Okay, here it is, the fourth and final post in our series on evolution. In the past three posts we’ve taken a look at a basic introduction to evolution and its credibility as a scientific theory. After considering the evidence against evolution, it’s pretty safe to say that its reliability is at the very least highly questionable. That raises a very interesting question: If there are so many problems with evolution, why is it still taught and accepted as a fact? Moreover, why aren’t opposing theories like Intelligent Design and Biblical Creation taught alongside it? After all, in real science, the facts are allowed to be interpreted through opposing theories. In the end, the theory that best explains the facts — and not the other way around — is accepted.

             The reason that evolution is still accepted as fact, the reason evolution is still taught as the truth is not because of its stellar credentials. It is because evolution is a foundational aspect of an entire belief system (worldview). Evolution provides a premise for how life originated without requiring the existence of a Creator. As a result, since there is no room for a Creator in an evolutionary-based worldview, people have no accountability to Him. We would therefore be free to do as we pleased with no lasting, eternal consequences, since we would essentially be extremely intelligent animals that somehow attained consciousness. That makes things kind of convenient if one doesn’t want to believe in God, doesn’t it? No responsibility, no eternity, no worries, right?

             Contrary to what some may believe, ideas do have consequences. Good ideas have good consequences, bad ideas have bad ones. So what kind of consequences does evolution produce? If people are nothing more than cosmic accidents that are highly evolved, then they really don’t have any basic value. After all, what value does an accident have? Accordingly, if people have no value, then the value of life is extremely low. Practices like abortion, euthanasia, genocide and others can simply be justified as steps that need to be taken to thin out “human weeds”. People have no obligation to the well-being of others, since there is no higher standard to appeal to. People are their own standard. Therefore, everyone would be logically justified in doing whatever pleased themselves, regardless of the cost to others. Our only focus in life should be to consume and enjoy, plowing over anything that gets in the way of our desires. Morality does not exist, since there is no higher standard for people to refer to than themselves. Some may argue that morality has evolved with people, since it was considered a valuable genetic trait that furthered the human population. However, this doesn’t fit very logically with the evolutionary belief system. If I’m here as an accident, then I don’t have any obligation to anyone else. Therefore, I am here for no one else but me. If something will make me happy, then it is in my nature to get it, no matter the cost to anyone else — even if it costs them their life. Someone might tell me that I shouldn’t do something for myself because it would endanger or disadvantage someone else, thus throwing a kink in evolutionary progress. However, since I am naturally selfish, I wouldn’t really care about furthering the evolution of my kind. I would exist for myself, and my ultimate goal would be to make myself happy.

             The truth is, people do feel an obligation to a higher standard, whether they want to accept it or not. If we truly stooped down to hold such a low value of ourselves, life would become utter chaos. Tragically, many buy this belief system hook, line and sinker. The result: empty, unfulfilled lives that constantly try to cover their loneliness with material wealth and sensual indulgence. Regardless of how much they try, regardless of how much they gain, it is never enough. If evolution were true, there would be no void, there would be no loneliness. Our selfish pursuits would provide satisfaction. The satisfaction would eventually wear off, but we would just mechanically go back for more. Humans are more complex than that, though. When the satisfaction wears off, there is a deeper longing that just can’t be effectively ignored. We can try, but its gnawing never fully goes away. Humans aren’t materialistic creatures. They have desires that can’t be fully answered by material things. In that case, what does one get when they go beyond the material? They must consider the supernatural.

             Humans are spiritual beings. They can’t be fulfilled with simply food, shelter and rest like any other animal. They need something deeper. They need something that fills the “void of loneliness” that exists in every person. Materialistic evolution cannot explain this need. People can deny its existence, and many can therefore ignore it effectively. However, they are unable to live in absolute consistency with an evolutionary worldview. They hold moral convictions, whether they believe in morality or not. They consider the welfare of others. They treat other people with value, although an evolutionary worldview cannot make sense of this. Evolution degrades humans to a place beside the animals, but it fails to satisfactorily explain what makes humans superior to animals. Could it be that people were created in the image of God? Wouldn’t that explain why life is given value, why morality is important, why we would seek to be considerate of others? If something was created, wouldn’t its Maker have inserted some level of value in His work? God did. He considered his creation to be of such high value, though it was tainted with sin, to be worth the life of His only Son, Jesus. That’s how valuable life is. Evolution considers humans to be material accidents, whereas Christianity identifies humans — all humans — as beings with unspeakable value.

             Consider the evidence. We must decide for ourselves which worldview to believe in. However, remember that ideas always, always have consequences. Know the consequences that a worldview will produce. Never commit to a path before first knowing where it will end.

“There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way to death.”

Proverbs 16:25

          Just how much do you appreciate having eyesight? Why does the Oriental sweetlips decide not to chow down on a blue-streak wrasse? How in the world could life possibly start from non-life? I could list quite a few similar questions, but we’ll just take a look at these three for the time being. Although it will be far from a conclusive overview, I think the answers to  these examples will give us a better understanding of the credibility of believing in divine creation. Likewise, I think that they will also point out just how problematic a belief in evolution truly is. This post is obviously not written from a neutral position. I will confidently state that I believe a sovereign God created the universe. However, I hope that after these questions are addressed, it will be easier to see why I have an ample amount of assurance that a sovereign God created the universe. 

            Let’s start off with the human eye. Just how amazing is this little wonder? The human eye is capable of performing automatic aiming, focusing, and aperture adjustment maneuvers in a split-second. It is capable of focusing on an object with the diameter of a fine hair and makes about 100,000 motions every day. A number of finely-tuned muscles and nerves all work together to develop the clear and focused images that make up our sense of sight. So how likely is it that all these amazing capabilities accidentally fell in place so perfectly as to form a fully-functioning human eye? Dr. R. L. Wysong, a Creationist who formerly believed in evolution, calculated that the probability of an eye forming by chance is 1 in 10²²⁶ (The Creation-Evolution Controversy, Inquiry Press, 1981, p. 308). That’s a “1″ followed by 226 zeroes. To put this in perspective, there are between 10⁷⁸ and 10⁸² atoms in the entire known universe. The odds of an eye forming by chance are tremendously higher than that! And those are just the odds for the eye alone! Think about all the other organs, tissues, and other parts of the human body that would have to evolve alongside the eye! Even the numerous “basic” organs that are essential for life couldn’t evolve separately, because they would not be able to function individually. Needless to say, those odds would be absolutely monstrous. 

            Moving on to exhibit number two, we come across the blue-streak wrasse and the Oriental sweetlips, two fish that have an unusual relationship — with names to match. This odd relationship is more formally labeled a “symbiotic” relationship. In plain English, this means that the wrasse and the sweetlips help each other out. The Oriental sweetlips is a predator fish, so as the day goes along it begins to accumulate plaque and gunk on its teeth. Eventually, the sweetlips heads over to a “cleaning station” manned by blue-streak wrasses. The sweetlips opens its mouth and allows the Wrasses to swim inside and eat out all the plaque and buildup that are stuck to its teeth. As a result, the Wrasses get a free meal, while the sweetlips’  teeth remain healthy. Now here’s the question. Why doesn’t the Oriental sweetlips take a golden opportunity and turn the unsuspecting wrasse into an appetizer? After all, if nature is all about natural selection and survival of the fittest, this bad boy has the wrasses right where he needs them. One could argue that the sweetlips eventually realized how it was actually beneficial to allow the wrasses to clean his teeth, but that goes contrary to the evolution-based belief that all organisms are in a competition and struggle for survival. The sweetlips is bigger, so it ought to take advantage of every opportunity to eat the wrasses. These kinds of relationships are not exclusive to the Oriental sweetlips and the blue-streak wrasse. They occur throughout all Creation. It could be suggested that these animals eventually stumbled upon the realization that these interactions were beneficial. However, I think that it is much more plausible to believe that such relationships were ingrained in these creatures by a sovereign Creator. 

            Last but not least, I’d like to consider an especially challenging dilemma that evolution must face. How did life originate from non-living materials? This is where the language can get really technical and the facts and figures start flowing quite freely, so I’ll just give a simple explanation and leave the complex stuff to the experts. You can follow these two links: (Link 1 Link 2) if you want to dive into those complex explanations. Anyway, the answer is really straightforward: life just doesn’t appear out of nowhere. In fact, the idea that life could originate from non-life — more properly called “spontaneous generation” or “abiogenesis” — was disproved by the famous French scientist Louis Pasteur around 150 years ago. Ironically, this occurred right around the same time Charles Darwin was proposing the possibility of evolution! You can’t throw a bunch of different chemicals together and expect a cell, much less a slug, to pop out. However, this has to be true in order for evolution to have even a chance at getting off the ground. After all, if life didn’t originate by intelligent design, then chance, time, and natural processes all had to work together to combine non-living chemicals in precisely the right order so that life could initially exist.  

            I know this post has dragged on a bit more than I usually allow, so thanks for sticking through it! These are just some of the many examples I can provide that call into question the trustworthiness of evolution. Contrary to what is generally believed, evolution is not a fact. On the contrary, it is a very troubled belief system that suffers immensely from a lack of evidence in support of its position. Just because it appears that the majority (or at least the sources with the most influential voices) support evolution does not make it true. If the facts don’t line up, don’t accept them. Otherwise, if the truth is distorted, horrible and disastrous consequences can result. We will take a look at the consequences that evolution has generated, as well as their cure, in the next and final post.

Check out these links for more interesting info!

Article about the human eye

The Creatures and Biological Structures Evolutionists Don’t Talk About!

          In the last post we looked at a quick introduction to the theory of evolution and its two “sub-categories”: micro-evolution and macro-evolution. Remember that micro-evolution states that organisms change within their species, while macro-evolution claims that organisms develop from one species to a completely different species. In this entry we’ll take a closer look at macro-evolution. While it may seem pretty obvious that organisms change within their species (some cats have long hair, some have short hair, some lizards are larger than others, etc.), it is quite a different belief that those same cats or lizards could become something like a horse or a bird.  

            Usually, when someone mentions evolution, they are referring to the idea of macro-evolution. Throughout this post and the remaining posts in this series, whenever I refer to “evolution”, “macro-evolution” is the belief I have in mind. I personally find it kind of confusing to distinguish between the “micro” and “macro”, so we’ll keep it simple and just call it evolution. If I do refer to “micro-evolution”, I’ll be sure to point out the distinction. With that said, let’s take a closer look at the initial response to Charles Darwin’s controversial theory. 

            When Darwin first proposed his theory of evolution in the mid to late-1800′s, it sent shockwaves throughout society. Those who denied the existence of God finally had a groundwork and an explanation for the origin of life. Because Darwin’s idea relied only on a matter-based beginning for life with no hint toward the supernatural, atheists, deists, and others who deny God’s existence or involvement with the world had a belief system they could hold up and proclaim as fact. Evidently, there was no longer any need to explain how a supernatural, all-powerful being created the universe. The universe itself had simply come into existence, and somehow we came along with it. 

            Although Darwin’s beliefs were initially very convincing in light of the secular scientific knowledge he had access to, it needs to be pointed out that our current scientific knowledge has advanced quite a bit beyond what was understood in his day. New discoveries in the fields of biology, microbiology, chemistry, and other branches of science have since brought up very valid points of debate. How could life have arisen from non-living matter? How could all of the chemical ingredients necessary for  life have been present — by chance —at the right time and in the proper order? In all fairness to Darwin, many of the facts we have unearthed were not known during his lifetime. However, the idea of evolution is still alive and well today, despite mounting evidence that increasingly threatens its credibility. We will consider one such example in this post, followed by a few more in the next. 

            One of the most deceptively “simple” organisms in all of nature is the cell. During Darwin’s time, cells were essentially considered to be small blobs filled with a jelly-like substance. Only after microbiology took a closer look at these little wonders did their phenomenal complexity come to the surface. Far from being an inactive mass of goo, the cell is an extremely intricate organism that is very crucial for life to exist. Functioning in a variety of tasks, the details surrounding how these tiny life forms function is a study in itself. To get a brief introduction to just how amazing the cell’s role is, check out this video.

This post is the first in a four-part series on evolution. Each new post will be published within a week of the previous entry.

          Out of all the scientific theories introduced in the past couple of centuries, few have equaled the level of controversy and passion that the theory of evolution has prompted. In a series of upcoming posts we will dig into this highly debated topic more thoroughly, considering some terminology regarding evolution, its credibility, and some of the consequences of a worldview grounded in evolution. Because of the broad scope of this topic and the numerous areas it covers — science, sociology, law, etc. —  this series will hardly provide a complete overview. We’ll take a look at some of the most important aspects in the posts, while I will include several links you can follow in order to gain an in-depth study of a certain portion that may interest you. That said, let’s get started.

            As it is typically discussed, evolution is the belief that all living things arose from non-living matter and gradually developed into more complex life forms. There are a variety of explanations concerning how matter came into existence in the first place, but for the time being we’ll take that for granted. Eventually, all the ingredients and conditions necessary for life to exist came together at precisely the right time. As the resulting life form developed and passed on its traits to successive generations, these generations adapted more effectively to their environment. With each new set of adaptations, the organisms became more complex and better suited for survival. Any organisms who were not as fit as their siblings died off, allowing the stronger ones to survive, thus propelling the evolutionary chain onward through billions of years.

            Before we look any closer into this topic, I need to provide a quick clarification for the term “evolution”. In most cases, the term refers to the process stated in the above paragraph — life arising from non-life and gradually developing into more complex organisms. This belief is called “macro-evolution”. However, there is also “micro-evolution”. Micro-evolution refers to changes within a particular species, while macro-evolution refers to changes among species. A good example of micro-evolution can be found in dog breeding. When different kinds of dogs are bred, their offspring possess genetic traits from both parents. This results in an animal that, although somewhat different from its parents, is still a dog. Macro-evolution, on the other hand, holds that something like a fish could gradually develop into an amphibian, like a frog, which could then develop into a lizard, and so on. While micro-evolution (change within species) is very observable in the world around us, we cannot readily study macro-evolution. As a result, macro-evolution — or any other theory about the origin of life — cannot be proved from observation. Since no one who was around at the beginning of time is still alive today, we can only interpret the past by the evidence we see around us in fossils, the geological record, the complexity of life, etc. In the next post, we will consider this topic of macro-evolution more closely.

          Is there a particular dessert that you find absolutely mouthwatering?  One of those sweet-tooth satisfying dishes that makes a four-course meal look like a garnish?  All kinds of desserts come to my mind right now, but one in particular seems to stand out.  I really like mint chocolate chip ice cream.  Whenever I realize that there’s a carton of it in the freezer, my mouth gets excited.  Eating a scoop of mint chocolate chip is like having a fireworks show go off in your mouth.  The creamy texture and bold flavor of the cream bursts on your palate, while the chocolate chips go rolling around, tickling your taste buds wherever they travel.  No other ice cream can come close to rivaling the thrill of eating a waffle cone of this mouth-watering flavor.

            Needless to say, mint chocolate chip ice cream is definitely my favorite.  But let’s say I meet someone who can’t say enough about how much they savor a cone of pistachio.  I could suggest that they are mistaken.  I could correct them and explain that what their taste buds truly desire is a delectable bowl of mint chocolate chip.  They would probably counter and say that they were perfectly fine with pistachio, and have no intentions of converting to a different flavor.  And thus the debate could go on and on, until we finally decide to quit and go to Baskin Robbins.

            When the pistachio-lover and I part ways, will anything have been accomplished?  More than likely, no.  If anything, we’ll probably leave even more solidified in our respective ice cream preferences.  Arguing about which flavor is better is ultimately a lost battle on each side — neither person is going to concede their position.  The dispute will go back and forth, back and forth, with no change in sight.  While this may be a rather silly and humorous illustration, there is a much more serious parallel.

            Whenever a Christian witnesses to an unbeliever or engages in apologetics, there is a strong tendency to bring the conversation down to the argument level.  One person presents their position, the other refutes them, and on and on they go.  Nothing is accomplished.  No one is ever going to enter the Kingdom of God because some Christian blasted their position with a superior argument.  It never works that way.  In Matthew 6:44, Jesus said that “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him…”  People are not argued into the Kingdom of God.  They are drawn in by the Father.  When this truth is realized, witnessing and apologetics take on a whole new face.  The burden is not on us to present an argument that wins people to Christ.  We may be the instrument God chooses to use in sharing or defending our faith to someone, but we are never the ones who draw them in.  Our job is to simply share the gospel and give a reason for the hope that we have.  We need to leave the rest up to God.

            The purpose of apologetics is not to create arguments, but to give a response to them.  There is nothing wrong with responding to someone’s challenge, but the response needs to be courteous and loving.  That’s rarely an easy thing to do, especially when you feel hurt and defensive after your faith is challenged.  However, consider what Paul said in 1 Corinthians 13:1-3:

“If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal.  And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing.  If I give away all I have, and if I deliver up my body to be burned, but have not love, I gain nothing.”

            Whenever we engage in apologetics, our ultimate goal is to point people to the gospel of Jesus Christ.  What they choose to do with our presentation is completely up to them.  As long as we are faithful in our representation of Christ, present an answer for the hope that we have and make our responses in love, we can be content to leave the rest in God’s hands.  Again, none of us come to the Father by our own efforts.  We only come if He draws us. Witnessing and defending the faith are tough assignments, but choosing to give the results over to God make them all the more exciting and refreshing.  Even mint chocolate chip has to take second place in this one.

               During the early years of the Christian faith, Christians did not have a complete collection of all the gospels, epistles, and other books that make up the Bible.  Different groups of Christians had access to different sources, but it took several years before a complete collection of all sixty-six books was compiled.  As a result, the early Church leaders came up with a method in combating any heretical doctrines that might sneak their way into the faith.  This solution was the creed.  Creeds were statements of faith that declared what a particular group believed about something.  People would memorize and recite these declarations as a group.  For the early Christian Church, one of the most prominently recognized creeds was the Apostle’s Creed.  Although the Apostles are not attributed with the authorship of this statement of belief, it provides a basic and accurate summary of what they taught:

             “I believe in God the Father Almighty; Maker of heaven and earth.

            And in Jesus Christ his only Son our Lord; who was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the virgin Mary; suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead and buried; the third day he rose from the dead; he ascended into heaven; and sitteth at the right hand of God the Father Almighty; from thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead.

            I believe in the Holy Spirit; the holy catholic¹ Church; the communion of saints; the forgiveness of sins; the resurrection of the body; and the life everlasting. Amen.”²

                Although the Apostle’s Creed was principally used by believers hundreds of years ago, it is still very relevant to the Church today.  The message of the gospel is still the same, and the words and life of Christ are just as effective today as they were two thousand years ago.  Even so, there is another important principle conveyed by the Apostle’s Creed — and other such statements of faith — that needs to be considered.  The people who memorized and recited these statements were, in a way, doing a form of apologetics.  In essence, they were providing an answer for the hope that they had, a response to the charge of 1 Peter 3:15.  Just as the gospel of Christ still holds its power to save, the Word of God is likewise just as powerful now as when it was initially written.  The command of 1 Peter 3:15 is to be taken with just as much gravity today as it was when it was first read by the early Christians. 

                While the aura and language surrounding the Apostle’s Creed do make it sound a bit antiquated, the basic statements it makes provide a clear, well-summarized foundation of some of the most basic and crucial tenets of the Christian faith.  The concise yet effective method of stating these principles has produced a declaration that all Christians would do well to study to some degree.  If you would like to learn more about the creed and its background, this LINK provides a brief summary of its development and impact.  You can even hear the creed in song, as the late Rich Mullins set it to music.  Later on, Christian music group Third Day recorded their own version of the song based on Mullins’ original.  Third Day’s rendition is a live recording with a definitive rock sound, while Mullins’ inspiring studio version incorporates a wide variety of softer instruments.  You can check out both of them on iTunes – both are titled “Creed” — by clicking on the following links: (Third Day) (Rich Mullins). 

___________________________________

1. The term “catholic” church as stated in the creed refers to the entire Christian church as a whole, not specifically to the Roman Catholic Church.

2. Grudem, Wayne, Systematic Theology, Zondervan, 2000, p. 1169.

Gyms are interesting places.  The equipment is interesting, the variety of people — and their workout routines — are interesting, and the music is interesting.  I’ve used my share of the equipment, I’ve observed several very unique workout regimens, but I’ve only recently thought very seriously about the music.  Most gyms play guitar-induced rock anthems that get the adrenaline flowing and keep you focused on your workout via their monotonous rhythm.  The gym I go to is no exception.  It’s odd in that downstairs in the locker rooms one hears all those gushy songs about love, life, and all that good stuff, but when you migrate upstairs to the weight systems, the mood quickly changes.  Guitars start crunching, drums start throbbing, and the occasional scream is elicited from the pulsing speakers.  Even though I can’t understand the words to most of the songs, there are a few that are intelligible enough to grasp something of a meaning from them.  And it just so happens that those few songs are also some of the most catchy.

Some songs are just destined to be catchy.  I don’t know what the formula is, but those exceptionally well-crafted pieces of music that conquer it can be mighty hard to get out of your head.  Sometimes that’s a good thing, but all too often it isn’t.  For a time I never really thought about the potential impact of the songs playing around me as I worked out, but when I would catch myself humming them later, I began to realize just how powerful the influence of a finely made song truly is.  Some songs are so well produced that they can enter your mind and embed themselves to the point that you sing them without realizing it.  However, therein lies a problem: just what are the songs we sing and listen to telling us?  Are we ingesting truth, or are we gulping down lies?  Be that as it may, songs are not the only area where this subconscious ingestion takes place.  What about movies, TV shows, speeches, books, or information taught in a classroom?  Just how often do we step back and take a look at the information that is flying at us and test it against Biblical truth?  Just how often do we, as Christians, choose to think critically about the messages around us?

Critical thinking is not an easy task, but it needs to be a very integral part of every Christian’s life.  2 Corinthians 10:5 instructs us to “take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ.”  While this truly is a tall order, it is of extreme importance if we are to lead our lives as obedient and effective Christians.  If our minds are not in order, we can hardly expect our lives to be any better.  Learning to take control of our thoughts in order to bring them under Christ’s control will drastically improve our focus and set our eyes more fixedly on Him.  Test your thoughts about a particular situation, person, etc.  Do they line up with Biblical truth?  Test the music you listen to, the movies you watch, the literature you read.  Are you allowing it to influence you negatively?  Or, even worse, is it something that should be influencing you in the first place?

I have already written one post that provides a basic definition of critical thinking (LINK).  This one isn’t written as a sequel to it, but more so as an accent mark. Critical thinking is a highly valuable pursuit that everyone — Christian or not — should cultivate in their lives.  However, we will never reap the benefits without first implementing the process.  I will be one of the first to say that I have a great deal of improvement to make in this area.  Disciplining yourself to stop and analyze all the messages that bombard you every day is indeed a challenge, but, like so many other disciplines in the Christian life, it is a challenge worth pursuing.

This post is the second in a series on the reliability of the Bible. Follow this link to read the previous entry.

Internal Consistency

 The internal consistency and unity of the Bible is truly an amazing testimony to its divine authorship.  The forty men that God inspired in writing the Scriptures came from several different walks of life.  For example, Matthew was a tax collector, Peter was a fisherman, David and Solomon were kings, and Amos was a shepherd.1  Despite the different occupations, locations, and circumstances surrounding these men, the writings come together and give a solid, coherent book that maintains internal agreement throughout its pages.  Considering that the Bible was written over fifteen hundred years2, the fact that it is internally consistent becomes even more compelling!

 Many critics of the Scriptures claim that the Bible contradicts itself.  However, claims of  “contradictions” are oftentimes the result of a desire to believe that the Bible is false, not as the product of careful research.  This link provides an example of an apparent contradiction and its very rational solution.  Many of the supposed contradictions are results not of an author’s mistake, but rather of a misunderstanding or a confusing translation from a manuscript’s original language into another.  Consider also that different Biblical authors wrote with different styles.  The four Gospels — Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John — are all written with different stylistic techniques.  Much of the information provided in the different accounts on particular miracles and events doesn’t point to contradictions, but rather to the author’s decision to include specific information relevant to his telling of the Gospel.  After all, if all four Gospel accounts were identical, it would be easy to assume that corroboration was involved in their writing.

Fulfilled Prophecies

 As the Biblical authors wrote their respective books, they made hundreds of prophecies.  All of these prophecies — minus a few regarding Christ’s impending return — have come true.3  No other religious book can claim anything near the number of prophecies fulfilled in the Biblical Scriptures.  Consider these examples.

 In Ezekiel 26 — which was written in 587 B.C. — a prophecy was given about the destruction of the city of Tyre.  The city was divided into a land-based section and an island extension.  Ezekiel prophesied that God would “bring many nations against” Tyre (v.3), specifically stating that King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon would “ravage your settlements on the mainland with the sword” (v. 8).  Ezekiel also prophesied that “They will plunder your wealth and loot your merchandise; they will break down your walls and demolish your fine houses and throw your stones, timber and rubble into the sea.” (v. 12)  He further stated that God said He would make Tyre “a bare rock, and you will become a place to spread fishnets.” (v. 14)  Let’s take a look at what happened, shall we?

 Nebuchadnezzar destroyed the mainland city of Tyre in 573 B.C.  Refugees from the devastated city fled to the island extension.  However, their escape from disaster proved only temporary.  240 years later in the year 333 B.C., Alexander the Great besieged Tyre.  In order to reach the island city, rubble from the demolished mainland portion was thrown into the sea to form a causeway.  Able to cross over to the island, Alexander and his troops finished the job, and Tyre was completely annihilated.  Over 2,000 years after these astonishing events, the once mighty city of Tyre is now nothing more than a small fishing town where fishing boats spread their nets.4

 In addition to prophecies concerning cities and nations, there are nearly one hundred prophecies about Jesus throughout the Old Testament.  For example, in Micah 5:2, Bethlehem is prophesied to be the city in which the Messiah will be born.  Jesus was born in Bethlehem (Luke 2:4-7).  In Zechariah 11:12,13, there it is prophesied that the Messiah will be betrayed for thirty pieces of silver.  Judas betrayed Jesus for thirty pieces of silver (Matthew 26:15).  In Psalm 22, details are given about the Messiah’s crucifixion.  (This is especially fascinating, since this Psalm was written 800 years before crucifixion was ever employed as a means of execution.)5  It is stated that the Messiah will be pierced in His hands and feet (v. 16), that his garments will be divided among those who crucify Him, and that lots will be cast for His clothing (v. 18).  Matthew 27:35 affirms that, “When they had crucified him, they divided up his clothes by casting lots.”

- – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – -

 When all the evidence for the veracity of the Bible is laid on the table, it truly conveys a compelling case.  The Bible is a God-inspired book with insight into the human condition unlike any other piece of literature.  Not only does the Bible provide astounding insight, but it also conveys the most hope-filled message of all time.  While the Bible clearly states that man is sinful, it outlines the steps a person needs to take to be free of his or her sin.  Those steps are found in Romans 10:9.

“That if you confess with your mouth, ‘Jesus is Lord,’ and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.”

 Saved from what?  From our sin.  Many people believe that simply being a good person is enough to get into heaven.  Going to church, giving money to charity, volunteering for a cause, etc. are all good, but they don’t ensure eternal salvation.  The Bible gives a list of things a person must do — perfectly.  That list is the Ten Commandments. (Exodus 20: 1-17)  If a person breaks just one of them, they are unfit to enter heaven.  Sin has hideously blemished them.  However, there is hope.  Because it is impossible for man to live his life perfectly, he is in desperate need of a savior.  That Savior is Jesus Christ.  God sent His only Son, Jesus, to die a horrible, bloody, and tortuous death on a cross for the sin of the world — past, present, and future.  Three days later, God raised Him from the dead.  Because Jesus died and shed His blood for us, we can be eternally cleansed from our sin.  What one needs to do is “confess with your mouth, ‘Jesus is Lord,’ and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead”.  And then you will be saved.

1. – Patrick Zukeran, “Authority of the Bible,” Probe Ministries, (2005), http://www.probe.org/site/c.fdKEIMNsEoG/b.4227389/k.6202/Authority_of_the_Bible.htm (accessed February 5, 2010).
2. – Ibid.
3. – Mark Cahill, One Thing You Can’t Do In Heaven (Rockwall, TX: Biblical Discipleship Publishers, 2007), 157.
4. – Zukeran, op. cit.
5. – Cahill, op. cit., 157-158

Throughout the centuries, men have sought to undermine the Bible and disprove it as what it claims to be: the inspired Word of God (2 Timothy 3:16-17, 2 Peter 1:20-21).  Countless objections have been raised toward its accuracy and authenticity.  How can we be sure that we hold the actual Scriptures in our hands today?  Haven’t they been distorted and chopped up throughout the years?  Doesn’t the Bible contradict itself? Wasn’t the Bible written down years after the events described in it took place?
 
 For every question, there is an answer.  Hopefully, in this post, many of those questions will indeed be answered.  In exploring the reliability and authenticity of the Scriptures, four main points are going to be covered: 1) the textual validity the Bible, 2) the archaeological evidence that supports it, 3) the internal consistency of the Bible, and 4) the veracity and magnitude of the prophecies fulfilled in the Scriptures.  We will cover the first two topics in this post and the remaining two in a post just a few days out.  Let’s get started.

- – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – -

Textual Validity

 Before any evidence is given for the Bible’s authenticity, one very important point needs to be thoroughly clarified.  The Bible is a product of Divine inspiration.  The authors of the various books of the Bible were inspired by God, Who guided the writers in their work. (2 Peter 1:21, 2 Timothy 3:16)  It is only after this fundamental truth is grasped that the Bible’s content is fully understood for what it is: the Word of God.

 Understanding the textual validity of the Bible is of paramount importance.  Many Biblical critics deny that the Bible was written over several hundred years by numerous authors, claiming instead that it was written up as some sort of a highly imaginative book sometime after the events described in it would have taken place.  Furthermore, even if the Bible was written over a long span of time by numerous authors, surely translation mistakes riddle it and totally destroy its original authenticity.  Such misunderstandings may be attributed to a lack of study on the dating of Biblical manuscripts, as well as the precision of Biblical scribes in copying Scripture.

 One of the most excellent examples of the Bible’s textual authenticity can be found in the discovery of the “Dead Sea Scrolls” in 1947.  These scrolls — discovered by a young shepherd boy in caves near the valley of the Dead Sea — included numerous pieces of Biblical literature.  Among the books represented were a complete copy of the book of Isaiah and fragments of almost every book in the Old Testament.1  The materials in this phenomenal find are dated around 100 B.C.2  However, what makes this discovery so fascinating is the history behind the writing of the scrolls.

 The Dead Sea Scrolls were copied down in the Massoretic tradition, a method of copying that was exceedingly precise.  Massorete scribes would copy manuscripts in all capital letters, with no punctuation or paragraphs.  When they were finished copying a particular book, they would total up the letters and find the middle letter of the book.  If it wasn’t the same, they made a new copy.  This meticulous attention to accuracy was highly evident in the Dead Sea Scrolls.  When the copy of the book of Isaiah was compared with a more recent Massoretic Hebrew text dating from the tenth century A.D., the manuscripts were found to be in remarkable harmony with only a few minor differences.3

 The evidence for the validity of the New Testament is extremely compelling.  At this time, there are over 4,000 different ancient Greek manuscripts that contain all or portions of the New Testament.  In addition, there are more than 1,000 copies and fragments of the New Testament in Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, Gothic, and Ethiopic.  There are also 8,000 copies of the Latin Vulgate.4,5  Numerous quotations from the New Testament Scriptures can be found in the writings of the early Church fathers.  These quotations are so numerous that it would be possible to gather them and reconstruct the entire New Testament, minus only fifteen to twenty verses!6  Considering just how many manuscripts Bible translators have at their fingertips, it is stunning just how much evidence there is for the validity of the New Testament.  To further support this claim, there is astounding evidence for the specific timing of the New Testament writings.  Check out this chart (near the end of the article) from Probe Ministries for further information.
 
Archaeological Evidence

 When it comes to providing solid historical evidence for the Bible, archaeology has proved the Bible’s reliability time and again.  In fact, the current number of archaeological finds that relate to the Bible reach into the hundreds of thousands!7  Archaeology has uncovered several civilizations, cities, ancient sites, etc. that are mentioned in the Scriptures.  One excellent such example is the Hittite civilization.

 For many years, critics had attacked the Bible’s references to the Hittites, whom It stated were a powerful people in the Middle East from 1750 to 1200 B.C. (Genesis 15:20, 1 Kings 10:29).  During the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, archaeologists discovered evidence that permanently silenced critics of the Hittites’ existence.  A Hittite city — which was soon understood to be the empire’s capital — was discovered in Turkey.  This city also housed a library of thousands of tablets, providing additional insight to the Hittite language and culture.8

Check back soon for part II!

1. – Williams, James F., “Are the Biblical Documents Reliable?,” Probe Ministries, (1995), http://www.probe.org/site/c.fdKEIMNsEoG/b.4227393/k.3AE2/Are_the_Biblical_Documents_Reliable.htm (accessed February 4, 2010).
2. – Ibid.
3. – Ibid.
4. – Ibid.
5. – The Latin Vulgate is a Latin Translation of the Bible completed in A.D. 405 by Saint Jerome.
6. – Williams, op. cit.
7. – Zukeran, Patrick, “Authority of the Bible,” Probe Ministries, (2005), http://www.probe.org/site/c.fdKEIMNsEoG/b.4227389/k.6202/Authority_of_the_Bible.htm (accessed February 4, 2010).
8. – Ibid.

The other day while I was in a store, I happened to hear some of an interesting yet sobering conversation between a cashier and a customer.  Because I was walking by the checkout counters and not in line, I was only able to catch a piece of the dialogue.  As the cashier was totaling up the customer’s order, the customer ventured to ask him where he went to church.  The young man named a local place of worship that happened to be a Pseudo-Christian cult (for more on Pseudo-Christian cults, click here.)  A somewhat puzzled expression momentarily passed over the customer’s face, but it didn’t stop him from asking a follow-up question: “Uh, are you saved?”

Before I write anything else, I want to commend the customer for taking the initiative to try and share his faith.  It takes guts to do that, and it’s especially challenging to do it with a stranger.  Although I was unable to understand all the aspects and circumstances surrounding the customer’s witness, he did not appear to be very knowledgeable of the beliefs the cashier’s religion holds to.  Although he very likely knew what he believed about being “saved”, I don’t know if he had an understanding of what members of the particular cult believe.  He didn’t need to know every tenet of the cult’s doctrine; he just needed to know a few of their basic beliefs, including their view of salvation, which is very different from that of Christianity. 

Although it can be very helpful to know and understand the positions of other religions and belief systems, please understand that I am not suggesting one go out and conduct a highly intensive search on every philosophy that crosses their path.  Before any research on another belief system is made, Christians need to be sure that they know what they believe and that their beliefs line up with Scripture.  After this crucial foundation has been laid, research can be conducted on other beliefs.  This extra- curricular research is entirely optional and definitely not mandatory.  However, it can be extremely valuable when entering a witnessing opportunity or in understanding a particular cultural viewpoint. 

Here’s an illustration.  Suppose an army needs to know what obstacles they may face in a particular tract of land before they launch an assault.  Because they may not get another shot at taking this extremely valuable territory, they need to know what they are going up against before they go all in.  Obviously, the wisest move would be to scout out the land.  Once the scouts return with the necessary information — what the layout appears to be, where the opposition is weakest, etc. — the advance can proceed with a much greater amount of confidence and likelihood of success. 

The Christian approach to witnessing and understanding other worldviews is somewhat similar to that army’s scouting procedure.  We don’t need to go into a witnessing opportunity with a militant attitude, but we do need to obtain any information necessary to conducting a successful mission.  Understandably, a Christian can’t know every belief about every worldview he encounters, but a basic knowledge of the fundamental beliefs of several major belief systems will give him a distinct advantage not only in witnessing, but also in understanding events and opinions throughout our culture.  If Christians are to be ready to “give a reason for the hope that we have” (1Peter 3:15) as well as being on guard to “take every thought captive” (2 Corinthians 10:5) that the culture throws our way, we need to take time and understand the different worldviews that challenge the Christian worldview.  If we can learn to do this minimal amount of foundational work consistently, we will be able to enter witnessing opportunities and interaction with the culture with greater confidence, focus, and effectiveness.

If you would like to learn more about the beliefs of several prominent religions and belief systems, check out these links:

Chart depicting six major worldviews and their beliefs on a variety of topics

Essays on several religions and belief systems

Essays covering topics that different worldviews address