan cannot literally leave the presence of the Lord'? Don't you believe Job 1:12 ('So Satan went forth from the presence of the Lord') or do you prefer to interpret as you see fit. Aren't you fundamentalists the ones who constantly complain about Christian liberals leaving the literal interpretation of Scripture when they're in a bind? And here you are, practicing the same dishonest scholarship. If you spent as much time reading and accepting the book as is, as you do in interpreting and redefining for expediency's sake, you'd be far better off. This 'anthropopathea' nonsense you keep tossing out is nothing more than a subterfuge to escape an impasse.

Letter #508 Continues (Part ii)

[Point #23 in our pamphlet was: For justice to exist, punishment must fit the crime. No matter how many bad deeds one commits in this world, there is a limit. Yet hell's punishment is inifiteED].

JM's Defense is: The reason that Mr. McKinsey sees a problem here is because he does not understand the nature of sin and of God. There is also a limit to what man can do because he is finite. If man was infinite I have a feeling that the punishment for crimes would be greater than what they are. God is an infinite being, who cannot make allowances for sin. God is of purer eyes than to behold sin and he cannot allow it. Mr. McKinsey does not see the terrible nature of sin in the eyes of God because he does not think that sin is very bad. To him, and people like him, sin is nothing more than a child's disregard for parental rule. In God's eyes even this is terrible (for children who know the difference between right and wrong.)

Yet [sic], hell is infinitely greater than any punishment we as humans could inflict upon evildoers. However, it needs to be remembered that God does not want any to perish, but all to come to repentance. (2 Peter 2:9). It was terrible enough that God

had to give his Son as the only way from sin back to God. If one refuses to accept the gracious gift of God's sacrifice, then God will punish them eternally. Why, because the price paid was infinitely greater than anything we could ever have offered. God gave his sinless Son that we might have life.

Editor's Response to Letter #508 (Part ii)

Why a rambling entanglement of vapid gobbledygook! First, you state that, 'If man was infinite I have a feeling that the punishment for crimes would be greater than what they are,' which is nothing more than speculation on you part and does nothing to excuse God's behavior. Even more important, how could the punishment be any greater, when it's already infinite. For goodness sake, what do you want? How could man becoming infinite extend the punishment any further, when one's residency in hell is already eternal? Second, you state, 'God is an infinite being, who cannot make allowances for sin,' when he obviously must; otherwise, everyone will end up in hell. Third, the crux of your argument seems to be that God is so pure that all sin is horrific in God's eyes. Consequently, only infinite punishment is justified. Don't be absurd. That's no answer. That has nothing to do with justice. You mean that because God is so offended, infinite punishment is appropriate? God makes no allowances for degrees of culpability. That's a just God! [sic] I repeat my original question. How is God fitting the crime to the punishment and where's the justice? Fourth, I take great exception to your wholly unjustified remark that, 'Mr. McKinsey does not think that sin is very bad.' Quite the contrary, I find the amount of antisocial behavior prevalent throughout our society to be nothing short of appalling and I can't help but note that people of the most profound religious convictions are in charge of the political/social/economic/ideological scene while it runs rampant. And I have never looked upon felonious acts such as murder and rape as 'nothing more than a child's disregard for parental rule.' Are you serious? Where are you getting this poison. [sic] Fifth, you state that, 'if one refuses to accept the gracious gift of God's sacrifice, then God will punish them eternally.' How utterly outrageous! You mean the mere act of simply failing to accept a gift merits as much punishment as if one had committed the most heinous crimes imaginable? If you look upon this whole arrangement as just, I only hope I never enter a courtroom in which you are the judge.

Letter #508 Continues (Part jj)

[The 24th and final point in our pamphlet entitled: 'THE BIBLE IS GOD'S WORD? [sic] was: And lastly, in Acts 20:35 Paul told people to 'remember the words of Jesus, how he said 'it is more blessed to give than to receive.' Since Jesus never made such a biblical statement, isn't Paul guilty of deception?ED.]

JM's Defense is: Mr. McKinsey labors to find something with the Bible in bringing up this objection. Who said that if Jesus made such a statement that it would ever have to be recorded. John said: "many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book....' (John 20:30). If Jesus did many other signs which were not written, would it not be reasonable to

say that Jesus said many things which were not written. Paul was speaking to the Ephesian elders who had no doubt been taught many of the sayings of Jesus (by the apostles) which had not been written down.

Editor's Response to Letter #508 (Part jj)

After all these months, JM, you've finally made a point that has some degree of credibility. As long as you and your compatriots are willing to admit that there is no such statement by Jesus anywhere in the Bible; as long as you and your cohorts are willing to promise that you will never again use this quotation by Paul without telling your listeners that the alleged comment by Jesus is nowhere to be found in the Bible, and as long as you are willing to admit that you are assuming Paul is correctly quoting an extrabiblical comment by Jesus which he managed to come across somehow, I am willing to concede that Paul might be correct. But that is a big 'might.' Even before placing this problem into my pamphlet, I realized biblicists would probably use your defense. But I inserted it anyway, because I felt the problem was of such importance as to merit consideration, and I knew how I would respond. I think most people will see your transparent defense for what it really is, a rationalization. But if they don't, they have at least been made aware of the problem.

Letter #508 Concludes After Nearly One Year (Part kk)

So where are the great problems are supposed to make us tremble in our boots? Where are the ironclad arguments that conclusively destroy the credibility of the Bible. Mr. McKinsey started out by saying that these difficulties could not be solved, only rationalized. Well, he can call it what he wants, but we would like to see him respond, point by point to the responses we have given. Maybe he will write another tract answering these responses.

It is our hope and prayer that someone will see the truth by reading this booklet

and come to God, or have his faith strengthened. If this is done, we will be paid back a hundred fold.

Editor's Concluding Response to Letter #508 (Part kk)

If you didn't tremble in your boots, JM, it's probably because you were too busy drowning in them. You entire pamphlet is anemic, deceptive, and erroneous and only substantiates the truth of my original comment: These problems can't be solved, only rationalized. You hoped that I would write a reply to your document and respond to your points one by one. I trust you aren't too disappointed in light of the fact that every issue of BE since September 1992 has exposed one or more points in your booklet entitled: 'Still a Perfect Work of Harmony' [sic] which attacked my pamphlet 'The Bible is God's Word? [sic]' You ask: Where are the ironclad arguments that destroy the credibility of the Bible? Take off your Christian blindfold, and you'll see wreckage strewn all about. Like winds from Hurricane Andrew, even if you personally can't see them, objective observers can sure see the results of their force and destruction. Contrary to the title of your publication, if there is one thing the Bible is not, it's a Perfect Work of Harmony. It's anything but. As I have said so often, the Bible has more holes in it than a backdoor screen. [Dennis McKinsey's address is 3158 Sherwood Park Drive, Springfield, OH 45505]

This is the final article in this exchange. It has been a pleasure for me to engage in this exchange for two reasons: [1] Because I am always happy to stand up and defend God's word when people like Mr. McKinsey attempt to tear it down. The more I debate these people the more faith I have in the word of God. I see them throw their best at me, and their best always falls short of proof. [2] I am also pleased because with the last printed issue (Winter 94) Challenge went on the Internet with which will give this exchange an even greater circulation. My reason for being grateful for the wide circulation is because I have tried now to get Dennis to debate me, publicly and he has refused. He wanted to get me in front of an audience and ask me questions and me give answers; and every time I would begin to give an answer he would cut in like he did Gaston Cogdill. However, he has refused to have an actual debate with me; a debate where each of us would have a specified amount of time to speak and rebut each others arguments. When I began this discussion I had no idea that in a few years it would have the wide circulation capability that it now has. We are in the process of getting all past issues of Challenge (which will include all past exchanges in this discussion) on the Internet. We hope to have it done in the next couple of months. So, I am well pleased!

I believe that people will see that atheists have no real argument. I have spent the last 6 years debating atheists and one thing is painfully evident: none of them have any rational, decent argument. I believe that McKinsey's defenses show this to be true. I am sure that there are many who will continue to laud McKinsey as being right and taking control in this exchange, however, there are people on his side of the issue who were able to see McKinsey's weaknesses. One such person wrote Mr. McKinsey a letter which was published in the July '93 issue of Biblical Errancy. This letter said:

Dear Dennis. I am a loyal subscriber to B.E., but let me say at the outset that I am not a 'Biblicist', 'Religionist', literalist, or fundamentalist, though I do believe in God....

I wrote this letter in reference to B.E. #120, p.5 second column, about the 'stalls' and 'baths'. I see no reason why copyists' errors may not have been involved in the former case....

I have far more serious problems with the 'baths.' You say: 'Nothing is said about a container.' I almost fell out of my chair when I read that....

It appears that you have no idea what a 'bath,' in the context, is. Well...a 'bath' was an old Hebrew unit of volume equal to approximately 10 U.S. gallons. This leads to a very serious problem which I will get to in a moment. But first, did you seriously interpret 'baths,' as 'bathtubs.' I find this positively mindblowing if you did" (Biblical Errancy, Issue 127, pp.5,6).

Apparently this person was not the only person to write to Dennis about his "blunder" on the "baths" of 1 Kgs 7:23 because in response Dennis wrote: "You are by no means the only reader who wrote a letter to us to express disagreement with what I said in regards to the baths" (Ibid, p.6).

Dennis went on and apologized for the error and said that he should have read that section more carefully. However, he closed with this statement: "I have never claimed perfection but I'm lightyears ahead of my competition." Well, if blunders like that one puts him lightyears ahead of us, then I guess he is way ahead of us, because his articles in this exchange were literally filled with blunders some even worse than that one. Reader, remember these blunders:

1. Remember in the second exchange McKinsey said: "Jerry is going to systematically refute our pamphlet when he can't even get the title correct..." (Challenge, Autumn 1992, p.4) because I misprinted the title of his tract on my booklet? Remember my response: "If I had been you, I would have never made the statement: 'Jerry is going to systematically refute our pamphlet when he can't even get the title correct.' I mean, after all, you got my name wrong in the July 1991 issue of Biblical Errancy: 'Letter #440 from Jerry MacDonald, Editor of CHALLENGE in Sullivan, Missouri (Part a) Fundamentalist Christian Apologist Jerry MacDonald inserted the following in his Spring 1991 Issue of CHALLENGE....'" The name is "McDonald." I pointed out that neither his mistake nor mine would affect the ability of either writer to refute the other's argument. However, McKinsey made a mountain out of a mole hill, only to find out that he made a mistake just as bad.

2. What about in the third exchange where Dennis argued that Romans 5:18 taught that all men are condemned because Adam sinned? I pointed out that Dennis stopped reading too soon. I pointed out that if Dennis' position was true then the rest of that verse: "even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life" taught that all men are saved because of what Christ did. I showed that Dennis just didn't read far enough and overlooked that part of the verse. Isn't that exactly what he did with 1 Kgs. 7:23? He just didn't read far enough?

3. In the third exchange Dennis argued that if a thing was ever perfect, it could not choose to be imperfect. He was showing that if Adam was ever perfect he could not choose to do wrong, thus attempting to show that Adam would have had no choice to make, if he was perfect. He also condemned the Bible because he thought that it teaches that babies are born in sin and he disagreed with that theory (2nd exchange). He went on to show that the Bible lied because it said that Noah was perfect and if one is perfect he could never choose to be imperfect. Remember my response? I pointed out that even he believed that babies were sinless (perfect according to his definition of perfect), but some of them will grow up to be sinful (imperfect according to his definition of imperfect). I then pointed out that if sinless babies could grow up and choose to sin (which they do), then according to McKinsey's theory, they were never perfect to begin with. This would do one of two things: [A] It would relegate his arguments on the Bible being wrong for saying that babies were born in sin (according to his belief of what the Bible teaches on the subject), to the trash bin, or [B] he would have to deny his own argument about if a thing was ever perfect it could not possibly choose to become imperfect. That was a good one, wasn't it?

4. Remember his foolishness about the figure of speech "anthropopathea" being created by my forerunners who, "created a wordanthropopatheaout of nothing concrete, managed to have it put in the dictionary...." I pointed out that "anthropopathea" is a valid figure of speech that we use every day. Example: "the long arm of the law." The law doesn't have an arm, it doesn't have a body, but it is said that it does have an arm, and does so by a valid figure of speech called "anthropopathea" ( Challenge Spring 1993, p.6).

5. Remember in the same exchange where he asked: "Where are you getting this coreign nonsense anyway? Show me one verse that even implies such a statement, let alone states as much...since you created this coreign nonsense out of nothing, can you provide one instance of a coreign in the entire Bible? In fact, can you provide one other instance of a coreign in all of ancient history, be it biblical or otherwise?" (Ibid). My response was that I was not the one who created the coreign argument. I pointed out that had he not deleted 232 words from that section of my booklet, he would have seen that John Gill, who lived in the 1800's, argued for that on that very alleged discrepancy, and that Kimchi and Abarbinel (12th century scholars) also argued for a coreign on that very alleged discrepancy. I pointed out that I could not just name one instance of a coreign, but several that were undisputed by anyone.

Example #1: "And it came to pass that at midnight the Lord smote all the first born in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh that sat on his throne...". This could only be a coreign, because it said that the firstborn son of the Pharaoh, who sat on the Pharaoh's throne, was killed. The only way that such could happen would have been for a coreign to exist.

Example #2: Solomon coreigned with David for a time, and even Farrell Till admitted such.

Example #3: Gleason Archer gave 6 examples of coreigns in the Bible. [1] Asa died in 896 BC, but his son Jehosaphat became coregent in 872 making three or four years of coregency. [2] Jehosaphat died in 848, but his son Jehoram became coregent in 853. [3] Amazia died in 767, but his son Azariah became coregent in 790 (twenty three years of coregency, and I was only arguing for 20 with Jehoram and Ahaziah). [5] Jotham died in 736 or 735, but Ahaz became coregent in 743. [6] Ahaz died in 725, but his son Hezekiah became coregent in 738.

6. Then in the fifth exchange there was his blunder on the "baths" of 1 Kings 7:23.

7. Also in the fifth exchange he ridiculed me for going to the Greek version of the Old Testament to see how a Hebrew word was used, and asked: "What kind of scholarship is that?" My response was that atheist author, Dr. Robert Countess, used that very method (looking at the Greek version of the O.T. to trace the meaning of a Hebrew word) in a recent issue of The Skeptical Review (Challenge, pp, 1,10).

8. Remember his blunder in the sixth exchange where he tried to make an analogy of my listing all of the things that one has to do to be saved (when all are completed one's sins are washed away, but each one by themselves won't save a person), to saying that "a ford is a car, a honda is a car, and a pontiac is a car, but none of them are cars unless they are all cars. Each is independent of the other and is to be judged on its own merits" was nothing more than the fallacy of false analogy (comparing apples to oranges). A Ford can be a car whether the Honda, or Pontiac are cars. The Ford is not dependent upon the Honda or the Pontiac. However, one cannot become a Christian simply by hearing, or simply by believing, or simply be repenting, or simply by confessing, or even simply by being baptized. I pointed out that each one relied upon the others. That when one did all those things, he could be forgiven from his past sins. Remember that blunder? (Challenge, Autumn, 1993, pp. 79).

9. Remember the seventh exchange where he misunderstood what I said when I wrote: "There are other flying creatures (such as the Pteranodon, and whether Mr. MCKINSEY likes it or not, the Bible does speak of dinosaurs (Job 40:1517). He then attacked what I said with this remark: "what on earth does Job 40:1517 have to do with dinosaurs, and where does it say anything about fourlegged animals?" (Challenge, Winter 1993 p.7). I was not saying that Job 40:1517 spoke of four legged flying animals, I used that to show that dinosaurs did exist, and the Pteranodon was a dinosaur. I used the Pteranodon to show that it was a four legged flying animal. But in MCKINSEY's rush for something to say, he blundered on what I had said.

10. Remember the eighth exchange where he said: "What difference does the kind of war make? It was a war wasn't it? And I don't remember saying or even implying that it was fought with tanks and guns. I said Revelation 12:7 alleges there was war in heaven. I fail to see what part of the statement is false..." (Challenge Summer 1994, p.13). I pointed out that I had not said that his statement on Revelation 12:7 was false, I said that McKinsey shouldn't complain about war in heaven because he loves a good fight. I stated: "When one reads this publication (BE, jdm) one can easily see that Mr. McKinsey's statement is not only false, but it is false to the point that he goes around waging [spiritual] war upon those who believe in the inspiration of the Bible." The statement that I said was false was: "Why would I want to go to a place (heaven jdm) in which war can occur? That's exactly what I am trying to escape aren't' you?" That statement was false. However, Dennis, again, didn't read my statement very well, and blundered big time.

11. Remember the blunder he made with this statement: "if Scripture is the 'perfect' as you allege and it has not come, then how could the 'in part' have existed?" (Challenge, Autumn 1994, p.13). I pointed out that the perfect was the completed written revelation, and the inpart was the partial knowledge, etc (1 Cor. 13:810). For him to say that "in part" could not have existed because the "perfect" was not complete would be analogous to saying that part of a house could not exist unless it all existed. That was just one of the blunders he made in that issue, there were at least three.

12. Remember in the 10th exchange where he tried to say, in his tract, that the Bible was not a fit moral guide because of socalled pornographic statements, which by implication made the Bible pornographic. However, when I pointed this out in my booklet, he stated: "Where have I ever said the Bible is pornographic?" (Challenge, Winter 1994, p.2). If the Bible is not a fit moral guide because of pornographic statements, then it is pornographic. How many pornographic statements would it take to make the Bible pornographic? How

many pornographic scenes would it take to make a movie a pornographic movie?

13. Finally in this issue, I stated in my booklet: "The reason that Mr. McKinsey sees a problem here is because he does not understand the nature of sin and of God. There is also a limit to what man can do because he is finite. If he was infinite I have a feeling that the punishment for crimes would be greater than what they are." McKinsey's response: "Even more important, how could the punishment be any greater, when it's already infinite.... How could man becoming infinite extend the punishment any further when one's residency in hell is already eternal?" My my! We are confused aren't we. I didn't say that punishment as far as God is concerned would be greater if man was infinite, I was saying that punishment as far as man is concerned would be greater if we were infinite. If we were infinite, we would be infinite in every attribute, including justice. Because we are finite, we look at punishment in terms of degrees, rather than looking at it as God does; sin is sin and all sin must be punished. We are not like God, so we allow some crimes to slide by while we prosecute others very heavily. If we were infinite and like God we would be inflicting greater punishment upon evildoers, than what we do being finite. That is all that I meant by that statement. However, McKinsey gets his hackles up and misunderstands what I said. However, this is characteristic of the way he has done throughout this exchange.

In each and every exchange, there was at least one place where McKinsey made mistakes of such gravity as to bring embarrassment upon the atheistic community. If he is lightyears ahead of us, we must be the worlds biggest idiots, because this man can't even write an article without misinterpreting something that someone said, or failing to read all of what someone said, or simply not knowing what the Bible says.

Now to respond to his eleventh defense of his tract: The Bible Is God's Word ?. If God created everything, then he must have created evil. Therefore, he should be held responsible. As I previously said, God created everything, but he did not create it for evil. He created the tobacco plant, but he didn't intend for man to use it for evil. He created elements that are used in the chemicals that we make medicines out of, but he never intended them to be used for social or party drugs. We should use them for medications to help us when we are sick or injured. Man uses the things that God made for good, to do evil. Thus God should not be blamed for man's sins.

Mr. Mckinsey says: "Scripture says in Col 1:16 and Eph. 3:9 that God created everything and you also stated, 'God created everything.' That settles the matter. In groping for an answer you say God created everything but he didn't create evil. That's a contradiction." [1] I said, "God made everything, but he did not make it (everything) evil." [2] God did create everything that is good, everything that is useful to man. God did not create disease, that came about as a result of sin. God did not create death, that came about as a result of sin. God did not create sin, that came about as a result of Satan's rebellion to God. [3] There are verses which state that God created evil. As the creator he is charged with creating everything including evil. I quoted some of those places and McKinsey deemed them unnecessary so he left them out. Notice how "Dot" faithfully quoted my booklet:

"This gets back to objection # 3 God made everything, but he did not make it evil. Satan rebelled against God, and Adam and Eve allowed sin to come into the world through their disobedience. Man uses things that God gave for good, to make evil things. This is hardly God's fault, and it is unfair to blame God with it.

...There are places in the Bible, however, that seem to indicate that God does do evil.... How can these things be reconciled with the fact that God does not do evil? Simply by realizing that whatever God allows is attributed to him. God is the ultimate source of power and authority. This being the case, we need to realize that even evil must be allowed by God, or else it would not exist. Thus in that sense God creates evil. When one looks at the overall context of the Bible, there is no problem at all. The figure of speech used here is 'anthropopathea' or the ascribing of human attributes to God...."

Now notice what I wrote in my booklet:

"This gets back to objection # 3 God made everything, but he did not make it evil. Satan rebelled against God, and Adam and Eve allowed sin to come into the world through their disobedience. Man uses things that God gave for good, to make evil things. This is hardly God's fault, and it is unfair to blame God with it.

However, Isaiah 45:7 says: I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil. I the Lord do these things.' which seems to contradict Lamentations 3:38: 'Out of the mouth of the most High proceedeth not evil and good.' When one looks at the overall context of the Bible, it is consistently taught that God cannot do evil.. There are places in the Bible, however, that seem to indicate that God does do evil In 1 Kings chapter 22 we have the case of thee lying spirit being sent by God into the mouths of Ahab's prophets. 2 Samuel 24:1 tells us that God provoaked David to number the people, while 1 Chronicles 21:1 says that Satan provoaked David to do this. In 2 Thessalonians 2:10,11 tells us that God sends strong delusions to those who refuse to follow him so that they may believe a lie. How can these things be reconciled with the fact that God does not do evil? (Habakkuk 1:13) Simply by realizing that whatever God allows is attributed to him. God is the ultimate source of power and authority. This being the case, we need to realize that even evil must be allowed by God, or else it would not exist. Thus in that sense God creates evil. When one looks at the overall context of the Bible, there is no problem at all. The figure of speech used here is 'anthropopathea' or the ascribing of human attributes to God. There are many different aspects of this figure of speech, and this is but one of them."

The words in italics are the words that "Dot Dot Dot" McKinsey omitted from my booklet as being unimportant to what I was saying: all 153 of them. Do you realize just how many words that makes that Dennis has simply deleted from my booklet during the course of this discussion? I added them all up and came up with 1712 words. 1712 words were deemed unnecessary by McKinsey so he simply deleted them with an elipsis. In every case of his doing this he deleted explanations of the point I was making. Is that honorable debating?

Since I put that booklet into print, I have had the opportunity to go back and do some further study on Isa. 45:7: "I form the light and create darkness, I make peace and create evil...". The word evil has several meanings as I pointed out in my correspondence with Roy Smith, which was printed in the Winter '94 issue of Challenge. I pointed out that the word "evil" comes from the word "rah" and can mean: "affliction, bad, calamity, displease, distress, evil...grief, harm, heavy, hurt...sorrow, trouble, wickedness..." (Strong's Exhaustive Concordance, HEBREW AND CHALDEE LEXICON, p. 109). Also, Davidson said that the word means to be: evil, bad, worthless.II. evil, wicked. III. noxious hurtful.... IV. illfavored.... V. ill calamitous. VI. sad, sorrowful. VII. subst. (a) evil, wickedness; (b) evil, harm, injury, calamity" (The Analytical Hebrew And Chaldee Lexicon, p.688). From these quotations we can see that the word carries with it, several meanings. In one place it can mean wickedness, while another it will only mean hurt, harm, destruction, or calamity, while in yet another it will mean grief, heavy, hurt... sorrow. One just cannot pick one definition of a word and place that definition on that word every time it is used. The context must determine how the word is used.

In Isa. 45:7 God said, "I make peace and create evil...". In the passage peace is the opposite of evil. That is why I believe that the proper meaning for evil would be trouble, calamity, distress, or even affliction. God makes peace, but he also afflicts, or causes distress, or trouble. For those who worship God, he will make peace for them. However, those who do not, he will create trouble for them.

Now, this does not distract from the argument that I was making because it is true that whatever God allows, he is said to be the source of it. God allowed a lying spirit to go into the mouths of Ahab's prophets, but he is said to have sent that lying spirit (1 Kgs. 22). God is said to have provoaked David to number the people (2 Sam. 24:1), but Satan is also said to have provoaked David to do this (1 Chron. 21:1). All this says is that whatever God allows, he is said to have done. However, Isa. 45:7 is not in that category because the word evil there is opposite of peace, which would make it mean trouble, distress, affliction, etc.

McKinsey says: "Biblical readers are not ascribing attributes to God; the Bible is, and it is doing so in no uncertain terms." Thank you, Dennis! For once we are in agreement. The Bible ascribes human attributes to God by using the figure of speech "anthropopathea." This does not mean that God actually does those things, but they are being attributed to him because he allows them. I have never said that "Biblical readers are ascribing attributes to God." I have always said that the Bible does this, and it uses the figure of speech known as "anthropopathea" to do it. Maybe Dennis is beginning to see the light after all.

What about God coming down to see the tower of Babel (Gen. 11:5)? I pointed out that the Bible uses the figure of speech "anthropopathea" to help man understand what took place. God cannot literally come down because he is already there, but in order to condescend to man's level of intelligence the Holy Spirit employed the figure of speech "anthropopathea" (the ascribing of human attributes to God) so that man could understand.

Dennis became upset because I pointed out why God came down when he wanted to know how God came down. He says: "Who care why he came down or if he needs to come down at all. That doesn't address the basic problem. How can he come down if he is already there? That's the issue! Don't try to change the focus." God cannot literally come down because he is everywhere. However, so that man can understand, the figure of speech anthropopathea is used which ascribes human attributes to that which is not humannamely God. So the why is important because it is part of the whole scene.

Figures of speech are used throughout the Bible to help man have a clearer understanding of what is taking place. One cannot read the Bible without seeing the figures of speech used. For example Isaiah 59:1 says: "The Lord's hand is not shortened that it cannot save, neither his ear heavy that it cannot hear...." God cannot hear because he does not have a physical body, but anthropopathea is used here so that God could condescend to man's level so man could understand God. This was written so that God could condescend to man's level of intelligence so that man would be able to understand him. Its a valid figure of speech which is even recognized by our dictionaries.

Mr. McKinsey ridicules us for bringing up figures of speech, but I dare say that Mr. McKinsey could not even hold an intelligent conversation without using at least one figure of speech some where in the conversation. Remember in his second defense he said: "My advice to any Biblicist who sees this problem coming down the road is to flee to the hills in terror. Run for your life and don't look back, unless you don't mind being eaten alive"? (Challenge, Vol. 2, No. 3, p.4). Dennis, did you mean that in a literal sense? Did you mean that you atheists are a bunch of cannibals who go around eating their enemies? No, he was using the figure of speech called exaggeration, and all who read it understood that.

In his third defense he wrote: "And finally, your attempt to draw a distinction between "consequences" and "punishment" is stillborn because they are two sides of the same coin" (Challenge, Vol. 2, No. 4, p.7). Here he uses the figure of speech "anthropopathea" in which he ascribed a human attribute (being stillborn) to that which is not human (the distinction between 'consequences' and 'punishment')".

In his fourth defense he wrote: "Believe me my friend, you'll never get an award for reading the Bible with a critical eye" (Challenge, Vol. 3, No. 1, p.6). Here he uses a figure of speech called a "metaphor." People don't actually read with eyes that are critical, but ready objectively and think critically, so they are said to read with a critical eye. Also in the very next sentence he says: "You are so obsessed with defending the book at all costs that you don't hesitate to throw caution to the wind" Do I literally throw caution to the wind, no that is an exaggeration which is nothing more than a figure of speech. "You shot yourself in the foot right off the bat..." Again, he exaggerates. He knows full well that I have not shot myself in the foot, but he uses exaggeration for the sake of effect. I could go on and on, but I trust my point is made. He should not condemn us or the Bible for using figures of speech when he can't even write one article without using figurative language, some of which he has even condemned.

Satan can't literally leave the presence of God, but because "anthropopathea" is used to describe God, Satan is said to leave his presence. Remember God does not have a physical body, he is not confined to time and space, but so we may understand him, this figure is used.

We don't condemn liberals for using figures of speech, we condemn them because they say that everything is figurative when there are some things to be taken literally. The Book of Revelation uses figurative language and one would be wrong to take everything literally. By the same token, even though there are some figures used in the Book of Genesis, one is wrong for assuming that everything in that book is figurative. He says that the term "anthropopathea" is nothing more than a subterfuge to escape an imasse, but he uses that same figure of speech. Surely, the legs of the lame are not equal.

McKinsey does not understand the nature of sin or of God. He complains because God does not see things as man sees them. To man, there are degrees of sin, but to God all sin is the same. The sin of lying is the same as the sin of adultery (Rev. 21:8). The sin of hatred is the same as the sin of murder (Gal. 5:1921). The sin of being disobedient to parents is the same as the sin of homosexuality (Rom. 2:30,31). In man's eyes lying, hatred, and being disobedient to parents are small infractions which do not deserve stiff punishment, but in God's eyes all sin is sin and any sin will keep one out of heaven.

He says that he takes great exception to my remark that, "Mr. McKinsey does not think that sin is very bad." You mean, he does! Does McKinsey think that sin is a terrible thing? What about euthanasia, is that a terrible thing (1 Jno. 3:15). What about suicide or self-murder (Dr. Death)? Isn't that euthanasia? (Mt. 27:3-5). What about abortion, is that a terrible thing (Ex. 21:22,23)? Mr. McKinsey says that he has never looked upon felonious acts such as murder or rape, "as 'nothing more than a child's disregard for parental rule.'" He wanted to know where I get this what he calls poison? The Humanist Manifesto II, upholds abortion and suicide (euthanasia). Since it is the atheists bible, I figured that McKinsey, being the faithful atheist that he is, would go along with it. Maybe he doesn't. If not, then I apologize, but I have a feeling that he does. I have yet to meet an atheist who doesn't go along with this document. After all, it was signed by scores of atheists around the country. That's where I am getting it from Dennis.

His inability to understand the punishment involved by not accepting the gift by God only shows his ignorance of the Bible. He is supposed to be one who is highly educated concerning the Bible; after all, he is the one who goes around teaching a sort of "Sunday School in Reverse." Surely he understands the that the only way that one can have his sins washed away is by accepting this gift. If one refuses to accept this gift, then his sins will not be washed away, and it is that fact alone which will keep one from going to heaven. If one does not go to heaven, then he will go to hell. There will only be two places; heaven and hell. The world won't be here because it will be destroyed (2 Pet. 2:10,11), so man will not be able to continue to live on it. So, he will either go to heaven, or he will go to hell. If one does not accept God's gracious gift and have his sins washed away, then he will not be able to go to heaven. Rather he will go to hell.

There will be no degrees of punishment in hell any more than there will be degrees of reward in heaven. All those in hell will suffer the same amount of punishment (those who held eternal life in their hands and threw it away will have more to regret realizing what they threw away, but their punishment will be no greater than the person who never heard the gospel) and all those in heaven will receive the same amount of reward. This is something that seems to give Dennis a problem. Well, his inability to understand these things surely don't nullify the inspiration of the Bible.

Then he says, concerning my response to point 24 in his tract: "After all these months, JM, you've finally made a point that has some degree of credibility." Let me point out that it didn't take "all these months" for me to make that point. I made the point in my booklet, sent Dennis a copy of it, and it took him "all these months" to get to this point. Yet, he makes it sound as if I labored hard for "all these months" and finally made a point that has some degree of credibility.

Also I want to point out that this is almost exactly the point that I made in response to his point # 14. I said: "Mr. McKinsey thinks that if something Jeremiah spoke is not written in the Book of Jeremiah, that he did not say it." I pointed out that the passage is found in the Book of Zechariah but somewhere along the line Jeremiah spoke it. Mr. McKinsey objected to that argument. Now he says that this same kind of argument has some degree of credibility. Does that mean that my response to # 14 has some degree of credibility as well?

He says that he might be willing to concede that " Paul might be correct" if I am willing to promise never to quote this passage again without telling my hearers that this statement by Christ is nowhere recorded in the Bible. I'll make no such promise. If I was to make that statement every time I quoted that passage of scripture, the members here at Sullivan, would eventually run me out of town for being so shallow minded. I have yet to meet a Christian who has ever thought that this passage is written anywhere else in the Bible. Everyone that I know understands that this statement by Christ was not written down anywhere else. The only people I have ever met who think that this was a quotation from another place in the Bible, are atheists. Now, if Dennis (or one of his cronies) comes in to the assembly and if I know about that person's presence, I will make that statement for his/her sake, because they don't seem to understand even the most simplistic things about the Bible; so I would feel the obligation to get it down to where even they can get it. However, I won't do that for the members where I preach. They would think I was an idiot. Dennis thinks because he and other atheists don't understand simple things about the Bible that no one does. He is wrong about that.

No, I am not drowning in my boots. The only thing in this discussion that has been "anemic, deceptive, and erroneous" is McKinseys defense of his tract. Again, I ask: "Where are the ironclad arguments that destroy the credibility of the Bible?" As the title of my tract states, the Bible is, "Still A Perfect Work Of Harmony."

Let us see if Mr. McKinsey has anything further to write on the matter. I hope he does, this was such fun. ___________________________________

It is never my intention to misquote anyone, but once in a while it accidentally happens. In the Winter '94 issue of Challenge p.4, col. 2, line 3, in Farrell Till's article I printed: "...McDonald doesn't recognize the possibility that mistranslated..." when the word should be "mistranslation". The error is mine and not Farrell's. I apologize for the error and hope to keep such down to a minimum.

________________________________________

Bill Carrell

When something is confidently asserted to be true by those in authority, most people will accept it as true, usually without serious examination. "Natural Selection" is just such a dogma, hardly questioned by many in the scientific world, and reluctantly accepted even by some Christians who wish it weren't so. But is it as obviously true as it seems?

Natural Selection is that process whereby in the struggle for the limited resources for life on this planet the strong or better adapted tend to survive by crowding out the weak. As a general principle this obviously works, within limits. Predators look for the easier prey first, and so the weak and sickly are eliminated. As in the struggle for domination by the males within a species the stronger prevail. Thus in these two ways the species is purified and kept strong.

The process also works to preserve a species when climate or other environmental conditions change. Those best suited survive and produce offspring while the others perish. When bacteria become resistant to antibiotics it is not necessarily true that entirely new varieties are "evolved." Rather those already able to resist prevail and others perish.

Breeders use this principle to breed "new" kinds of plants and animals by taking advantage of the rich potential already existing in all living things. They bring together plants or animals that might never have bred in nature. Desirable characteristics are preserved as they occur, and varieties never seen before can be bred. But nothing really new is produced. The potential was always there.

Much of our modern technology is based on the principle of taking things that already exist "on the shelf," and combining them in desirable ways. Our resources are so rich and varied that clever men can come up with some wonderful products.

Darwin saw Natural Selection as "a power incessantly ready for action...". (Origin of the Species, p. 74). It would unerringly lead to the improvement of all species. When evidence led to conclusions opposed to his theory he speculated about unknown laws and processes which eventually would explain everything. But all that natural selection really does is to assure the unchanging stability of each species.

Experience in animal and plant breeding shows that variability is limited. Species can change and adapt. But a limit is reached, and extreme variations tend toward extinction or reversion to the original type. Also the fossil record shows no remains of the intermediate forms which should logically exist in abundance if life has evolved as evolutionists contend. The "Missing Link" doesn't exist!

Charles Darwin was puzzled and dismayed by the lack of evidence in the fossil record to support his theory. But he persisted in believing that there are no limits to the possibilities of change. He endowed Natural Selection with godlike power such that any species can and does continue to improve indefinitely, or develop into something that never existed before. "Owing to this struggle," he wrote, "variations, however slight and from whatever cause proceeding, if they be in any degree profitable..., will tend to the preservation of such individuals, and will generally be inherited by the offspring" (Origin of the Species, p.74). Thus it was easy to believe that apes might evolve into men.

For a theory to be valid it must have some "predictive value." It should be possible to say, "Since A is true, then B must follow." As we will see, however, evolution as commonly taught, is consistently in clear opposition to hard empirical evidence. It is not supported by experience, or by the geological record. Its advocates must constantly seek for ways to explain its failure to agree with the facts.

Darwin did not know what sources of change fed the process of Natural Selection as he saw it. Mutations are generally harmful to a species. Some believe they are always harmful since they arise from damage to the genetic material. As a rule they are recessive or sterile, and often disappear completely in the progeny as time goes by. Mutations that are preserved are genetically inferior, as might be expected. But Darwin saw these as possible sources for the changes which in time would produce superior creatures.

In the famous experiment, where fruit flies were bombarded with radiation in hope of creating new life forms through mutation, nothing really new was created. Twisted crippled creatures of all kinds were formed, but they were all fruit flies.

Assuming that desirable qualities, however produced, could be passed on, they would have to be only those that were of immediate benefit in the struggle for survival. A variation which is only potentially valuable would not be preserved, for natural selection is blind. It cannot look ahead.

Thus immediate utility and nothing else would be the criterion for selection. On this view, how could any of the parts of an advanced creature develop? Any change, however wonderfully useful it might be later, would either be a handicap in the short term, or would be of no use, and thus would be eliminated. Imagine what would have happened if a time machine had placed a modern military weapon in the hands of Alexander the Great, or a telephone on the desk of George Washington. Without knowledge of the technology involved they would have been meaningless mysteries.

It is quite conceivable that variations temporarily useful would prove a handicap in the long run. In fact it would be just as likely as not that blind Natural Selection would lead life down a dead-end street. A variation which destroys the ecological foundation upon which a species must survive would destroy the species and possibly damage related species. A variation which upsets the delicate balance of nature would also be self-destructive. Variations advantageous in one particular might be nullified by deterioration in other parts of an organism. Stronger muscles, for example, might be offset by shorter legs. No one species could evolve in a vacuum, independent of other species. And it is conceivable that the sum total changes produced by blind chance would be beneficial to the whole system.

Evolution in human society demonstrates how evolution can lead to a dead-end as well as to overall improvement. The communists believe in the deceptively simple idea that might makes right. Thus military might seems advantageous, while the production and transportation of food and consumer goods seem unimportant or secondary. Lying, cheating and stealing, all seem advantageous in the short term. In fact, such a system can exist only so long as there are those it can plunder, either its own people or neighboring countries. In general man's technological advances have given great control over nature, but have also brought almost insoluble environmental and social problems.

It is useful to reflect on what didn't happen if Darwinian evolution is true. For example, why didn't the deer develop flesh not so tasty to the lion or tiger? And how do the lions and tigers know not to destroy all the creatures in their food supply? Why didn't birds develop eggs which their enemies wouldn't like to eat? And what advantage is it to a cow that its milk is healthful for man? How is it in the interest of fruit trees to produce tasty apples, oranges, etc.? As the giraffe evolved a longer neck to reach the leaves higher up on the tree, why didn't the tree evolve higher branches?

How is it that some animals fine-tuned their hunting skills while those they hunted never made much progress in self defense? In al these things there seems to be a benevolent intelligence which made one species to serve another, and does not permit change to defeat that purpose.

In order for complex organs to come into existence it was necessary that many things happen at the same time. Take the heart for example. How could a creature with no heart, no blood, no veins or arteries, no resources for maintenance and repair, and no control mechanism, even start to produce a beating functioning heart? And forget about associated organs, the stomach, digestive system, lungs, etc. How did its descendants live while all this was developing? Generations of such creatures, all with non-functioning circulatory systems, had to be born. None knew that it was in the process of developing a heart.

As complexity increased in this still useless organ, its interference in the survivability of the species would also increase. Natural selection would most certainly end the experiment. Until it became functional in some degree, any of a billion things could have stopped the development cold. It would be like trying to stack children's blocks a mile high. The slightest breeze or quiver would bring the whole unstable system crashing down. The real question is not "survival of the fittest" but "arrival of the fittest!"

Darwin recognized the problem. "Although all the individuals of the same species differ in some slight degree from each other, it would often be long before differences of the right nature in various parts of the organization might occur. The result would often be greatly retarded by free intercrossing. Many will exclaim that these several causes are amply sufficient to neutralize the power of natural selection. I do not believe so" (Origin of the Species, p.109).

Darwin admitted that "to suppose the eye ... could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree." It is "insuperable by our imagination," he said but, "it is indispensable that the reason should conquer the imagination" (Origin of the Species, pp 168-172). It seems clear that his imagination conquered his reason. "We should be extremely cautious in concluding that an organ could not have been formed by transitional gradations of some kind." Of course we should be just as cautious in concluding that it could. Darwin consistently tried to place on his opponents the burden of proving the negative of those things he could not prove.

He went so far as to conjecture that the eye could have been independently formed in different species. "As two men have sometimes independently hit on the same invention, so ... natural selection has produced similar organs, as far as function is concerned, in distinct organic beings, which owe none of their structure in common to inheritance from a common progenitor" (p. 177). Though eyes in widely separated species appear alike "no part of this resemblance can be due to inheritance from a common progenitor" (p. 176).

Darwinism requires that a useless appendage be passed on from generation to generation until a working organ developed or than an organ as complex as they eye just accidently formed. Not only so, but he thought it could happen more than once. To the staggering objections brought against such a possibility his only answer was, "I don't believe so."

When an organ is no longer of use to a species it is called vestigial. Darwin thought that such organs would disappear in time. Blind fish, which live in total darkness in case, have non-functional eyes. But what is the difference between a vestigial organ and an incipient one? How do you tell if it is coming or going? Why would the body preserve one and get rid of the other, since both are useless? It seems obvious that each species had to be created fully functional and fitted to its place in the scheme of things.

Symbiosis is "the consorting together or partnership of dissimilar organisms, as of the algae and fungi in lichens. The term ordinarily connotes an association which is mutually advantageous."

There are thousands of examples of this phenomena. Some plants produce complete habitats for ants, including living quarters, protection, and food specifically tailored to the needs of the ants. From the ants they derive fertilizer, protection from other insects, removal of debris from leaves, etc.

In many cases each species in such a relationship is absolutely dependent upon the other. Termites, for example, cannot digest wood, but they have parasites in their digestive tracts which can. Since neither can exist without the other, both species had to possess this mutually beneficial relationship at the same time.

Even on a grand scale, symbiosis appears to be rule rather than the exception in nature. Animals breath in oxygen and breath out carbon dioxide. Plants take in carbon dioxide and produce oxygen. Jungles and forests, especially the jungles of South America, have been called the lungs of the world. Plants produce food for animals and man, and in turn are nourished by animal waste. Not only so, but this mutually beneficial relationship is absolutely necessary to the control of the average temperature on earth. Without it all life would perish. Is it likely that this developed after one or the other had evolved?

We speak of the chain of life, of the fact that each of the estimated 90,000,000 species of life on this earth receives what it needs from nature and in turn contributes its part back. We now believe that this chain can be easily upset by destroying even one species. The real world is not as Darwin envisioned it, "red in tooth to claw." Animals take what they need from nature, and each leaves something to replenish what it takes. No creature completely destroys that upon which it must depend for life.

The prophet Daniel in a prophetic vision saw a beast "terrifying and frightening and very powerful. It had large iron teeth; it crushed and devoured its victims and trampled underfoot whatever was left...". Of course this was symbolic of a nation that was yet to rise, but it illustrates how that only man of all God's creatures, in destroying his enemies, sometimes destroys that upon which he himself must survive.

Man's attempts to outwit nature by introducing foreign species into an environment are frequently spectacularly disastrous. The Chinese once attempted to cut down on the sparrow population by banging on pans to scare them into flying until they dropped from exhaustion. It seems to have worked, but shortly thereafter destructive catapillars which the sparrows had been eating, increased and consumed their crops.

In the same way Australia introduced a species of frog which was supposed to eat a particular pest they had. Not only did the frogs not eat the pests, but lacking natural enemies they multiplied and became pests themselves. Their flesh contained a poison which destroyed other animals and even men. The Australians would be glad now to find some way to get rid of their frog population.

Darwin envisioned each species as free to change in any part of its structure, and thus over a long period of time, produce new and improved varieties and even new species. We now realize that such changes could not take place in isolation. Any change is like a stone being dropped in a pond which sends ripples everywhere, and could bring about the downfall of the whole system.

Although beauty is characteristic of all God's creation, it had no place in Darwin's scheme: "Nature, if I may be allowed to personify the natural preservation or survival of the fittest, cares nothing for appearances, except in so far as they are useful to any being" (Origin of the Species, p.90).

Darwin ridiculed the idea that things were created beautiful for man's sake: "Were the beautiful volute and cone shells of the Eocene epoch, and the gracefully structured amenities of the Secondary period, created that man might ages afterwards admire them in his cabnet" (Origin of the Species, p.185)?

Even so, he had no idea of how beauty came to be. Female song birds, he supposed, might have selected those males which sang most beautifully. He did not conjecture how they came to have this sense of beauty in the first place, but vaguely suggested that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. He based this on the idea that different peoples have had different ideas of what constitutes beauty in women. Of course, there are mathematical patters, proportions and balance in those things we call beautiful. And there is sufficient room for differences of opinion based on taste and culture. Ultimately Darwin had to admit he did not know how the sense of beauty developed under his theory.

Natural selection is a process whereby the purity and strength of a species is preserved. The weak and deformed are removed and the strongest tend to proliferate. Possibilities for variation are built in to all God's creatures to enable them to adapt to changing demands. Man also takes advantage of those variations to produce what he needs of wants, different kinds of flowers, fruits, and vegetables , etc. also different breeds of horses, cows, dogs, cats, etc.

All creatures fit into the chain of life on this planet, taking what they need and returning something to maintain the balance. Usually, when man does not interfere, this process has assured the preservation of the natural world. Life and death go on, but the environment continues to exist.

If Natural Selection worked as Darwin supposed, it still could only preserve those variations which are of only potential value. Such would be useless appendages which would burden the creature and in one way or another cause its destruction. Arrival of the fittest, nor survival of the fittest is the real question.

Survival of the fittest requires not only survival of the individual but survival of the species and survival of the environment. No man is an island, and no species exists in a vacuum. Blind chance could never account for the existence of life.

It is more consistent with fact and reason to believe that God made the world and that he preserves it. "For in him we live and move and have our being" (Acts 17:28). "I have seen something else under the sun: The race is not to the swift or the battle to the strong, nor does food come to the wise or wealth to the brilliant or favor to the learned; but time and chance happen to them all" (Eccl. 9:11). [Bill's address is 3693 Vanderwood Drive, Memphis, TN 38128]

___________________________________

IS THE BIBLE THE INSPIRED WORD OF GOD?

(Part 4)

Jerry D. McDonald

Argument Number Two: The Bible is a historically reliable document. The reliability of the Bible should be tested by the same criteria that all historical documents are tested. "C. Sanders in INTRODUCTION TO RESEARCH IN ENGLISH LITERARY HISTORY, lists and explains three basic principles of historiography. They are the bibliographical test, the internal evidence test and the external evidence test" (Evidence That Demands A Verdict, p.39). These are the three tests that we will use to test the historical reliability of the Bible.

[A] The Bibliographical Test For The Reliability Of The New Testament. "The Bibliographical test is an examination of the textual transmission by which documents reach us. In other words, since we do not have the original documents, how reliable are the copies we have in regard to the number of manuscripts (MSS) and the time interval between the original and extant copy...? F.E. Peters points out that 'on the basis of manuscript evidence alone, the works that made up the Christians' New Testament were the most frequently copied and widely circulated books of antiquity.'" (Ibid).

1. The manuscript evidence for the reliability of the New Testament is far greater than that of any historical document extant today. The following is a break down of the number of surviving manuscripts for the New Testament. There are 267 Greek Uncials; 2,764 Greek Minuscules; 2,143 Greek Lectionaries; 88 Greek Papyri; 47 Greek Recent Finds which gives a total of 5,309 extant Greek Manuscripts. PLUS there are 10,000 Latin Vulgates; 2,000 Ethiopic Versions; 4,101 Slavic Versions; 2,587 Armenian Versions; 350 Syriac Versions; 100 Boharic Versions; 75 Arabic Versions; 50 Old Latin Versions; 7 Anglo-Saxion Versions; 6 Gothic Versions; 3 Sodigan Versions; 2 Old Syriac Versions; 2 Persian Versions; and 1 Frankish Version which gives a grand total of 24,593 Greek Manuscripts and ancient versions extant, which does not account for the manuscripts and versions of the Old Testament. No other historical document comes to this number. In comparison Josh McDowell wrote: "...the Iliad by Homer is second with only 643 manuscripts that still survive" (Ibid).

Obviously this alone does not show that the New Testament is inspired by God. However, the point is that no other historical document even comes close to the number of existing manuscripts that the New Testament has. No one doubts the reliability of the manuscripts of Iliad by Homer, yet it only has 643 extant manuscripts. Why then, doubt the reliability of the New Testament with all the manuscript evidence that it has? One reason, and one reason only; they have to doubt the reliability of the New Testament manuscripts because to fail to do so would do irreparable damage to their argument that the New Testament is not reliable, therefore not inspired.

There has to be something special about the New Testament. It has survived all these years with all of this manuscript evidence. No other book (written solely by man) has survived as well. If the Bible was written solely by man; if it was not of divine authorship, then why is there so much manuscript evidence for it? What other book of antiquity has survived like the Bible has? NONE! Divine inspiration and providence is the only logical answer.

John Montgomery states in his book History And Christianity: "to be skeptical of the resultant text of the New Testament books is to allow all of classical antiquity to slip into obscurity, for no documents of the ancient period are as well attested bibliographically as the New Testament" (p.29). Atheists and skeptics will admit that the ancient works of men such as Plato and Aristotle are valid and authentic, but they still contend that the New Testament is not. Yet the manuscript evidence for the New Testament is more than four times that of the "Iliad" by Homer, which has more manuscript evidence than any other (not counting the New Testament) ancient work of history. Why then, with all this manuscript evidence, do they continue to reject the Bible? If they can discredit the Bible in their own minds, then their conscience will be easier to live with. I can't think of another reason they would be so evangelistic.

O, they tell us that the reason that they are evangelistic is because the Bible does so much harm to society. Really! In what way? Is teaching one to love his neighbor, and even his enemy harmful to society? (Mt. 5:43-48) Maybe teaching one to be honest is harmful to society (Rom. 12:17). Maybe they are talking about providing for the needy (Gal. 6:10; Jas. 1:27; 2 Cor. 9:13). Well, I don't believe that these things are harmful to us. I think that the world would be better off if everyone lived according to the Word of God. More to come.

. .

CHALLENGE Jerry D. McDonald, Editor; Michael P. Hughes, Associate Editor. CHALLENGE is published quarterly by Challenge Publications. The first year's subscription is free. Yearly subscriptions thereafter is $5.00 for single subscriptions, $4.00 for groups of 8 or more.

. .

Challenge

713 Nicholson Drive

Potosi, MO 63664

Return to LIST