Chimpanzee or Humans---You Choose!

Of Apes and Men: Chromosome 2 in Humans and the Chimpanzee
by Will Brooks, Ph.D.


[EDITOR’S NOTE: The following article was written by A.P. staff scientist Will Brooks, who holds a Ph.D. in Cell Biology from the University of Alabama at Birmingham.]

“The Evolution of Creationism.” No, you did not misread the statement. This was the title of a symposium that I recently attended at the Experimental Biology 2009 National Conference held in New Orleans, Louisiana (Forrest and Miller, 2009). At this symposium, a couple of the more vocal evolutionists gave a detailed account of how creationists’ thinking has allegedly “evolved” over the last 20 years. The speakers gave a chronological history of landmark court cases regarding the creation/evolution debate and marked how creationists have repeatedly changed their strategies for battling evolutionary thought. (Answering this historical interpretation is beyond the scope of this article, though much could be said in response to this claim.) One of the speakers at this symposium was Dr. Kenneth Miller, a biology professor at Brown University. Miller is a researcher and author, but is well known in large part for his testimony at the 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial (Kitzmiller v. Dover..., 2005). In this well-publicized court case, parents battled the Dover, Pennsylvania School Board over a statement that the school board developed to be read in 9th grade science class when evolution was taught. Led by Kitzmiller, these parents fought to have the statement removed, because it posited intelligent design as an alternative to Darwin’s theory. Within those courts, Miller gave testimony which was designed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that evolution was the only explanation for the origin of life. One of the key points of Miller’s testimony, which he kindly recounted at the symposium, regarded the then-recent report that human chromosome 2 looks like it is a fusion of two different chimpanzee chromosomes (Wienberg, et al., 1994).

Humans (Homo sapiens) have 46 chromosomes which make up their nuclear DNA genome; this number is known as the diploid number. Half of these 46 chromosomes are always donated by the mother and half by the father. So, mom and dad each contribute 23 chromosomes—the haploid number—to their offspring. Therefore, the 46 nuclear chromosomes, that all humans possess within their cells, are actually 23 pairs of identical chromosomes. (To be more precise, females have 23 identical pairs, while males have 22 pairs that are identical and the sex chromosomes, X and Y, are paired but not identical.) This diploid number of 46 (23 pairs) is, however, unique to humans among their alleged primate relatives. Genetically speaking, those species which have DNA sequences most similar to that of humans are the great apes. Each of the four species of ape (chimpanzee, gorilla, bonobo, and orangutan) possesses 48 chromosomes or 24 pairs, compared to the 46 chromosomes of humans. However, the genetic difference between Homo sapiens and their alleged primate relatives is significant.

Of the four species of great apes, also known as hominids, the chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes) harbors the most similar DNA sequence to humans, making it genetically the closest to Homo sapiens. As was discussed by Miller in his court testimony, interestingly, if one takes a close look at the gross physical appearance (karyotype) of both human and chimpanzee chromosomes, one finds that all of the chromosomes can be matched between species, except the human chromosome 2. This chromosome is unique in that it looks like a hybrid or fusion of two chimpanzee chromosomes known now as chromosomes 2A and 2B. The similarities are striking and quite convincing that Homo sapiens chromosome 2 is the counterpart of the chimpanzee chromosomes 2A and 2B. This accounts for the difference in diploid numbers between humans and four species of great ape. Humans have 23 pairs including a single chromosome 2 (46 total), while the great apes have 24 pairs including the distinct chromosomes 2A and 2B (48 total). Miller and a host of evolutionists have jumped on this alleged chromosomal fusion as evidence that humans, the chimpanzee, and other hominids all descended from one common ancestor.

Three explanations could account for this proposed chromosomal fusion. One lends itself to an evolutionist’s view and two to the viewpoint of intelligent design. First, consider the evolutionist’s explanation. Most modern evolutionary biologists do not claim that humans evolved from chimpanzees or any of the other living apes. Instead, it is proposed that humans and the great apes all evolved separately from one now extinct common ancestor through independent evolutionary lines (Figure 1). Allegedly, that one common ancestor of man and the hominids possessed a diploid number of 48. As this species evolved into the chimpanzee, gorilla, and orangutan, the total chromosomal number remained constant at 48. In contrast, as that same common ancestor evolved into a human, two of the 48 chromosomes underwent a genetic malfunction and were fused together to produce a new species with a diploid number of 46.



Figure 1: Evolutionary Map of Proposed Ape and Human Descent. Note the chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes) and the bonobo or pigmy chimpanzee are grouped together.


There are problems with this explanation. First, this hypothesis openly assumes that the chromosomal fusion took place after humans supposedly split from the apes in the proposed evolutionary tree. Allegedly at some point in the past, a human ancestor’s DNA underwent a genetic fusion between two of its chromosomes. This event occurred in no other species. Does this provide evidence that humans share a common ancestor with apes? No. This line of thinking provides no empirical evidence that humans and apes share a common ancestor. All that it really does is suggest that a past human may have undergone this genetic change. In order for this fusion event to demonstrate common ancestry with the chimpanzee, there would have to be some link between the fusion event and the great apes. But no such link exists. The fused-looking chromosome is specific to humans, so it does not directly connect with the great apes. Therefore, it cannot be empirical evidence for a common link between Homo sapiens and the great apes. The only genetic “link” (which is no link at all) between humans and the apes is our close DNA sequence similarity. But this similarity is completely expected given the similar body structure, physiology, and biochemistry that we share with our primate friends. In reality, DNA sequence similarity is just as much evidence for common design as it is for evolution. In actuality, neither viewpoint is proven by the matter of similarity.

For the sake of argument, let us assume that evolutionists are correct and a distant human ancestor with 48 chromosomes did evolve into a new species with 46 chromosomes via the chromosome 2 fusion event. Did this event occur in a single individual or simultaneously in an entire population? Mutations of this nature are certainly rare, but they do occur occasionally. However, the probability that this mutation would occur simultaneously in multiple individuals is so staggeringly low that we can assume its impossibility. At best, the mutation occurred in a single individual. How then was it propagated from one individual to his or her offspring and eventually to every human? Chromosomal rearrangements of this nature are not easily passed to offspring. When mutations of this magnitude occur, they pose serious problems for an organism when the process of gamete production occurs. Gametes are the egg and sperm cells used to form a new individual during sexual reproduction. The process of generating gametes is a special form of cell division known as meiosis. During this process, a specific alignment of chromosomal pairs always occurs and is essential for meiosis. This alignment is dependent on the near-identical structure and sequence of chromosomal pairs. If an individual carries a mutation such as a chromosomal fusion, then he or she will often be unable to produce gametes, because meiosis will fail to occur properly due to improper alignment of the now non-identical chromosome pairs. Today, we know chromosomal fusion to be one cause of infertility. In some cases, meiosis can find a way to complete despite non-identical chromosomal pairs. However, the gametes that result, or the offspring produced by fertilization with these gametes, usually have a short lifespan due to genetic problems. Problems associated with chromosomal alignment lead to spontaneous miscarriages and genetic abnormalities such as Down’s Syndrome.

A third problem with the hypothesis of a chromosomal fusion in human ancestry lies in the complete absence of humans with 48 chromosomes. If it were true that a chromosomal split occurred in human evolution, then two distinct human groups would have been generated: one containing 48 chromosomes which were not altered by any genetic change, and a second containing 46 chromosomes including the fusion of chromosome 2 (Figure 2). The problem is, however, that no humans have 48 chromosomes. The only possible historical explanation is that an entire population of 48-chromosome humans became extinct and was replaced by a 46-chromosome human race. For this scenario to have occurred, a very strong positive selection must have favored the diploid number of 46 over that of 48 (Bowers, 2003). Unfortunately for evolutionists, the paradox is that the same selection would be expected for the other apes as well. Apes, however, maintained a chromosome number of 48. Because of the known problems of infertility that go along with large genomic rearrangements, natural selection would actually operate against this proposed chromosomal fusion. The fitness for survival for such individuals would be extremely low. Taken together, no evidence supports common ancestry between humans and chimpanzees via chromosome 2 fusion.





Figure 2: Evolutionary Map of Human Divergence Following Chromosome 2 Fusion.


So, if humans were not a split from the ape lineage in evolutionary theory, there are two other explanations for the appearance of human chromosome 2. The first explanation is that an intelligent designer created humans with 48 chromosomes, but they underwent the fusion sometime following Creation. At first glance, this explanation might appear to be a combination of creation and evolution—but only if “evolution” is defined as microevolution. Let us assume that God created humans with a diploid number of 48 chromosomes, and that they were in all respects the same as humans today except in chromosome number. Later, a fusion occurred between two chromosomes to give humans 46 chromosomes just like ourselves. This would be an example of microevolution. A genetic change occurred, but did not alter the species by creating a new distinct species. Unfortunately, this explanation holds up no better than that of the evolutionist’s common ancestry theory. As described above, the problems of infertility, low survival fitness, and the absence of humans with 48 chromosomes today make this explanation improbable for the appearance of chromosome 2. It could be argued that Noah or his wife (Genesis 6) contained the chromosome 2 fusion and thus repopulated the Earth following the great Flood with this genomic alteration. If Noah or his wife contained a fusion of chromosomes 2A and 2B, then their offspring would have a 50% chance of receiving this chromosome. Then, offspring from their sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth, would have only a 25% chance of receiving the altered chromosome 2. With each successive generation, the probability of maintaining the altered chromosome would reduce by one-half. These genetic frequencies of passage to offspring, coupled with the likelihood of infertility and genetic syndromes, make the Noah hypothesis unlikely as well.

The only remaining explanation for the similarity of human chromosome 2 to chromosomes 2A and 2B in the chimpanzee is that God created mankind with 46 chromosomes including a second chromosome with the visible characteristics that we see today. No evidence or any line of rational thought can explain how a single human underwent a genetic chromosomal fusion and passed that alteration to all of mankind—except that he was created by God at the beginning, along with woman, with that chromosomal makeup.

Atheists have asked why God would purposefully create a human chromosome that “looks” like the fusion of two chromosomes. At this stage of understanding, we do not know. Recall God’s words: “For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, declares the Lord. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts” (Isaiah 55:8-9, ESV). Eliphaz rightly stated: “He catches the wise in their own craftiness, and the schemes of the wily are brought to a quick end” (Job 5:13, ESV). We cannot know God’s intentions for creating us as we exist, nor can we know why He created chimpanzees with such close genetic similarities to humans. We can know, however, that despite the close similarities in genetics, anatomy, physiology, and biochemistry between Homo sapiens and Pan troglodytes, man can think and reason far beyond the chimpanzee or any other living organism. (It is doubtful that genetics will ever solely explain that difference.) But, the greatest difference will always be that man alone has an immortal soul which is yet another created gift from God.

We will continue to learn as we delve deeper into our studies of biology and the living world. We may well discover an explanation. But, there will always be questions which cannot be answered, puzzles which cannot be solved. While God has placed some of His creation beyond our ability to discover, He has left other parts of it for us to ponder. What we can know is that the evolutionists’ “argument” regarding chromosome 2 in no way proves that humans evolved from apes.

REFERENCES
Bowers, Evelyn J. (2003), “Chromosomal Speciation,” Science, 301[5634]: 764-5.

Forrest, Barbara and Kenneth R. Miller (2009), “The Evolution of Creationism,” Experimental Biology 2009, [On-line], URL: http://www.eb2009.org/.

Kitzmiller vs. Dover Area School District (2005), Case No. 04cv2688, [On-line], URL: http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller/kitzmiller_342.pdf.

Weinberg Johannes, et al. (1994), “The Origin of Human Chromosome 2 Analyzed by Comparative Chromo-some Mapping with a DNA Micro-library,” Chromosome Research, 2:405-410.



This item is available on the Apologetics Press Web site at: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/240254 - it was originally published in Reason & Revelation, 29[11]:81-84

They are coming out of the Woodwork!

Ardi Joins a Long, Infamous List of Losers
by Kyle Butt, M.A.


If it were not so serious, the situation would be comical. Every few months a media blitz raves about a new “half-and-half” creature that is unlike anything ever seen. Supposedly, tiny features about this novel beast give modern humans cutting-edge insights into how primate ancestors evolved into us. The incisors are larger or smaller than most apes, the cranium has a bigger (or smaller) capacity, the tiny toe bone fragments offer amazing information about how the creature walked on all fours most of the time, except when it was being chased by a specific kind of predator on Tuesdays in the Fall, the small scraps of finger bones tell us that the creature swung from branches for the majority of its life, except for brief periods of time when it descended to the ground to walk upright for elaborate mating rituals that occurred once every 10 years during the Summer equinox, etc. And we know all this from bone fragments that are supposedly millions of years old.

The troubling thing about this whole scenario is that no matter how many times creationists prove it to be false, and no matter how many times specific “creatures” like Piltdown Man, Lucy, or Ida are discredited, people continue to be shaken in their belief in the Bible by every “latest” find. With each new creature, frantic readers contact their favorite Christian apologists and demand that this new find must be answered within two days, or the Genesis account of creation is going to be jeopardized and its validity seriously compromised. It is as if the history of the numerous evolutionary foibles is forgotten by the masses every time the media adopts another evolutionary poster child.

The remedy to this is simple. Let us all stop, take a deep breath, and systematically go through a few of the reasons why the “latest find” is nothing more or less than all the other evolutionary “breakthroughs” that have gone before it. First, the entire concept of any life arising from non-living chemicals through random, evolutionary processes has been proven to be scientifically impossible (Thompson, 1989). Every legitimate experiment that has been done for the entirety of human history that has any bearing on the subject has shown that in the natural Universe, life comes only from previously existing life of its own kind. No research team has ever found an evolutionary link between humans and lower animals for the simple, yet profound reason, that evolution is impossible and humans could not evolve from lower life forms. Furthermore, specific human traits, such as consciousness, sexual reproduction, varying blood types, spoken language, and the complexity of the human brain, pose insurmountable barriers to the false theory of human evolution (see Harrub and Thompson, 2003).

Second, the dating methods that are used to render “accurate” dates of millions of years are fraught with irreconcilable difficulties that prove them to be useless (see DeYoung, 2005; Snelling, n.d.; Morris, 1994). In truth, the evolutionary community concocts whatever dates it wants, jettisons any that do not match its preconceived notions, and massages dates arbitrarily. Numerous fossil finds have supposedly added hundreds of millions of years of evolutionary time, even though the rejected time frame was “known” to be accurate (see Butt, 2005; Butt, 2006; Butt, 2008a). When an article begins with a statement like, “4.4 million years ago...,” it might as well be saying, “Once upon a time in a galaxy far, far away....” Accurate dating methods that render dates in the millions do not exist.

Third, how many alleged human ancestors must be debunked before the world views these false evolutionary claims with appropriate incredulity. Chapters one and two of the Apologetics Press book The Truth About Human Origins deals definitively with Aegyptopithecus Zeuxis, Dryopithicus africanus, Ramapithesu brevirostris, Orrorin tugenensis, Australopithecus ramidus, Australopithicus anamensis, Ardipithecus ramidus kadabba, Kenyanthropus platyops, Lucy, Homo habilis, Homo erectus, Neanderthals, Nebraska Man, Piltdown Man, Java Man, and Rhodesian Man (2003). In addition, Hobbit Man has been debunked (see Harrub, 2004; Harrub, 2005) and “Lucy’s Baby” is no longer viable (see Harrub, 2006).

In more recent news, a lemur fossil named Ida was hailed as not just “a discovery of great significance” (“The Link,” 2009), but the “most significant scientific discovery of recent times” (Leonard, 2009, emp. added). Some scientists claimed that it would “finally confirm irrefutably Sir Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution” (Leonard, emp. added). Dr. Jens Lorenz Franzen of Senckenberg Research Institute in Germany referred to it as “the eighth wonder of the world” (as quoted in Scally, 2009), and confidently proclaimed: “When our results are published, it will be just like an asteroid hitting the Earth” (“The Link”). Google was so enamored with the find that on May 20, 2009 the search engine mogul incorporated an illustration of the animal into its logo. So what was all the hoopla about? “Our earliest ancestor,” of course (“The Link”). At least, that is what some evolutionists and their friends in the media were telling everyone, until these claims were reduced to ashes by opponents within the evolutionary camp (see Lyons and Butt, 2009; Lyons, 2009b; Butt, 2009).

Enter the most recent newcomer to the long list of evolutionary losers—Ardi. Just five months after Ida—“the most significant scientific discovery of recent times, the eighth wonder of the world, our earliest ancestor”—we are introduced to Ardi—“the closest we have ever come” to the common ancestor we allegedly share with chimps (see Schmid, 2009). Ardi supposedly takes human evolution back to 4.4 million years ago. It is hyped as so significant that the journal Science contains 11 papers on it in the October, 2009 edition. David Pilbeam boldly stated: “This is one of the most important discoveries for the study of human evolution” (as quoted in Schmid, 2009, emp. added). Sounds remarkably like the announcement of Ida. Sample said “experts have described the find as the most important regarding human evolution in the past century” (2009). Amazing how quickly the “eighth wonder of the world” was replaced by Ardi.

One of the ironies surrounding Ardi’s heralded success is that if the evolutionary community was right in 2001, then our newest Ardi is much less significant than an earlier Ardi. You see, in the July 23, 2001 issue of Time, staff writers Michael Lemonick and Andrea Dorman introduced their readers to Ardipithecus ramidus kadabba. Supposedly, “Ardi” kadabba lived between 5.2 and 5.8 million years ago, more than a million years before the current reigning media champion. Furthermore, kadabba allegedly evolved “very close to the time when humans and chimps first went their separate ways” (see Harrub and Thompson, 2003, pp. 29-33). In addition, kadabba “almost certainly walked upright” according to the evolutionists who wrote about the find. We still have the bones of kadabba that were displayed in Time. So why are we not still hearing about this unprecedented evolutionary victory? For the simply reason that it is not the “Johnny-come-lately” that can generate media hype.

The latest reports of the 4.4 million-year-old Ardi are standard, run-of-the-mill, evolutionary propaganda that lack scientific integrity and, more basically, a foundation of truth. Already, we are being treated to “qualifying” statements such as, “it may take years to confirm exactly where Ardi fits in the history of human evolution” (Sample, 2009). Yale paleontologist Andrew Hill said: “We thought Lucy was the find of the century but, in retrospect, it isn’t” (as quoted in Sample). Would that we could fast-forward a few years (or a few weeks as in Ida’s case) and see what discrediting remarks Ardi will elicit “in retrospect.” In addition, the stories being spun are already contradictory. For instance, Schmid says that Ardi’s anatomy shows that “the development of their arms and legs indicates that they didn’t spend much time in the trees” (2009, emp. added). While, on the other hand, Sample stated: “Though Ardi would have spent much of her time in the trees, her pelvis was adapted to walking upright...” (2009, emp. added).

In other places, we have documented admissions from evolutionists, showing examples of the fabrication and exaggeration so prevalent in the field of evolutionary paleontology (see Butt, 2008b; Lyons, 2009a). And a close look at paleontological efforts to find “human ancestors” offers some keen insight into why we are treated to a new “relative” every few months. After all, Ardi was discovered in 1992. Following the original find, “a total of 47 researchers then spent a further 15 years removing, preparing and studying each of the fragments” (Sample, 2009). Somehow the paleontological world must justify spending 705 man-years of research on Ardi. So instead of calling it what it truly is, an ape, they are forced to justify their prodigal, vain years of research by claiming that they have stumbled upon the latest, greatest “wonder of the world.” Oh, that thinking people would have the wisdom to view Ardi, and all similar outlandish evolutionary claims, in light of real scientific facts. How many Lucys, Hobbits, Piltdowns, Nebraskas, and Idas will it take for people to see what is happening here? Add Ardi to the ever-growing heap of dead-ends piled high in the mass grave of alleged human evolution.

REFERENCES
Butt, Kyle (2005), “Reconsideration of Many Long-standing Assumptions,” [On-line], URL: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2769.

Butt, Kyle (2006), “One Little Beaver Demolishes a Hundred Million Years,” [On-line], URL: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2878.

Butt, Kyle (2008a), “Complex Jellies Jump 200 Million Years,” [On-line], URL: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/3580.

Butt, Kyle (2008b), “‘So We Make Up Stories’ About Human Evolution,” [On-line], URL: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/3641.

Butt, Kyle (2009), “Following Up on a Messy, and Still Missing, Link,” [On-line], URL: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/240171.

DeYoung, Don (2005), Thousands...Not Billions (Green Forest, AR: Master Books).

Harrub, Brad and Bert Thompson (2003), The Truth About Human Origins (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press).

Harrub, Brad (2004), “Hobbit Heresy,” [On-line], URL: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2641.

Harrub, Brad (2005), “Hobbit Hubbub,” [On-line], URL: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/703.

Harrub, Brad (2006), “Lucy’s Baby?,” [On-line], URL: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/3104.

Leonard, Tom (2009), “Scientists Unveil Stunning Fossil,” Telegraph, [On-line], URL: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/5351315/Scientists-unveil-stunning-fossil.html.

“The Link” (2009), [On-line], URL: http://www.revealingthelink.com/.

Lyons, Eric (2009a), “Confessed Conjectures and Contradictions of Paleoartists,” [On-line], URL: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/240213.

Lyons, Eric (2009b), “Ida, One More Time,” [On-line]: URL: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/240233.

Lyons, Eric and Kyle Butt (2009), “Ida—A Missing Link?,” [On-line], URL: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/240160.

Morris, John D. (1994), The Young Earth (Green Forest, AR: Master Books).

Sample, Ian (2009), “Fossil Ardi Reveals the First Steps of the Human Race,” The Guardian, [On-line], URL: http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/oct/01/fossil-ardi-human-race.

Scally, Derek (2009), “Fossil Ida a Crucial Finding for the Understanding of Early Human Evolution,” Irish Times, May 21, [On-line], URL: http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/world/2009/0521/1224247034331.html.

Schmid, Randolf (2009), “Before Lucy Came Ardi, New Earliest Hominid Found,” [On-line], URL: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091001/ap_on_sc/us_sci_before_lucy.

Snelling, Andrew (no date), “The Fallacies of Radioactive Dating of Rocks: Basalt Lava Flows in Grand Canyon,” [On-line], URL: http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v1/n1/radioactive-dating.

Thompson, Bert (1989), “The Bible and the Laws of Science: The Law of Biogenesis,” [On-line], URL: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2004.





For catalog, samples, or further information, contact:

Apologetics Press
230 Landmark Drive
Montgomery, Alabama 36117
U.S.A.
Phone (334) 272-8558
http://www.apologeticspress.org

What should we Believe?

Sam Harris, Christ’s Resurrection, and the Nature of Belief
by Kyle Butt, M.A.


Sam Harris has helped lead the new brigade of militant atheists in their charge against God. His bestseller, The End of Faith, attempts to persuade the reader that all religions, including Christianity, are not only useless, but often quite harmful. In truth, he does an outstanding job showing some of the problems with false religions like Islam, and he also effectively repudiates perversions of Christian doctrine that attempt to pass themselves off as authentic. What he fails to do, however, is accurately assess true, New Testament Christianity, a fault that lies at the heart of much modern, atheistic writing.

As a case in point, Harris asked the question: “What should we believe?” He answered:

We believe most of what we believe about the world because others have told us to.... In fact, the more educated we become, the more our beliefs come to us second hand. A person who believes only those propositions for which he can provide full sensory or theoretical justification will know almost nothing about the world (2004).

Harris then proceeded to discuss how to assess the validity of what we should or should not believe that other people tell us. He gave three sources of information and analyzed the validity of each. First, he proposed the scenario of an anchorman on the evening news claiming that a fire in Colorado had burned 100,000 acres. Second, he listed as a source of information numerous biologists who claim that DNA is the “molecular basis for sexual reproduction.” And the third source of information he listed was the Pope, who claims that Jesus is the Son of God, was born of a virgin, and was resurrected bodily after death.

After some discussion, Harris concluded that the first and second sources of information are reliable and should be trusted, but the third, the Pope, is not. What is interesting about Harris’ discussion is why he concluded that the story about the fire on the evening news is trustworthy. He elaborated:

Given our beliefs about the human mind, the success of our widespread collaboration with other human beings, and the degree to which we all rely on the news, it is scarcely conceivable that a respected television network and a highly paid anchorman are perpetrating a hoax, or that thousands of firefighters, newsmen, and terrified homeowners have mistaken Texas for Colorado. Implicit in such commonsense judgments lurks an understanding of the causal connections between various processes in the world, the likelihood of different outcomes, and the vested interests or lack thereof, of those whose testimony we are considering. What would a professional news anchor stand to gain from lying about a fire in Colorado? We need not go into the details here, if the anchor on the evening news says that there is a fire in Colorado and then shows us images of burning trees, we can be reasonably sure that there really is a fire in Colorado (2004).

It is not surprising that Harris follows this explanation with his statement about mistrusting the words of the Pope pertaining to the resurrection of Christ. In this regard, he is right: the Pope’s “word” on the resurrection is no more authoritative than the word of Sam Harris. But notice the straw man Harris has built. He rightly attacks the false belief of the Pope’s infallibility, but he does not address the real evidence that validates Jesus’ resurrection. Were we to put the evidence for the resurrection beside that of the news story, the resurrection would have unquestionably more “commonsense judgments” to commend it, making it much more “reasonably sure” than a modern news story.

Analyzing the resurrection of Christ in light of Harris’ filter of evidence, it is “scarcely conceivable” that several hundred eyewitnesses (1 Corinthians 15:6) of the resurrected Christ simply concocted the story to further their agenda. What would ordinary fishermen, farmers, or businessmen and women stand to gain from perpetuating such a hoax? The reward for their testimony was that many of them were stoned, killed with the sword, tortured, or imprisoned for nothing more than saying that they knew Jesus came back to life. Thousands of their peers listened with interest to their evidence, assessed the value of the witnesses and other information, such as the empty tomb of Christ, and were forced to conclude that the resurrection had, indeed, occurred (Acts 2:41). Many among the most educated classes, including the priests, who would have had numerous reasons to deny the validity of the evidence, were convinced of the truth of Christ’s resurrection (Acts 6:7). The many “infallible proofs” (Acts 1:3) offered for the resurrection are recorded in the most reliable documents ever to come down to modern man from any historical repository (see Butt, 2004). In fact, so powerful are the various evidences for the resurrection (see Butt, 2002), that, knowing what we know “about the casual connections between various processes” and humanity’s “success of our widespread collaboration with other human beings,” it is inconceivable that the resurrection of Christ is a hoax. The Pope is an easy target. The real evidence for the resurrection is not.

REFERENCES
Butt, Kyle (2002), “Jesus Christ—Dead or Alive?” Reason & Revelation, [On-line], URL: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/121.

Butt, Kyle (2004), “Archaeology and the New Testament,” Reason & Revelation, [On-line], URL: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2591.

Harris, Sam (2004), The End of Faith (New York: W.W. Norton).





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Copyright © 2009 Apologetics Press, Inc. All rights reserved.

This document may be copied, on the condition that it will not be republished in print unless otherwise stated below, and will not be used for any commercial purpose, as long as the following stipulations are observed: (1) Apologetics Press must be designated as the original publisher; (2) the specific Apologetics Press Web site URL must be noted; (3) any references, footnotes, or endnotes that accompany the article must be included with any written reproduction of the article; (4) textual alterations of any kind are strictly forbidden; (5) Some illustrations (e.g., photographs, charts, graphics, etc.) are not the intellectual property of Apologetics Press and as such cannot be reproduced from our site without consent from the person or organization that maintains those intellectual rights; (6) serialization of written material (e.g., running an article in several parts) is permitted, as long as the whole of the material is made available, without editing, in a reasonable length of time; (7) articles, in whole or in part, may not be offered for sale or included in items offered for sale; and (8) articles may be reproduced in electronic form for posting on Web sites pending they are not edited or altered from their original written content and that credit is given to Apologetics Press, including the web location from which the articles were taken. Further, documents may not be copied without source statements (title, author, journal title), and the address of the publisher and owner of rights, as listed below.

For catalog, samples, or further information, contact:

Apologetics Press
230 Landmark Drive
Montgomery, Alabama 36117
U.S.A.
Phone (334) 272-8558
http://www.apologeticspress.org

THINGS GOD CANNOT DO!

Things God Cannot Do
by Dave Miller, Ph.D.


Both Christians and atheists generally have assumed that if the God depicted in the Bible exists, He can do anything—since He is represented as being all-powerful. However, this assumption is incorrect. The Bible does not claim that the omnipotence of God implies that He can do anything and everything. In reality, “omnipotence” does not, and cannot, apply to that which does not lend itself to power. Skeptics and atheists have posed queries that they feel nullify the notion of omnipotence, thereby demonstrating the nonexistence of God. For example, “Can God create a boulder so large that He, Himself, cannot lift it?”

Separate and apart from the fact that God is not, Himself, physical, and that He created the entire physical Universe, though He is metaphysical and transcendent of the Universe, the question is a conceptual absurdity. It’s like asking, “Can God create a round square or a four-sided triangle?” No, He cannot—but not for the reasons implied by the atheist: that He does not exist or that He is not omnipotent. Rather, it is because the question is, itself, self-contradictory and incoherent. It is nonsensical terminology. Rather than saying God cannot do such things, it would be more in harmony with the truth to say simply that such things cannot be done at all! God is infinite in power, but power meaningfully relates only to what can be done, to what is possible of accomplishment—not to what is impossible! It is absurd to speak of any power (even infinite power) being able to do what simply cannot be done. Logical absurdities do not lend themselves to being accomplished, and so, are not subject to power, not even to infinite power (see Warren, 1972, pp. 27ff.).

While God can do whatever is possible to be done, in reality, He will do only what is in harmony with His nature. Further, to suggest that God is deficient or limited in power if He cannot create a rock so large that He cannot lift, is to imply that He could do so if He simply had more power. But this is false. Creating a rock that He, Himself, cannot lift, or creating a four-sided triangle, or making a ball that is at the same time both white all over and black all over, or creating a ninety-year-old teenager, or making a car that is larger on the inside that it is on the outside—to propose such things is to affirm logical contradictions and absurdities. Such propositions do not really say anything at all. Though one can imagine logical absurdities that cannot be accomplished, they do not constitute a telling blow against the view that God is infinite in power.

So, no, the concept of “omnipotence” does not mean that there are no limits to what an omnipotent being can do. In fact, the Bible pinpoints specific things that God cannot do. For example, the Bible states unequivocally that God cannot lie (Numbers 23:19; 1 Samuel 15:29; 2 Timothy 2:13; Titus 1:2). He is a Being whose very essence entails truthfulness. Falsehood is completely out of harmony with His divine nature. Further, God cannot be tempted by evil (James 1:13).

Another impossibility pertaining to God’s power is the fact that He shows no partiality or favoritism (Deuteronomy 10:17; Romans 2:11; Colossians 3:25; 1 Peter 1:17). He is “open and above board”—evenhanded—with all His creatures. He can be counted on to interact with human beings as He said He would. His treatment of us centers on our own self-chosen behavior—not on our ethnicity or skin color (Acts 10:34-35; 1 Samuel 16:7).

A third instance that qualifies the meaning of “omnipotent” is seen in God’s inability to forgive the individual who will not repent and forsake his or her sin (Joshua 24:19; Proverbs 28:13; Matthew 6:15; 18:35; Luke 13:3,5). As great and as magnificent as the mercy and forgiveness of God are, it is impossible to bestow forgiveness upon the person who does not seek that forgiveness by meeting the pre-conditions of remission. God is literally powerless to bestow forgiveness through any other avenue than the blood of Jesus and obedience to the Gospel of Christ (Romans 1:16; 2:8; 2 Thessalonians 1:8; 1 Peter 4:17).

The more one studies the Bible, examining the attributes and characteristics of the God depicted there, the more one is struck with (1) the inspiration of the Bible—since its skillful handling of such matters places it beyond the charge of successful contradiction, and (2) awe at the infinitude of God. Not one of the factors discussed in this article reflects adversely upon the reality of God’s omnipotence. But it is abundantly clear that a person may so live as to render the God of heaven incapable of coming to that person’s aid. It is imperative that every human being recognizes the need to understand His will and to conform one’s behavior to that will. It is imperative that every individual avoid placing self in the precarious position of being in need of that which God cannot do.

REFERENCES
Warren, Thomas B. (1972), Have Atheists Proved There Is No God (Jonesboro, AR: National Christian Press).





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Copyright © 2009 Apologetics Press, Inc. All rights reserved.
We are happy to grant permission for items in the "Scripturally Speaking" section to be reproduced in their entirety, as long as the following stipulations are observed: (1) Apologetics Press must be designated as the original publisher; (2) the specific Apologetics Press Web site URL must be noted; (3) the author’s name must remain attached to the materials; (4) any references, footnotes, or endnotes that accompany the article must be included with any written reproduction of the article; (5) alterations of any kind are strictly forbidden (e.g., photographs, charts, graphics, quotations, etc. must be reproduced exactly as they appear in the original); (6) serialization of written material (e.g., running an article in several parts) is permitted, as long as the whole of the material is made available, without editing, in a reasonable length of time; (7) articles, in whole or in part, may not be offered for sale or included in items offered for sale; and (8) articles may be reproduced in electronic form for posting on Web sites pending they are not edited or altered from their original content and that credit is given to Apologetics Press, including the web location from which the articles were taken.

For catalog, samples, or further information, contact:

Apologetics Press
230 Landmark Drive
Montgomery, Alabama 36117
U.S.A.
Phone (334) 272-8558
http://www.apologeticspress.org

GOD'S Existence vs Human Consensus!

Does God’s Existence Rest Upon Human Consensus?
by Kyle Butt, M.A.


Three minutes and 45 seconds into Dan Barker’s opening statement in our Darwin Day debate on February 12, 2009, he presented an argument that he has often used in other debates and writings. In his list of “probability” arguments, he included as his fifth argument against God’s existence the following comments: “There is no agreement among believers as to the nature or the moral principles of this God that they are arguing for. They all differ with each other” (Butt and Barker, 2009). According to Dan, since those professing Christianity come down on either side of moral issues such as abortion, divorce, and the death penalty, then the God Who wrote the Bible “in all probability” does not exist, and the Bible must not be a sufficient guide for human morality.

Is Dan correct in his assessment that disagreement among professed believers nullifies the existence of God? Certainly not! Barker is incorrect for a number of reasons, the majority of which are quite clear after the briefest consideration of the argument. First, we could simply say that Dan’s argument, used against his own brand of atheism, refutes itself, since he admits that atheists do not agree on moral issues. In his book godless, Barker stated: “Most atheists think that values, though not objective things in themselves, can be objectively justified by reference to the real world.... Although most atheists accept the importance of morality, this is not conceding that morality exists in the universe” (2008, p. 213-214, emp. added). Notice that Barker qualifies his statement with the word “most,” implying that some atheists do not see morality as he does. In his discussion of human free will, Barker wrote: “By the way, this contributes to my compatibilist position on human free will. (Not that all atheists agree with me.) I am an determinist, which means that I don’t think complete libertarian free will exists.... I admit that my definition of free will is subject to debate” (2008, p. 128, emp. added). If Barker’s statement about disagreement of professed believers is true, we could, with equal force, use it on atheism and say that since there is no agreement among atheists on moral issues, then atheism “in all probability” is false.

Of course, Barker does not want to extend his “truth” criterion to atheism. And his statement is inherently flawed in the first place. If two or more people disagreed on whether the holocaust happened, but they all professed to be honest historians, would their disagreement prove that there never was a holocaust? If two people, who both claim to be honest geographers, disagree on the fact that the continent of North America exists, would that negate its reality? Or if two or more people adamantly disagreed on the idea that Dan Barker exists, would his existence be jeopardized based on their disagreement? No, on every count. Agreement among people cannot be used as evidence of the truth or falsity of any proposition.

Barker’s atheistic colleague, Sam Harris, has eloquently written on this truth. He disagrees with many atheists about ethical questions. In spite of his atheism, he contends that objective right and wrong do exist (an impossible proposition for a true atheist to maintain, by the way). He wrote:

The fact that people of different times and cultures disagree about ethical questions should not trouble us. It suggests nothing at all about the status of moral truth. Imagine what it would be like to consult the finest thinkers of antiquity on questions of basic science: “What,” we might ask, “is fire? And how do living systems reproduce themselves? And what are the various lights we see in the night sky?” We would surely encounter a bewildering lack of consensus on these matters. Even though there was no shortage of brilliant minds in the ancient world, they simply lacked the physical and conceptual tools to answer questions of this sort. Their lack of consensus signified their ignorance of certain physical truths, not that no such truths exist (2004, p. 171, emp. added).

The irony of this quote from Harris is that it manifests the atheistic community’s lack of consensus on ethical issues, which should disprove atheism according to Barker’s line of reasoning. Furthermore, it hammers home the self-evident truth that consensus among professed followers of any concept or entity has no bearing on its existence or its claim to truth. Harris further remarked: “It is quite conceivable that everyone might agree and yet be wrong about the way the world is. It is also conceivable that a single person might be right in the face of unanimous opposition” (2004, pp. 181-182, emp. added).

While it is true that the lack of consensus on moral issues by those who profess Christianity does nothing to discount the existence of God, it is appropriate to ask why such disparity exists. Again, it is ironic that Dan Barker has answered his own question in this regard. In his speech, “How to be Moral Without Religion,” given at the University of Minnesota on October 19, 2006, Barker stated: “A tendency that we all have, we look through our documents to try to find what supports our already prejudice views about what we think morality should be like.” In one succinct sentence, Barker explained why there is a lack of consensus among professed believers on moral issues. It is not because God does not exist. It is not because the Bible is hopelessly confusing and cannot be understood. It is not because there is no objective moral truth. It is simply because humans bring their already prejudiced views to the text of the Bible and try to force it to say what they “think” it should say.

REFERENCES
Barker, Dan (2006), “How to be Moral Without Religion,” [On-line], URL: http://www.ffrf.org/about/bybarker/CASH1.mp3.

Barker, Dan (2008), godless (Berkeley, CA: Ulysses Press).

Butt, Kyle and Dan Barker (2009), Butt/Barker Debate: Does the God of the Bible Exist? (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press).

Harris, Sam (2004), The End of Faith (New York: W.W. Norton).





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Copyright © 2009 Apologetics Press, Inc. All rights reserved.
We are happy to grant permission for items in the "Darwin Day Debate" section to be reproduced in their entirety, as long as the following stipulations are observed: (1) Apologetics Press must be designated as the original publisher; (2) the specific Apologetics Press Web site URL must be noted; (3) the author’s name must remain attached to the materials; (4) any references, footnotes, or endnotes that accompany the article must be included with any written reproduction of the article; (5) alterations of any kind are strictly forbidden (e.g., photographs, charts, graphics, quotations, etc. must be reproduced exactly as they appear in the original); (6) serialization of written material (e.g., running an article in several parts) is permitted, as long as the whole of the material is made available, without editing, in a reasonable length of time; (7) articles, in whole or in part, may not be offered for sale or included in items offered for sale; and (8) articles may be reproduced in electronic form for posting on Web sites pending they are not edited or altered from their original content and that credit is given to Apologetics Press, including the web location from which the articles were taken.

For catalog, samples, or further information, contact:

Apologetics Press
230 Landmark Drive
Montgomery, Alabama 36117
U.S.A.
Phone (334) 272-8558
http://www.apologeticspress.org

Religion and Morality

The Connection between Religion and Morality
By WAYNE JACKSON

There are exceptions to most every rule. And exceptions are precisely that; they are exceptions. Let me explain.

There are some people who have no religious philosophy. They profess not to believe in any Supreme Being. In spite of this, they lead reasonably respectful lives. They do not murder, commit adultery, or embezzle from their employers.

On the other hand, there are those who profess to be quite religious, and yet, clearly, they are as far from godliness as one can be. The notorious Ku Klux Klan is an apt illustration of the disconnect between “profession” and “possession.”

As a general rule, however, the person who truly believes in God, and who has some sense of the moral principles set forth in the Bible, is a better person. He is less to be feared in the neighborhood, and is more likely to be a savoring influence in his community.

George Washington once warned that it is folly to suppose that “morality can be maintained without religion.” Studies repeatedly have shown this statement to be true.

Some months ago, author David Myers penned an essay titled “Godliness and Goodliness,” which appeared in the magazine Sightings (4/11/01). Myers called attention to the fact that in one “U.S. national survey, frequent worship attendance predicted lower scores on a dishonesty scale that assessed, for example, self-serving lies, tax cheating, and failing to report damaging a parked car. Moreover, in cities where churchgoing is high, crime rates are low. . .In Provo, Utah, where more than 9 in 10 people are church members, you can more readily leave your car unlocked than in Seattle, where fewer than a third are.”

A report by University of Pennsylvania criminologist Byron Johnson, which combined the results of some forty studies and probed the relationship between religion and juvenile crime, revealed that most delinquent crimes are committed by youngsters who have “low levels of religious commitment.” Children who attend church become delinquent with far less frequency than those who do not.

According to Myers, studies have demonstrated that the most benevolent people of our society are the ones who are involved in religious activity. Americans who never attend church give about 1.1% of their income to charity. Those who are weekly church-goers (who constitute only 24% of the population) give two and one-half times as much as the non-religious, and account for almost half (48%) of all charitable contributions given.

Several other surveys have shown that the highest rates of “volunteerism” are by the religious, as compared to those in whose lives religion was deemed “not very important.”

A poll of 502 teens, conducted earlier this month, by the Christian News Service, determined that more than 80% of those surveyed disciplined their sexual activity on the basis of their faith values.

And so while there always will be exceptions, the general truth is this: Those who believe in God are much more likely to have respect and concern for their fellows than those who do not. Read Romans 3:10-18 for the divine assessment of this matter.

PRAYER IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS

Prayer in Public School Constitutional?
by Kevin Cain, M.Min., J.D. and Dave Miller, Ph.D.


The 111th Congress is currently in session in Washington D.C. A joint resolution has been submitted to Congress that would make prayer in public school constitutional again. House Joint Resolution 6 (H.J. Res. 6) is titled “Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to voluntary school prayer.” This joint resolution is sponsored by Representative Jo Ann Emerson (R) of Missouri. It proposes an amendment that would allow prayer back into our public schools and public institutions. The resolution proposes the following amendment to the Constitution of the United States:

Nothing in this Constitution shall be construed to prohibit individual or group prayer in public schools or other public institutions. No person shall be required by the United States or by any State to participate in prayer. Neither the United States nor any State shall prescribe the content of any such prayer (House Joint Resolution 6).

Not only would this amendment allow prayer in public schools and public institutions, but it would prevent the government from compelling any person to participate or from controlling the content of that prayer. Presumably, the term “public institutions” includes state legislatures, city council meetings, and the like, and other forums in which public prayer has recently been constitutionally challenged.

In January 2009, this resolution was referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary. On February 9, 2009, it was referred to the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, where it remains today (H.J. Res. 6). The Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties is comprised of:

Chairman Nadler (D) NY

Ranking Member Sensenbrenner Jr. (R) WI

Baldwin (D) WI

Cohen (D) TN

Conyers Jr. (D) MI

Delahunt (D) MA

Franks (R) AZ

Gohmert (R) TX

Jackson Lee (D) TX

Johnson (D) GA

Jordan (R) OH

King (R) IA

Rooney (R) FL

Scott (D) VA

Sherman (D) CA

Watt (D) NC (Committee on the Judiciary)

This amendment to the Constitution is an attempt to constitutionally overturn Supreme Court cases holding that prayer in public schools and other public institutions is unconstitutional because it purportedly violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment (“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion”). In 1962, the Supreme Court in Engel v Vitale ruled that New York’s practice of beginning school days with a prayer composed by school officials violated the Establishment Clause (Engel v Vitale, 1962). Subsequently, the Supreme Court held that legislation allowing a school to provide a moment of silence or voluntary prayer violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment (Wallace v. Jaffree, 1985). In Lee v. Weisman, the Supreme Court held that student-led prayers at a high school graduation ceremony were unconstitutional as they violated the Establishment Clause (1992). Finally, and most recently, in Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe, the Supreme Court held that student-initiated and student-led prayers at a football game violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment (2000). This is the current status of the law regarding prayer in public schools from kindergarten through high school.

The law on prayer in public institutions is less clear. The U.S. Supreme Court held in Marsh v. Chambers that the Nebraska Legislature did not violate the Establishment Clause when it hired a chaplain to lead a daily prayer before the legislature (1983). The Court reasoned, “In light of the unambiguous and unbroken history of more than 200 years, there can be no doubt that the practice of opening legislative sessions with prayer has become part of the fabric of our society” (1983). Commonly known as the “Fabric of America” test, the Court based its ruling on the notion that the practice’s historical significance and longevity removes it from the realm of any effort to unconstitutionally establish a religion. However, in 2004, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals held that city council members in Great Falls, South Carolina violated the Establishment Clause by engaging “as part of public business and for the citizenry as a whole, in prayers that contain explicit references to a deity in whose divinity only those of one faith believe” (Wynne v. Town of Great Falls, 2004). That same court one year later held that a county board’s practice of opening board public meetings with a prayer was not unconstitutional (Simpson v. Chesterfield Cty. Bd. of Supervisors, 2005). Hence, the guidance provided by the courts on prayer in public institutions is less than clear.

Joint House Resolution 6 would constitutionally undercut these cases and require courts to interpret the First Amendment in a way that does not preclude the use of prayer in public schools and public institutions. This proposed constitutional amendment would allow this country to hearken back to the sentiments expressed by Justice Douglas in Zorach v. Clauson, who penned the oft-quoted phrase, “We are a religious people whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being” (Zorach v. Clauson, 1952). Justice Douglas went on to describe a paradigm for interpreting the Establishment Clause which has been lost in Establishment Clause jurisprudence:

When the state encourages religious instruction or cooperates with religious authorities by adjusting the schedule of public events to sectarian needs, it follows the best of our traditions. For it then respects the religious nature of our people and accommodates the public service to their spiritual needs. To hold that it may not would be to find in the Constitution a requirement that the government show a callous indifference to religious groups. That would be preferring those who believe in no religion over those who do believe. Government may not finance religious groups nor undertake religious instruction nor blend secular and sectarian education nor use secular institutions to force one or some religion on any person. But we find no constitutional requirement which makes it necessary for government to be hostile to religion and to throw its weight against efforts to widen the effective scope of religious influence (Zorach v. Clauson, 1952, emp. added).

Under Article V of the Constitution of the United States, an amendment to the Constitution can be proposed by either (1) two-thirds of both houses of Congress or (2) by a convention called by application of two-thirds of the state legislatures, and requires that any proposed amendment be ratified by the legislatures of (or by conventions held in) three-fourths of the states (Constitution of...). However, the first hurdle House Joint Resolution 6 must clear is to make its way out of the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties. It may seem like this proposed amendment has a long way to go, but each journey begins with a single step.

But would not reinstating prayer in the classroom mean that prayers would be framed to include Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, and other non-Christian religions? To answer that question, consider how this matter was handled for nearly 200 years in America. The public schools across the nation were riddled with Christian activity—from Bible readings to prayer. At that time, were there no Muslims, atheists, or Hindus in American schools? Of course there were. But no provision was made for their beliefs. While they were not persecuted, their non-Christian values were not incorporated into the fabric of the educational environment. Similarly, if a Christian family were to emigrate to Japan, Iran, or Cuba—no adjustments would be made to accommodate the Americans—nor should there be. The Founders recognized that the day might well come (though they shuddered to consider it) when many or most Americans would have abandoned the Christian system. In that case, the voters would place into political office and onto school boards those who would alter the fundamentally Christian orientation of the nation and its longstanding institutions (which is precisely what is happening). What has, in fact, prevailed for most of America’s history in schools is the practice of generic, denominationally-neutral Christian prayers and Bible readings. Since the vast majority of Americans still profess affiliation with the Christian religion, there is no legitimate reason why the nation’s schools could not return to their former condition. While we would not endorse prayers that promote a particular denominational stance, generic petitions to God are entirely appropriate. Even pagan monarchs of old recognized the critical importance of such—and were approved by God for their actions (e.g., Daniel 3:28-29; 6:25-27). Contrast such rulers with Pharaoh who defiantly declared, “Who is the LORD, that I should obey His voice to let Israel go? I do not know the LORD, nor will I let Israel go” (Exodus 5:2).

The important question here is: what step will you take? We can pray for these lawmakers, congressmen and congresswomen, who currently hold the fate of this resolution in their hands. We can politely encourage these legislators through calls, e-mails, and letters to let them know where their constituents stand on this issue as well as the importance of returning Bible reading to the classroom (cf. Miller, 2009). We can also place people in office who believe in prayer and the Christian heritage of this nation. So, take a step in the right direction.

This is not an effort to get the government to do what Christians should be doing. The Lord’s people must be busy praying constantly (1 Thessalonians 5:17). Specifically, one of the things we should pray for is our civil leaders, that they may conduct the affairs of government in such a way that we may live quiet and peaceful lives (1 Timothy 2:1-2). It is the duty and privilege of every church and every Christian to consistently pray and cast all our cares on our heavenly Father (1 Peter 5:7). That notwithstanding, prayers that saturate our communities, our schools, our government, our work, our homes, and our lives that reflect and proclaim our reliance on God and his saving grace as a people and as a nation, as Justice Douglas so aptly put it, “follows the best of our traditions.”

REFERENCES
Committee on the Judiciary—Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, [On-line], URL: http://judiciary.house.gov/about/subconstitution.html.

Constitution of the United States, [On-line], URL: http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html.

Engel v Vitale, 370 U.S. 421 (1962).

H.J.RES.6, Library of Congress, [On-line], URL: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:hj6.

House Joint Resolution 6, [On-line], URL: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.J.RES.6.

Lee v. Weisman, 505 U.S. 577 (1992).

Miller, Dave (2009), “How Important is the Bible to America’s Survival?” Reason & Revelation, 29[4]:25-31, April, [On-line], URL: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/240115.

Marsh v. Chambers, 463 U.S. 783 (1983).

Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe, 530 U.S. 290 (2000).

Simpson v. Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors, 404 F.3d 276 (4th Cir. 2005).

Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38 (1985).

Wynne v. Town of Great Falls, 376 F.3d 292 (4th Cir. 2004).

Zorach v. Clauson, 343 U.S. 306 (1952).





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Copyright © 2009 Apologetics Press, Inc. All rights reserved.
We are happy to grant permission for items in the "In the News" section to be reproduced in their entirety, as long as the following stipulations are observed: (1) Apologetics Press must be designated as the original publisher; (2) the specific Apologetics Press Web site URL must be noted; (3) the author’s name must remain attached to the materials; (4) any references, footnotes, or endnotes that accompany the article must be included with any written reproduction of the article; (5) alterations of any kind are strictly forbidden (e.g., photographs, charts, graphics, quotations, etc. must be reproduced exactly as they appear in the original); (6) serialization of written material (e.g., running an article in several parts) is permitted, as long as the whole of the material is made available, without editing, in a reasonable length of time; (7) articles, in whole or in part, may not be offered for sale or included in items offered for sale; and (8) articles may be reproduced in electronic form for posting on Web sites pending they are not edited or altered from their original content and that credit is given to Apologetics Press, including the web location from which the articles were taken.

For catalog, samples, or further information, contact:

Apologetics Press
230 Landmark Drive
Montgomery, Alabama 36117
U.S.A.
Phone (334) 272-8558
http://www.apologeticspress.org

Biblical Accuracy

Melchizedek, Abraham, and Biblical Accuracy
by Wayne Jackson, M.A.

Q.

Could you please explain what the Bible means when it speaks of the Old Testament priest Melchizedek as being “without father, without mother, without genealogy”? How could this be possible?

A.

The science of archaeology has been a multiple benefactor to the Bible student. It has helped to clarify some passages that heretofore may have been a bit obscure. Too, this discipline frequently has shown that the biblical record bears the marks of genuine history.

After Abraham settled in Hebron, and Lot, his nephew, pitched his tent in the vicinity of Sodom, a confederation of Mesopotamian kings invaded the region of Sodom and Gomorrah and took numerous captives, among whom was Lot. The Genesis record reveals that when Abraham heard of the tragedy, he and 318 servants from his household pursued the hostile eastward-bound armies. The patriarch attacked the pagan forces and rescued his nephew, taking considerable booty in the process (Genesis 14:1ff.). The accuracy of the biblical record has been questioned in several particulars.

First, the historicity of the names of the opposing kings (Anuaphel, Chedorlaomer, Arioch, and Tidal) has been disputed. However, it has been demonstrated from Mesopotamian inscriptions that these names were common to the Tigris/Euphrates region, and that they are not “fictional forms” (Vos, 1963, p. 69). It even has been shown that the name “Abraham” was not novel in that ancient environment (Finegan, 1946, p. 61). The Bible is remarkably precise.

Second, some critics have contended that there was no eastward line of march at the time of Abraham, and thus have alleged that the Mosaic narrative is erroneous. The famous archaeologist, W.F. Albright, admitted that he “formerly considered this extraordinary line of march as being the best proof of the essentially legendary character of the narrative” (1935, p. 142, emp. added). Albright’s discoveries in this region, however, forced him to revise his opinion of the Genesis text. Professor Stephen Caiger, who was not a strictly conservative writer, conceded that “there seems [to be] no reason to question a factual basis of Genesis 14” (1944, p. 34).

As Abraham returned from his victory over the eastern kings, he encountered the mysterious Melchizedek, “king of Salem” (Jerusalem), who was designated as both a king and priest. Abraham paid “tithes” to the monarch and, in turn, was blessed by him. The New Testament makes Melchizedek a symbol of our king and priest, Jesus Christ (Hebrews 7:15). But the writer of the book of Hebrews makes a curious statement regarding Melchizedek. He says that the ancient ruler was “without father, without mother, without genealogy” (7:3).

Numerous speculations have surrounded this allusion. Origen, an ancient writer (A.D. 185-253) imagined that Melchizedek was an angel. Hierakas, toward the end of the 3rd century A.D., thought that he was a temporary incarnation of the Holy Spirit. Some even have suggested that he was the pre-incarnate Logos (Christ, as depicted in John 1:1,14)—a concept contradicted by Hebrews 7:3, which notes that the king was merely “like unto” the Son of God.

Archaeology has shed light on the enigmatic expression “without father, without mother, etc.” A.H. Sayce, who served as professor of Assyriology at Oxford, called attention to an inscription from the famous Tell el-Amarna tablets (discovered in 1887 in Egypt). These tablets describe the conditions of Syria and Palestine about 1400-1360 B.C.


Several of the Tell el-Amarna tablets are letters written to the Pharaoh by Ebed-tob...the king of Uru-Salim [Jerusalem], who begs for help against his enemies. He tells the Pharaoh that he was not like the other Egyptian governors in Palestine, nor had he received a crown by inheritance from his father or mother; it had been conferred on him by “the Mighty King...” (1906, 3:335).
So, observing the similarity of language, we conclude that Melchizedek’s kingship/priesthood had not been derived genealogically; He had received his commission directly from God Himself. Indeed, as the Scriptures affirm, his was an appointment “of God Most High” (Genesis 14:18). Accordingly, by way of analogy, we are forced to affirm that the current reign/priesthood of our Lord is a direct and divinely authored administration. We are grateful to archaeology for this bit of assistance in understanding what otherwise might be perceived as an obscure reference.


REFERENCES
Albright, W.F. (1935), The Archaeology of Palestine and the Bible (New York: Revell).

Caiger, Stephen L. (1944), Bible and Spade—An Introduction to Biblical Archaeology (London: Oxford University Press).

Finegan, Jack (1946), Light from the Ancient Past (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press).

Sayce, A.H. (1906), “Melchizedek,” Dictionary of the Bible, ed. James Hasting (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark).

Vos, Howard (1963), Genesis and Archaeology (Chicago: Moody).



Apologetics Press
230 Landmark Drive
Montgomery, Alabama 36117
U.S.A.
Phone (334) 272-8558
http://www.apologeticspress.org

THE LAST DAYS....ARE YOU READY?

A Study of Last Things
By WAYNE JACKSON

April 14, 2009

Bookmark and Share
The New Testament was written in Koine Greek, the common language of the Mediterranean world. It was a tongue spoken in Rome, Alexandria, Jerusalem, etc., just as it was in Athens. That Providence chose this language for the composition of the New Testament is beyond doubt to any serious investigator. It is the most colorful, expressive form of communication ever known to man.

A study of the original words, even by the novice, can be one of the most thrilling endeavors of the Bible student. This procedure depends, of course, upon the student’s recognition that the very words of Scripture are sacred, and thus intended to convey a divine message (2 Timothy 3:16-17).

Let us consider the word eschatos. It is the basis of our English word “eschatology,” a term theologians use of Bible teaching about last things, e.g., the return of Christ and the end of the world.

Eschatos is found fifty-two times in the Greek Testament. Mostly it is rendered as “last,” with but a few minor variations, e.g., “uttermost.” The New Testament writers employed the word in a variety of ways and there are some very interesting lessons derived from a study of this term.

The word could be used in a territorial sense. The gospel was to be spread to the “uttermost” part of the earth (Acts 1:8; 13:47), or as one might express it colloquially, to the “last place of the earth.”

Occasionally eschatos referred to the final portion of a quantity. When Jesus spoke of a man being thrown in prison and not being released until he had paid the “last” penny he owed, the Lord was suggesting an eternal punishment for the wicked (Matthew 5:26; cf. 18:34).

The most common use of the term has to do with the final thing of a preceding sequence. For example, it was on the “last day” of the Feast of Tabernacles (a seven-day celebration) that Christ extended the invitation for men to come and quench their spiritual thirst with the “water” he could provide (John 7:37).

In this article, I would like to illustrate how this New Testament word teaches some wonderful truths that instruct the serious soul.

Last Days
Several centuries before the birth of Christ, the prophet Joel foretold that the Spirit of God would be “poured forth” in the “last days” (2:28-29; cf. Isaiah 2:2-4). There is no question about when this prophecy commenced its fulfillment. Peter, on the day of Pentecost, quoted the text and announced, “[T]his is that which has been spoken through the prophet Joel” (Acts 2:16). He was, of course, referring to the outpouring of the Holy Spirit upon the apostles on that occasion.

Many people labor under the illusion that the expression “last days” is a special signal indicating a time period just before the return of Christ. Would-be modern prophets point to certain “signs” they think they identify within the Scriptures and frantically declare, “The end is near; we are in the last days.” Of course we are in the last days. This era has already spanned two thousand years.

In Paul’s second letter to Timothy, he spoke of certain “grievous times” that would characterize the “last days.” And then, to his young co-worker, he urged: “[F]rom these also turn away.” The verb is a present tense, middle voice, imperative form—a command to this effect, “Be turning yourself away from,” thus demonstrating that Timothy himself was living in the last days (cf. Hebrews 1:1; 1 Peter 1:20).

The truth of the matter is, the expression “last days” refers to the final dispensation of history—in contrast to the Patriarchal period (from Adam to Moses) and the Mosaic age (from Moses to Christ). If the world continues yet for thousands of years, it still will be the last days. Incidentally, if we are now in the last days, that leaves no room for a millennial period.

The First and the Last One
In an Old Testament context in which the Lord asserted his everlasting nature in contrast to the passing use of idols, Isaiah exclaimed: “Thus says Jehovah, the King of Israel, and his Redeemer, Jehovah of hosts: I am the first, and I am the last; and besides me there is no God” (44:6). Note the two persons referred to as “Jehovah” in this text.

In his appearance to the apostle John on the island of Patmos, Christ lifted a phrase from that text and made application to himself: “I am the first and the last, and the Living one” (Revelation 1:17-18; cf. 2:8; 22:13).

What is the significance of the expression “first and the last”? “It is the well-known attribute of God, the Eternal” (Alford n.d., 1790; cf. Thayer 1958, 253). The utterance is a firm affirmation of deity on the part of the Lord Jesus Christ. Compare the similar expression applied to the Father in Revelation 1:8: “I am the Alpha and the Omega, says the Lord God.” Compare that with the description Christ in Revelation 22:13: “I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last.” The same expression is used of both the God and Jesus.

The Last Offer
In the week prior to his crucifixion, Christ gave several warnings of doom to those who were on the verge of killing him. In a parable commonly known as that of the wicked husbandmen, a man planted a vineyard, furnished it lavishly, and rented it out to husbandmen—or, as we might style it, sharecroppers. When harvest drew near, he sent a series of servants to collect his fruits. These were treated shamefully, some even killed. Finally, the landlord sent a “beloved son,” who was to be the “last” (eschatos) offer (Mark 12:6).

That is a significant announcement. The beloved son, of course, represents Jesus, and the clear implication is that Christ “is the last and crowning effort of divine mercy” (Trench 1877, 209). And if he is rejected, as the writer of Hebrews later observes, “there remains no more a sacrifice for sins” (10:26). There is no hope of salvation apart from Jesus Christ (cf. John 14:6).

The Last Shall Be First
Several times in his teaching, Jesus employed the statement, “The last shall be first, and the first last,” or some equivalent.

The rich young ruler, because of his unwillingness to follow Christ, had gone away sorrowfully (Matthew 19:16-30). Subsequently Peter, perhaps somewhat boastfully, said, “Lo, we have left all.” Then, in an almost bargaining disposition, he asked, “What then shall we have?” (v. 27). The Lord promised ample blessings; however he cautioned, “But many shall be last that are first; and first that are last” (v. 30).

The Savior then told the parable of the laborers in the vineyard (Matthew 20:1-16). A man hired workers for his vineyard. They were employed, however, at different hours of the day—from early morning all the way to the eleventh hour (note the twelve-hour work day). When time for payment came, amazingly those who had worked the least were paid the same wages! The other laborers complained that such was unfair. But the lord of the vineyard explained that the grumbling was inappropriate; as lord, he had the authority to do as he pleased, and such was entirely “lawful” (v. 15).

Jesus thus concluded with the statement, “The last shall be first, and the first last” (v. 16). Several important truths are implied. As sovereign, God may do as he pleases, and it always will be right (Genesis 18:25). Human assessments of his operations are far from perfect. The disciples were constantly making poor judgments and they needed to be taught better. They quarreled about who would be the greatest (Luke 22:24), and some petitioned for places of prominence (Mark 10:37). They down played Mary’s generous gift bestowed upon her Lord not long before his death (Matthew 26:8). They needed to learn the principle that God will exalt the humble (Matthew 26:13; cf. Mark 12:42; 1 Peter 5:5-6), and humble the exalted (cf. Daniel 4:28-37). There is much for all of us to learn from the last-first principle.

The Last Adam
In one of his Corinthian letters Paul characterized Jesus as the “last Adam.”

bq. So also it is written, The first man Adam became a living soul. The last Adam became a life-giving spirit. But it is not the spiritual that is first, but that which is natural; then that which is spiritual. The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is of heaven. As was the earthy, such also are they who are of the earth: and as is the heavenly, such also are they that are heavenly. And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly (1 Corinthians 15:45-49).

What is the significance of this declaration? It is a rather complicated statement. But briefly: As man’s earthly life was derived from Adam (whose origin was out of the earth), we partake of the nature of the earth (Genesis 2:7). However, for those who yield to him as Savior, Christ becomes a giver of life.

First, there is the life that results from his incarnate role as an offering for sin, which brings a living fellowship with God. Ultimately though, in view of this context pertaining to the bodily resurrection, by virtue of his own resurrection (as “firstfruits” [vv. 20, 23]) Christ will bestow upon his people a new, living body in the final resurrection of the dead (Clandish 1989, 238ff). As the apostle wrote elsewhere, the Lord Jesus “shall fashion anew the body of our humiliation, that it may be conformed to the body of his glory, according to the working whereby he is able even to subject all things unto himself” (Philippians 3:20-21).

The Last State
Three times the expression “last state” (or an equivalent) is found in the New Testament. Each of these has an interesting application.

The Pending Fate of Judaism
In an unusual illustration, Christ told of a man who was possessed of a demon. The unclean spirit left the unfortunate man but presently returned with seven other spirits, more evil than itself. The “last state” of the man was worse than the first.

What was the Lord’s application? “Even so shall it be also with this evil generation” (Matthew 12:45), i.e., the generation alive when Christ spoke these words. Clearly the reference is to those events that led to the complete destruction of Jerusalem and the fall of the nation (cf. Matthew 23:36; 24:1-34). The tribulation suffered at the hands of the Romans in A.D. 70 was worse than anything the Hebrew nation had ever known (cf. Matthew 24:21). More than a million Jews were slaughtered and thousands were taken captive.

Some have suggested that this could not possibly refer to the destruction of Jerusalem. But Carson responds:

There have been greater numbers of deaths—six million in the Nazi death camps, mostly Jews, and an estimated twenty million under Stalin—but never so high a percentage of a great city’s population so thoroughly and painfully exterminated and enslaved as during the Fall of Jerusalem (1984, 501).

The Impact of Jesus’ Resurrection
Immediately after Christ died and was buried, the chief priests approached Pilate and informed him that Jesus had foretold his own resurrection—“after three days” he would rise from the dead (Matthew 27:63). They urged the governor to secure the tomb, lest the disciples come, steal the body, and proclaim a resurrection. Should that occur, they frantically exclaimed, the “last error” (deception) would be worse than the first (v. 64). The Jews were mortified at the thought that the body might disappear. And it did! And for twenty centuries they have struggled with trying to explain what happened; but neither they, nor anyone else, has been able to provide a logical explanation for the empty tomb—other than the resurrection.

The Horror of Apostasy
Peter wrote regarding certain Christians who had escaped the defilements of the world through their knowledge of the Lord Jesus. But he warned that should any apostatize, the “last state” for them would be worse than the former. It would be far better never to have known the gospel than, having embraced it, to then turn away (2 Peter 2:20ff). This text reveals that: (a) a child of God can fall from grace and ultimately be lost, and (b) there will be a greater level of culpability at the judgment for apostates than for those who never obeyed the truth (cf. Matthew 11:20ff; Luke 12:47-48; Hebrews 10:28-29).

The Last Enemy
In Paul’s marvelous chapter in defense of the bodily resurrection of the dead, the apostle proclaims, “The last enemy that shall be abolished is death” (1 Corinthians 15:26). Several truths may be extracted from this compact text.

Death is personified as an enemy. In Greek, the terms “hate” and “enemy” derive from the same root. Death is the result of Satan’s malicious hatred of both God and man (cf. Matthew 13:39). This enemy is the “murderer” of the human family (John 8:44).

Death is an enemy that ravages our mortal bodies. It robs of beauty, strength, and dignity. It immerses humanity in suffering. It steals our loved ones from us. It saps the strength of nations. It takes but never gives. Its monstrous appetite is never satiated.

The verb rendered “shall be abolished” (katargeitai) is present, passive form—literally, is being destroyed. This generally is regarded as a form that expresses “certain futurity,” conveying a tone of confidence; it does not merely predict—it affirms (Lenski 1963, 679). Some suggest it may also hint of a “process now being conducted” (Green 1907, 298). Death is “swallowed up in victory” (1 Corinthians 15:54), and Christ is the Victor! And his people share in the fruits of that victory.

The Last Day
Five times in the Gospel of John there is a record of Jesus speaking of the last day of human history (see John 6:39, 40, 44, 54; 12:48), together with an additional reference to the last day by Martha (11:24). Some important truths can be extracted from this collection of texts.

Both the resurrected righteous (John 6:39-40) and the resurrected wicked (John 12:48) will be brought forth on the last day. Accordingly, the dogma of premillennialism is false, for it asserts that there is one resurrection for the righteous and another (one thousand years later) for the wicked. Logically, there cannot be two last days. This theory is also contradicted by Jesus’ affirmation that all of the dead will be raised in the same “hour” (John 5:28-29). Likewise there is Paul’s declaration that there is but a “resurrection” (singular) for both the just and the unjust (Acts 24:15).

Since both the resurrection of the body and the day of judgment are to occur on the last day (John 11:24; 12:48), and as the last day has not yet occurred, the doctrine of radical preterism is demonstrated to be false. (This is the idea, alleged by a few misguided souls, that the second coming of Christ, the resurrection of the dead, the judgment day, and the end of the world all occurred in A.D. 70 at the time of Jerusalem’s destruction. The proponents of this view, of course, redefine these events to conform to their own theological agenda.)

Conclusion
A simple study of the term “last” is rewarding indeed, and this is but a sampling of the treasures that lie beneath the surface of the English Testament.

For further information see our books, The A.D. 70 Theory – A Review of the Max King Doctrine, and Treasures from the Greek New Testament. Both are available from Christian Courier Publications. Call toll free: 1-888-818-2463.

Sources/Footnotes
Alford, Henry. n.d.. The New Testament for English Readers. Chicago, IL: Moody.

Carson, D. A. 1984. Matthew. The Expositor’s Bible Commentary. Vol. 8. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.

Clandish, Robert S. 1989. Studies in First Corinthians 15. Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel.

Green, Samuel. 1907. Handbook to the Grammar of the Greek Testament. London, England: Religious Tract Society.

Lenski, R. C. H. 1963. The Interpretation of First and Second Corinthians. Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg.

Thayer, J. H. 1958. Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament. Edinburgh, Scotland: T. & T. Clark.

Trench, R. C. 1877. Notes on the Parables of Our Lord. London, England: Macmillan.

A Confirming Evidence of Bible Inspiration

Brevity – A Confirming Evidence of Bible Inspiration
By WAYNE JACKSON

October 6, 2006

Bookmark and Share
It is almost in the genetic nature of biographers and popular journalists to string together miles of words in the depiction of significant historical events. This particularly is true when tragedy is involved. The word flow is extrapolated even more when brutal conduct is under consideration. Man’s inhumanity to his fellows has stained millions of pages of literature — both ancient and modern. A single example should suffice to illustrate the point.

President John F. Kennedy was assassinated in Dallas, Texas at 12:30 p.m. CST on Friday, November 22, 1963. This incident, of but a few seconds, has been called a defining moment in history. Tons of paper have been utilized in newspaper accounts, magazine articles, and books describing the details of this day of horror in American history. Examples of this sort of journalistic fervor could be multiplied countless times. I mention this to establish the background for a very important point I wish to make.

The Trials of Paul
Aside from the Lord Jesus Christ himself, Paul is the most prominent character adorning the pages of the New Testament. Tracing the apostle’s movements throughout the book of Acts is a fascinating investigation. The more one studies the matter, however, the more apparent it becomes that Luke’s record in Acts is extremely abbreviated — and that, quite obviously, by divine design.

The chronology of the New Testament is by no means a precise science. Following the systems set forth by Thompson (823ff), McRay (73ff), Williams (299), and others (with some slight variation among them), Paul’s conversion has been dated at c. A.D. 34 (some four years after the death of Christ). Finegan puts the crucifixion of Jesus at A.D. 33, and the conversion of Paul at 36 (395).

During the apostle’s second missionary journey, he established the church at Corinth and remained with that congregation for eighteen months (c. 49-51; Acts 18:1-11). While on his third campaign (18:23ff), Paul wrote a letter to the church in Corinth, commonly called First Corinthians (c. early 53). Finally, later that year, the tireless traveler dispatches another epistle to this church — Second Corinthians.

Thus, between the time of Paul’s conversion, and the date of Second Corinthians, there is a span of some 20 to 23 years (allowing for some flexibility in the dating). Remember this; it will be important as we develop our argument.

Baffling Brevity
In his monumental work, Evidences of Christianity, completed in 1886, J.W. McGarvey, who served as Professor of Sacred History at Kentucky University, contended that one of the “confirmatory” evidences of the credibility of the New Testament, is the “brevity” that characterizes the records (219ff). He focused especially upon the four Gospel Accounts.

In this article, our focus will be a small section in Second Corinthians.

As noted above, the approximate time between Paul’s conversion, and the penning of Second Corinthians, was about 20 years or slightly more. This period of time begins with Acts 9:1, and concludes at 20:1, with Paul’s arrival in Macedonia (cf. 2 Corinthians 2:13b; 7:5). This segment embraces a total of 411 verses that span the two decades.

When one considers that a considerable portion of this material involves single events (cf., for example, the episode relating to Cornelius – 10:1-11:18 — 66 verses; and the Judaizing problem in chapter 15 – 29 verses), it is a startling revelation to contemplate how much historical information in this span has been excluded from the sacred record purposefully. Luke was extremely selective! Let me illustrate this.

Paul’s Defense of His Apostleship
In Second Corinthians 10:1 through13:10, the renowned apostle defends his apostolic authority against certain critics. These people obviously claimed superiority over Paul. As a portion of his argument, the tireless missionary is willing to lay his credentials of dedication down by the side of his agitators! He thus writes:

“Are they ministers of Christ? (I speak as one beside himself) I more; in labors more abundantly, in prisons more abundantly, in stripes above measure, in deaths often. Of the Jews five times received I forty stripes save one. Thrice was I beaten with rods, once was I stoned, thrice I suffered shipwreck, a night and a day have I been in the deep; in travels often, in perils of rivers, in perils of robbers, in perils from my countrymen, in perils from the Gentiles, in perils in the city, in perils in the wilderness, in perils in the sea, in perils among false brethren; in labor and travail, in watchings often, in hunger and thirst, in fastings often, in cold and nakedness” (11:23-27).

In these four verses (only 78 words in the Greek text), there is far more not said, than said. Let us, therefore, give consideration to a few of these phrases, as chronicled by God’s messenger to the Gentiles.

In Prisons
Paul declares that he was “in prisons more abundantly” than his opponents. Note the plural form, “prisons.” The term rendered “more abundantly” signifies more in number and greater in intensity.

In the life of Paul up to this point, however, there is only one recorded imprisonment — that in Philippi (Acts 16:23ff). The imprisonments at Jerusalem, Caesarea, and Rome will not come until later (Acts 21-28).

When and where, then, were these imprisonments? How long were they? What were the horrors connected with them? The Spirit of God chose not to detail them, though we might long to know. Apparently, the case in Acts 16 is sufficient to make the point.

Stripes
Stripes are marks or wounds left by blows (cf. Acts 16:23). These could be implemented by “rods” or by the lash. With reference to the latter, some authorities suggest that the offender was laid on the ground and beaten in the presence of a judge (McClintock, 789). At a later period the, Jewish Mishnah provides another picture:

“The minister of the synagogue was to stand on a raised stone inflicting the blows ‘with all his might,’ using a redoubled calf strap, to which two other straps were attached. Thirteen blows were delivered to the chest and twenty-six to the back. The severity of this beating can be inferred from the provisions made in the event the offender defecated, urinated, or even died as a result of their blows” (Barnett, 542).

Paul declares he had received “stripes above measure.” He then is more specific: “Of the Jews five times I received forty stripes less one. Three times I was beaten with rods.” The expression “in deaths often,” in addition to many harrowing episodes, probably denotes how close to death he came during these beatings.

Back to our main point: on not a single page of the New Testament is there mention of Paul’s five floggings by the Jews (a total of 195 stripes). In this connection we should mention that the Jews did not always require the full complement of forty stripes. The authorities could not go over forty (Deuteronomy 25:3), but they were not required to go that far. Nonetheless, in each case, Paul received the full measure — a commentary on the intensity of Jewish hate for the man of God.

Paul mentions that three times he was beaten with rods. This was the Roman method of punishment, and it was not limited to a prescribed number of stripes. The incident at Philippi (Acts 16) accounts for one of these episodes, but what of the other two. When were they inflicted, and for what reason? The record is completely silent — an exceedingly strange circumstance — from a biographer’s viewpoint.

How could Luke possibly restrain himself in providing some of the details of these bloody occasions? Did Christian brothers rush in to retrieve the unconscious warrior? Did gentle sisters minister to his emaciated frame? Was Luke, the beloved physician (Colossians 4:14), present at any of these beatings — aside from the time at Philippi (cf. the use of first person pronouns, beginning at Acts 16:10)? We clamor for the facts but the Spirit was mute! How very unlikely if the narrative was solely human in composition.

Shipwrecks
As the apostle continues his list of hardships in the Master’s service, he briefly mentions that once he was “stoned.” Doubtless this alludes to the incident at Lystra on the first missionary campaign (Acts 14:19). But in this letter to Corinth he provides no details whatever. The next reference is even stranger.

Paul declares: “three times I suffered shipwreck, a night and a day in the deep.” We know of the shipwreck that occurred when the apostle was en route to Rome, appealing his legal case to Caesar (Acts 27:1-28:16), but this came several years later.

As observed earlier, these three incidents had to have occurred between the time of his conversion (Acts 9), and the writing of Second Corinthians from Macedonia (Acts 20:1-2). One can easily trace Paul’s known sea travels by consulting maps of the apostle’s three missionary journeys, involving the Mediterranean and Aegean seas. But in the book of Acts there is not a trace of these calamities. It is as if the sea itself consigned the terrifying events into the depths of oblivion.

What historian, left to his personal passions, would have omitted these dramatic incidents? And what of that “night and day in the deep”? How could one possibly fail to set forth the circumstances of that life-threatening danger? Were there other survivors? Were any of the apostle’s companions with him? How was he rescued?

Our souls agonize for the details! Why were they not provided? The answer is a simple one — the minute details of these incidents were not essential to the glorious plan of human redemption being revealed!

If one cannot see the restraint that shrouded the sacred narratives, and acknowledge the calm hand of the Spirit of God in the composition of the New Testament documents, he lacks considerable perception — both of the feverish impulses of journalists, and of the nature of sacred literature.

Sources/Footnotes
Barnett, Paul (1997), The Second Epistle to the Corinthians (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans).

Finegan, Jack (1998), Handbook of Biblical Chronology (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson).

McClintock, John & James Strong (1970 edition), Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature (Grand Rapids: Baker), Vol. VIII.

McGarvey, J.W. (1956 edition), Evidences of Christianity (Nashville: Gospel Advocate), Vol. IV.

McRay, John (2003), Paul – His Life and Teaching (Grand Rapids: Baker).

Thompson, W.R. (1975), The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible, Merrill C. Tenney, Ed. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan), Vol. 1.

Williams, David (1999), Paul’s Metaphors – Their Context and Character (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson).

FALSE CHARGES

False Charges Against Creationism
By WAYNE JACKSON

June 16, 2009


When one encounters an ideological position with which he disagrees, there are several possible reactions. He could reflect honestly upon the new idea, carefully research it, and give it an honest evaluation. That certainly would be the noble thing to do. Then again he might, if the viewpoint makes him uncomfortable, simply ignore it, hoping it will go away.

On the other hand he may, as a result of intense philosophical bias, immediately reject it with a vengeance. In such a case, it is possible that one may so despise a teaching that he will caricature it. That is, he will present it in an absurd light so that, hopefully, he can deter others from even giving it consideration.

Unfortunately, this latter approach has been demonstrated repeatedly in the modern creation-evolution controversy. Evolutionists (and religionists who have been influenced significantly by them) constantly misrepresent biblical creationism in the effort to bolster their own faltering cause. In this article, I propose to highlight some of these spurious attempts to discredit the biblical teaching regarding the doctrine of creation.

Charge: Creationists believe that the world was created in 4004 B.C.
Response: John Lightfoot (1602-1675), a Hebraist of Cambridge University, once suggested that the creation events of Genesis 1 transpired the week of October 18-24, 4004 B.C., with Adam being made on October 23 at 9:00 in the morning (Ramm 1954, 174). For this speculation, of course, there is absolutely no support. Nevertheless, this incident has been resurrected repeatedly by evolutionists (both atheistic and theistic) in an attempt to discredit modern creationism. There simply is no validity to this charge or tactic. What creationists do contend is this:

First, the Bible clearly indicates that both the earth and the human family came into existence during the same week. The earth, in its rudimentary form, was created on the first day of the creation week (Genesis 1:1), and man and woman were fashioned on the sixth day of the same week (1:26ff).

Second, that initial week was a literal week of seven normal days. This is demonstrated by a consideration of Exodus 20:11 where it is apparent from the context that the days of the creation week were of the same type as the sabbath day, which every Hebrew was required to observe weekly.

Third, there are chronological data in the Scriptures which indicate that the human family, back to Adam (the first man [1 Corinthians 15:45]), has been in existence only several thousand years—certainly not millions of years, as evolutionists claim. While there may be some minor elasticity in the genealogical records (cf. Genesis 11:12; Luke 3:35-36), attempts to accommodate the biblical genealogies to evolutionary anthropology result in gross textual distortion. As J. Barton Payne noted, this concept “leaves the Bible’s detailed lists of figures as generally pointless” (1975, 831).

Charge: The creationist concept of a relatively young earth is the result of a millennialist theology.
Response: This argument generally is employed to intimidate those who reject the notion of premillennialism (as well they should), but who are inclined to accept the Genesis record at face value, thus accepting the fact that all living kinds were made within the same creation week. An example of this ploy is seen in the following allegation: In referring to “scientific creationism,” one compromising writer alleged that “the theological basis of most” of this type of teaching is the result of “the close association with millennial tradition” (Clayton 1993, 20; see Sears 1983, 415, for the same charge). Of course, not a word of proof was offered for this baseless charge, because there is none.

There is absolutely no intrinsic connection between the affirmation that the entire creation was accomplished in six literal days—a truth clearly set forth in the Scriptures—and the theological speculation (with no semblance of scriptural support) that Christ will return to the earth and reign for one thousand years on David’s throne in Jerusalem. I have dealt with this matter more specifically elsewhere (Jackson 1985, 17-20). We are gratified that agnostic writer Ronald Numbers, in his book, The Creationists, has noted correctly that the writings issuing from Apologetics Press—of which I was co-founder and board president for many years—have not been associated with any type of premillennial assumptions (1992, 315).

Charge: Creationists believe that God specifically made each individual species of plant and animal life.
Response: While some writers of the past argued for the fixity of species, modern creationist scholars do not. Those who have given ample study to the biblical text and who have confidence in its reliability simply affirm, in the language of Scripture, that God made all biological organisms “after their kind”’ (Genesis 1:11ff). The term “kind” (Hebrew, min) is employed thirty-one times in the Old Testament (ten times in the initial chapter of the Bible). It is a generic word that certainly allows for considerable biological modification. As professor W. H. Rusch has observed: “There is absolutely no justification for equating this Genesis ‘kind’ with the species of the biologist” (1959, 14).

In Leviticus 11:16, Moses referred to “the owl . . . after his kind,” and yet there are more than 250 known species of owls. The original dog family probably included the potential for producing the more than two hundred different breeds of domestic dogs, the Australian dingoes, coyotes, wolves, jackals, foxes, and maybe even hyenas (though these animals now are classified as different species). Walter Kaiser has commented:

God created the basic forms of life called min which can be classified according to modern biologists and zoologists as sometimes species, sometimes genus, sometimes family or order. This gives no support to the classical evolutionist view which requires developments across kingdom, phyla, and classes (1980, 503-504).

What creationists insist is this: the Bible does not allow for the notion that all biological life forms have descended from a common ancestor (or even a few initial forms). Invertebrates do not produce vertebrates; fish do not evolve into reptiles; reptiles do not become birds; birds are not transformed into mammals, etc. Creationists believe that both Scripture and science support horizontal variation within basic kinds, not vertical evolution. There is a vast difference between the two.

Charge: Creationists are anti-science.
Response: There is no truth to this charge. The fact of the matter is, creationists recognize that science deals with present phenomena; this discipline, by the very nature of its methodology, is incapable of determining events-processes that transpired thousands of years ago. Paul Weiss expressed it like this:

All science begins with observation, the first step of the scientific method. At once this delimits the scientific domain; something that cannot be observed cannot be investigated by science (1965, 411).

It is a scientific fact that water freezes at 32°F. It is not a scientific fact that biological life was spontaneously generated a few billion years ago. Such a notion is evolutionary speculation. Self-confessed agnostic Robert Jastrow has addressed this very point:

Perhaps the appearance of life on the earth is a miracle. Scientists are reluctant to accept that view, but their choices are limited; either life was created on the earth by the will of a being outside the grasp of scientific understanding, or it evolved on our planet spontaneously, through chemical reactions occurring in nonliving matter lying on the surface of the planet.

The first theory places the question of the origin of life beyond the reach of scientific inquiry. It is a statement of faith in the power of a Supreme Being not subject to the laws of science.

The second theory is also an act of faith. The act of faith consists in assuming that the scientific view of the origin of life is correct, without having concrete evidence to support that belief (1977, 52).

Creationists do not reject genuine (proven) facts of science. What they do dispute are unsupported theories that have been designed to explain those facts. For instance, it is a fact that there are certain similarities between the bone structures of animals and men. However, it is an unsubstantiated speculation to suggest that this indicates that humans evolved from animals. Creationists are not opposed to true science.

Additionally, it is worthy of mention that many of the greatest minds in the history of science have been committed firmly to the idea of supernatural creation. Men like Newton, Pasteur, Kepler, Lister, Boyle, Pascal, and others—household names in science—were not atheists; they believed that science and the concept of creation were quite compatible. It is the worst form of misrepresentation to suggest that those who believe in creation are anti-science (see Jackson 1993, 25-27).

Charge: Creationists take the Bible literally.
Response: When the charge is made that creationists take the Bible literally, the aim is to leave a negative impression. It is implied subtly that a literal perception of the biblical text reflects an antiquated, uneducated viewpoint. The truth is, such an allegation hints of the inclination to interpret the Genesis record in a symbolic (mythological) way. The real motive behind such an ambition is to accommodate the Mosaic record to Darwin’s evolutionary ideology. Two observations need to be made regarding this criticism:

First, there are no negative connotations per se associated with literalism. When the Declaration of Independence affirms that “all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights,” it is a valid assumption that the term “men” denotes real human beings, and that the authors of this document believed that there is a literal Creator. It is quite reasonable to view this reference in a literal way. In fact, a basic rule of literature interpretation is this: a statement ought to be viewed as literal unless there are compelling reasons for rejecting a literal concept and assigning figurative meaning to the language. There is no reason to view the creation narrative as a figurative treatise. There is a solid body of evidence which indicates that a literal God literally created the entire literal universe in six literal days. Again, we insist there is nothing, except anti-supernatural bias, that searches for symbolism in Genesis 1.

Second, even literal and historical events can be depicted with figurative terminology without any sacrifice of genuine historicity. When the Old Testament affirms that the Ten Commandments were written with the “finger of God,” even though we acknowledge that Jehovah is not physical, and thus anthropomorphism was employed to describe him, we still must conclude that God himself actually gave the Decalogue in a miraculous fashion. When Jesus foretold that he had a dreaded “cup” to drink, we recognize the symbolism, yet we are aware that the Savior literally was going to be subjected to the bitter pangs of Calvary. Thus, the charge of literalism against creationists is meaningless.

Charge: Creationists attempt to make the Bible a textbook on science.
Response: Again, the accusation is completely false, and, in reality, is a thinly-veiled suggestion that the Scriptures are not trustworthy in scientific matters. In logic, there is an invalid form of reasoning known as false obversion. Such a fallacy obtains when one attempts to draw a negative conclusion from a positive statement (or vice versa). For example, a salesman in New England had difficulty selling white eggs, because people were used to buying brown eggs. So, he inserted in his store window a sign that read: “Our eggs are guaranteed not to turn brown.” Of course, white eggs can be kept under refrigeration for six months without turning brown. But he wanted people to draw the inference that the brown eggs people were purchasing were once white eggs that had turned brown. He committed the fallacy of false obversion. Similarly, when critics charge: “The Bible is not a textbook on science,” they generally are suggesting that it is factually flawed in areas of science. They then have committed the same fallacy (see Dillow 1981, 1).

While it certainly is true that the Scriptures never were intended to be a textbook on biology, geology, chemistry, mathematics, etc., it is not the case that they contain blunders in these disciplines. For example, in its use of figurative language characteristic of apocalyptic literature, the book of Revelation suggests that twelve thousand people were “sealed” unto God from twelve different tribes of Israel. The reader has every right to expect that the total number of this symbolic company would be 144,000—which is exactly the figure given by the inspired writer (7:4).

The Bible is not a textbook on physics, but when it contends that the creation process is “finished” (Genesis 2:1), and thus by implication that nothing is being created currently, we are gratified to note that this is precisely what the first law of thermodynamics suggests.

And when the Scriptures affirm that the universe is “growing old” (Hebrews 1:11), we can expect that to be a statement of fact, as indeed the second law of thermodynamics confirms. Just because creationists contend that the Scriptures are accurate, even when touching on incidental matters of science, does not mean that they are attempting to make the Bible into a science textbook.

Charge: Creationists believe that dinosaurs never existed.
Response: A charge occasionally made against creationists, in an attempt to make them look ridiculous, is the assertion that these simple folk believe that dinosaurs never existed in the past. It is alleged that creationists contend that God merely placed dinosaur bones in the earth’s strata to make it appear that these huge creatures once roamed this planet. Can this accusation be documented from a solitary publication distributed by scholars of the creationist movement? It cannot.

While it may be true that a rare, uninformed religious person, who does not know how to deal with the issues surrounding the dinosaurs, will advance this uneducated opinion, it certainly is not representative of those who are well informed in Bible-science matters. The truth is, creationists have published a considerable body of excellent material dealing with dinosaurs. Actually, we teach a more balanced and correct view of the dinosaur phenomenon than do the evolutionists.

True creationists—and we refer to those who have not yielded to the compromises of theistic evolution—not only argue that dinosaurs lived upon the ancient earth, but also contend that these marvelous examples of God’s wisdom and power were contemporary with ancient humanity, and that very likely there are allusions to dinosaurs and other extinct reptiles in the Bible. The book of Job (40:15ff) very well may contain references to these creatures (see Jackson 1983, 85).

In conclusion we confidently affirm that the creationist case is quite strong and is not weakened by the misrepresentations of those who have no confidence in the Scriptures.

Sources/Footnotes
Clayton, John N. 1993. Book Reviews. Does God Exist? 209(2).

Dillow, Joseph C. 1981. The Waters Above. Chicago, IL: Moody.

Jackson, Wayne. 1983. The Book of Job. Abilene, TX: Quality Publishing.

Jackson, Wayne. 1985. Premillennialism and Biblical Creationism. Reason & Revelation, 5.

Jackson, Wayne. 1993. Are Faith and Science Compatible? Christian Courier, 29.

Jastrow, Robert. 1977. Until the Sun Dies. New York, NY: Warner.

Kaiser, Walter C. 1980. Kind. Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament. Vol. 1. R. L. Harris, C. L. Archer, B. K. Waltke, eds. Chicago, IL: Moody.

Numbers, Ronald. 1992. The Creationists. New York, NY: Knopf.

Payne, J. Barton. 1975. Chronology of the Old Testament. Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible. Vol. 1. Merrill C. Tenney, ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.

Ramm, Bernard. 1954. The Christian View of Science and Scripture. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.

Rusch, Wilbert H. 1959. Darwinism, Science and the Bible. Darwin, Evolution, and Creation. Paul A. Zimmerman, ed. St. Louis, MO: Concordia.

Sears, Jack Wood. 1983. How The Worlds Were Framed. Studies in Hebrews. Dub McClish, ed. Denton, TX: Valid Publications.

Weiss, Paul. 1965. Elements of Biology New York, NY: McGraw Hill.