Worldview Jenga Towers

Ever played Jenga? Jenga is a game where a tower is constructed of 54 wooden blocks. Players take turns removing blocks, one at a time, until the tower collapses.

Recently, I saw the following comment by an atheist on Facebook:

Creationists are not unwilling to listen to the evidence because they believe themselves to be correct. They are unwilling to listen because they must, at ANY cost, defend their ideologies because they are a Jenga tower of [expletive deleted]. Remove one peg and the whole thing comes down. Try getting anyone to deny something they’ve predicated their entire life on. It has to come from within. As it did for us.

Why do young-earth creationists defend their beliefs? And, why do atheists defend evolution?

It is ironic that this atheist would post such a comment, because creation is much more of a threat to an atheistic worldview than evolution could ever be to a Christian worldview. One’s worldview is the totality of a person’s beliefs. Like a Jenga tower, all worldviews have certain core beliefs that form the base. Without these foundational axioms, the entire worldview collapses. There are millions of Christians who believe God used some sort of evolutionary process to bring about the world as we now know it. Faith in Jesus Christ is not predicated on young earth creation. However, atheism is absolutely dependent on evolution, because any alternative that implies God or any other “higher power” completely contradicts the belief that no such God exists. An evolutionary worldview is the only possibility if one is going to maintain that nothing supernatural exists. To use the Jenga analogy, if any form of creation or intelligent design were true, not only is a peg removed from the Jenga tower of atheism, the entire table the tower was built upon disappears. This is why atheists so vehemently defend evolution and attack any notion of creation.

If faith in Jesus Christ is not predicated on a literal young-earth understanding of the Bible, then why do Biblical creationists so passionately defend a literal understanding of Genesis?

While it is true that one can be a Christian while believing that God used some sort of evolutionary process, to do so is inconsistent, and it undermines the authority of the Bible. Genesis clearly teaches that God created the universe in six normal days, not billions of years. The Gospel message is based on the fact that every person is a sinner in need of a Savior, and that everyone is a sinner because we have inherited a sin nature from our original ancestor, Adam (see Romans 5). If evolution is true, then the Genesis account is false, and if Genesis is false, then there is no original sin, and no need for a Savior. Christians base their belief in Jesus Christ on the fact that the Bible is correct when it talks about Jesus. Yet, if the Bible is wrong when it talks about origins, why would it be correct when it talks about Jesus?

Don’t get me wrong; I’m not saying a person cannot be a saved, born-again Christian without a literal understanding of Genesis. What I am saying is that to do so, the Christian is being irrational. Numerous studies involving people who once called themselves Christians, but no longer do, have shown that belief in evolution is among the top reasons why people who are brought up in Christian homes and Bible-believing churches begin to question the Bible’s accuracy, eventually leading to complete rejection of Christian belief. Evolution and the Bible are incompatible. Atheists and other non-Christians understand this. Biblical young-earth creationists understand this. The only ones who can’t seem to understand this are those who try to cling to both the Bible and evolution.

Is evolution a proven fact, as many claim? Far from it. The scientific method requires experimentation that is observable, testable, and repeatable. Evolution, in the sense of all life coming from a common ancestor, cannot be observed – it supposedly happened in the past. It cannot be tested or repeated for the same reason. The fact that we see changes in organisms today does not imply that all life came from a common origin. Common design elements in DNA does not necessarily mean common ancestry; it makes more sense that commonalities in DNA design are due to a common designer. Gaps in the fossil record, carbon-14 in fossils, and the tremendous amount of information in DNA all point to the truth of the Bible’s account and completely contradict evolution. This isn’t to say that evolutionists haven’t come up with all sorts of convoluted rescuing devices to maintain their belief in random, natural processes; however, the actual observable evidence is completely in harmony with the Biblical account, while extremely contradictory to the notion that life came to be as it is today all by itself. I could write volumes explaining this point further, but I won’t. A quick Google search will serve the purpose for any reader who really wants to seek out the truth of the matter. Ultimately, most atheistsand evolutionists really don’t care about the evidence, despite protestations to the contrary. They only care about maintaining their Jenga tower of unbelief.

If there was incontrovertible proof that evolution is true, would my Christianity come crashing down? Absolutely not; my faith in Jesus Christ is not dependent on my current understanding of the origins of the universe, but rather is based on a relationship with Him. True, I would have a crisis of faith, and I would need to seriously rebuild my understanding of the Bible, but I would remain a follower of Jesus Christ. Part of my Jenga tower worldview would fall, but the foundation would remain intact. I have a relationship with God through Jesus Christ; the Holy Spirit dwells in me; it would be impossible for me to cease believing in the Savior Who has so radically changed me from the inside. It would be like denying oxygen. However, an atheist must maintain a belief in evolution, or their entire worldview must come crashing down. Atheism is impossible without evolution; it is critical to the foundation of an atheistic worldview.

This is why atheists must attack creation while defending evolution.

As a Christian, I defend the literal Truth of the Bible, not because I must for my Christianity to stand, but because I have a passion for seeing others come to know the Truth. Jesus said, “And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free” John 8:32. He also said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me” John 14:6. We defend creation and challenge evolution because we want others to know Jesus.

Atheist Day – April 1 – Psalm 14:1

I had the following exchange (paraphrased) on Facebook the other day:

Me: Atheist Day is April 1. Psalm 14:1 – The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.”

Atheist: Atheists aren’t fools. You’re a moron.

Me: Can there be anything more foolish that telling God that He doesn’t exist?

Atheist: I don’t tell gods they don’t exist. I don’t talk to fictional characters.

I had to paraphrase the atheist’s remarks, because she blocked me from seeing her comments a few minutes after she posted them.

I was both amused and saddened by this person’s answer. She apparently had no idea that by stating, “I don’t talk to fictional characters,” she was doing precisely what she argued she doesn’t do – she was telling God He doesn’t exist.

According to urban legend, a judge in Florida once declared that April 1 is “Atheist Day,” citing Psalm 14:1. This legend has been debunked; it apparently originated as a joke on a humor mailing list in 2002.

Is Atheism Foolish?

The fool has said in his heart,
“There is no God.”
They are corrupt,
They have done abominable works,
There is none who does good.

~ Psalm 14:1

Atheism is a very foolish worldview to hold. For one thing, atheism is completely illogical. An atheist contends that he or she knows there is no God. Logically, one cannot know that something does not exist.

Let’s use Bigfoot, also known as sasquatch, as an example. In order to know Bigfoot does not exist, one would have to look in every place Bigfoot could possibly exist. They would have to look in all of these places at the same time, to ensure Bigfoot wasn’t moving from place to place. They would also have to know what Bigfoot is. Otherwise, they might actually see Bigfoot, but not recognize it. Logically, no one can know Bigfoot does not exist. The best one can logically know is that they have never seen Bigfoot, or any evidence for the existence of Bigfoot. One can conclude that Bigfoot probably does not exist, but one cannot logically conclude absolutely that Bigfoot does not exist.  Personally, I don’t believe in Bigfoot.  However, it would be illogical to say I know Bigfoot does not exist.  I would be a sasquatch agnostic rather than an a-sasquatch-ist.

The same logic applies to God. In order to know God does not exist, one would need to be looking everywhere in the universe simultaneously, and would need to know what God looks like in order to recognize whether He was present, or not. Such a person would need to be omnipresent to look everywhere at once, and omniscient to know what God looks like. Unless a person is indeed omnipresent and omniscient, it is illogical to claim one knows God does not exist.


The most a person can logically claim is that they don’t know if God exists. This would be agnosticism, not atheism. At least with agnosticism, there is enough intellectual integrity to acknowledge not knowing for certain.


Another reason atheism is foolish is what is known as Pascal’s Wager. Blaise Pascal (1633 – 1662) was a French mathematician, physicist, and philosopher. He argued that if a Christian is wrong about Christianity, they basically live a happy life, and when they die – they’re gone. They really haven’t lost anything by being wrong in their beliefs. However, if a non-Christian is wrong, although they may live a happy life here on earth, when they die, they end up in Hell. In other words, if one “wagers” on Christianity and loses, they lose nothing; if one “wagers” against Christianity and loses, they lose everything.


Although many atheists have devised convoluted scenarios they believe work around Pascal’s Wager, the same basic question remains: What if one is wrong about Christianity? If I, as a Christian, am wrong about Christianity, I’ll never know. When I die, I’ll just rot in the grave, and cease to exist. But, if an atheist is wrong about Christianity, they end up in Hell for eternity. That’s one bet I would not want to lose!


The most foolish thing about being an atheist is that atheist actually do know God exists. However, they intentionally suppress that knowledge.

¹⁸ For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, ¹⁹ because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. ²⁰ For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, ²¹ because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. ²² Professing to be wise, they became fools, ²³ and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man—and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things.

~ Romans 1:18-23

God’s existence is obvious to anyone who is willing to see it. Everything in the universe points to His existence. The problem is that all people are born in rebellion against God.

² The Lord looks down from heaven upon the children of men,
To see if there are any who understand, who seek God.
³ They have all turned aside,
They have together become corrupt;
There is none who does good,
No, not one.

~ Psalm 14:2-3

Every person is born separated from God. Yet God, in His grace, reveals Himself to each of us, and gives us the opportunity to turn to Him.

For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.

~ John 3:16

Those who choose to respond to the Gospel and receive Christ as Lord and Savior gain an eternal relationship with God through Jesus Christ. Those who foolishly suppress the truth of the Gospel remain eternally separated from God, and spend eternity in Hell. This is why atheism is foolish. For God to offer forgiveness, reconciliation with Himself, and eternal life, yet to choose to tell Him, “No thank you. You do not exist,” is the most foolish thing a person could ever do.

The Logical Fallacy of Requiring Material Evidence to Prove God’s Existence

The following graphic, which I saw on Facebook, sums up the argument I consistently hear from materialistic atheists in their arguments against God.

For many, this seems like a rational requirement. If something is true, there should be scientific evidence to prove it.

However, such a “rule” is actually nonsense. There are logical fallacies involved in requiring the use of the scientific method to prove the existence of God.

Fallacy #1 – It’s totally arbitrary

The first fallacy of requiring empirical scientific evidence to prove God’s existence is that such a requirement is total arbitrary.

When an atheist demands physical evidence for the existence of God, my first response is, “Why? Why is scientific evidence the only acceptable evidence?”

The usual response is, “Because the only way we can know anything is through physical evidence.”

And again, my response is, “Why?” And I usually get a confused stare, like I’m crazy for even asking such a question.

The point is, there is absolutely no logical reason why such a rule should exist – except for the worldview of the materialistic atheist. The materialistic atheist believes that the material world of matter and energy is all that exists. The thought that anything else could exist is absurd to them. However, material atheism is itself completely arbitrary.

Fallacy #2 – Category Error

A category error is “a type of informal fallacy where things that belong to one grouping are mistakenly placed in another,” or where “a property is ascribed to a thing that could not possibly have that property.” If someone says, “My coffee is a Republican,” they are committing a category error – coffee cannot be a Republican. Only people can be Republicans. Coffee does not belong to the category of things capable of being a Republican.

The Biblical God is not a material Being. He is not part of the natural universe. By definition, God is supernatural (super- “Above; over;” natural “Present in or produced by nature”). God is in an entirely different category than the natural universe. When one demands physical evidence for the existence of a non-physical Being, they are committing a category error fallacy. It would be like demanding DNA evidence for the existence of black holes, or asking for a test tube full of consciousness, or trying to put time in a bottle.

Fallacy #3 – It’s self-refuting

What do I mean by saying this rule is self-refuting? Basically, this rule, when applied to itself, contradicts itself.

First, the rule requires “empirical results of repeatable experimentation.” There is no way to conduct a repeatable experiment to empirically test whether “empirical results of repeatable experimentation” are required to argue for the supernatural. One cannot use the rule to test the validity of the rule.

Second, the rule requires “cogent, non-fallacious argumentation.” Yet, as I’ve already demonstrated, the rule itself is fallacious.

Fallacy #4 – Even when the rule is met, material atheists ignore the evidence

This fallacy isn’t with the rule itself, per se, but with the way atheists handle the scientific evidence that does support God’s existence.

There is a tremendous amount of “empirical results of repeatable experimentation” and much “cogent, non-fallacious argumentation” that supports the existence of God. The sheer volume of such evidence makes it impossible to present these evidences in this brief blog. A simple Google search will bring up tens of thousands of articles, peer-reviewed papers, and Websites that present the scientific arguments for God. My point is, when confronted with these evidences, the materialistic atheist will reject it anyway. Why? Because to acknowledge the validity of scientific evidence for the existence of God would completely shatter the material atheist’s entire worldview. They would be forced to face the fact that they are wrong. In other words, the material atheist cannot objectively examine scientific evidence that is presented; they must deny it, not because it isn’t scientific, but because it leads to conclusions they don’t want to acknowledge. Romans 1:18 states, “For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness.” Those that reject God must suppress, or hide, the truth. Romans 1 continues:

¹⁹ because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. ²⁰ For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, ²¹ because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. ²² Professing to be wise, they became fools, ²³ and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man—and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things.

Those who reject God ultimately do so, not because of a lack of evidence, but because they foolishly refuse to submit to His authority over their lives. The issue is not evidence; the issue is rebellion.

Christians need to continue to present the Gospel to non-Christians, including materialistic atheists. We must continually pray for the lost, be prepared to present cogent arguments when needed, and rely on the Holy Spirit to us to reach the lost. We must not be swayed by the fallacious arguments used to deny God, but must stand on the truth of God’s Word as the foundation of our beliefs.

Grabbed this off Facebook a couple of minutes after I posted this blog. It seemed to fit.

Pushing People Out of the Church – Part 6

Valerie Tarico

A while back, I read an article on the left-wing, anti-religion, news-and-commentary website Alternet.org entitled, “8 Ways Christian Fundamentalists Make People Convert — to Agnosticism or Atheism,” by skeptic Valerie Tarico.

While I personally find most of the articles on this site either tasteless or just plain nonsense, this article caught my interest, because it contains some truths that Christians need to understand.

It’s important to recognize that people who reject Jesus Christ ultimately do so because they choose to suppress the truth (Romans 1:18-19). Unfortunately, there are also many things that those in the church do to push people away. As Tarico states, “if you read ExChristian testimonials you will notice that quite often church leaders or members do things that either trigger the deconversion process or help it along.”

I’ve found that I can learn a lot by listening to what skeptics say about their perceptions of Christianity. This series looks at the eight reasons Tarico highlights.

Reason #6: Science Denial

One of my former youth group friends had his faith done in by a conversation with a Bible study leader who explained that dinosaur skeletons actually are the bones of the giants described in early books of the Bible. Uh huh. Christians have come up with dozens of squishier, less falsifiable ways to explain the geological record: The “days” in Genesis 1 were really “ages.” Or God created the world with the fossils already in place to test our faith. Or the biblical creation story is really sacred metaphor. But young-earth creationists who believe the world appeared in its present form 6,000-10,000 years ago are stuck. And since almost half of the American public believes some version of this young-earth story, there are ample opportunities for inquiring minds to trip across proto-scientific nonsense.

Like other factors I’ve mentioned, science denial doesn’t just move believers to nonbelief; it also rallies opposition ranging from cantankerous bloggers to legal advocates. It provides fodder for comedians and critics: “If the world was created 6,000 years ago, what’s fueling your car?” It may produce some of the most far-reaching opposition to religious belief, because science advocates argue that faith, even socially benign faith, is a fundamentally flawed way of knowing. The Catholic church, perhaps still licking wounds about Galileo (it apologized finally in the 20th century), has managed to avoid embarrassing and easily disproven positions on evolutionary biology. But one could argue that its atheism-fostering positions on conception and contraception similarly rely on ignorance about or denial of biological science — in this case embryology and the basic fact that most embryos never become persons.

From my experience, the creation vs. evolution debate is the topic that is most likely to get a skeptic’s dander up. This is because atheism is utterly impossible unless evolution is true. If God or gods don’t exist, there must be a non-supernatural mechanism to explain how life came to be. The only remotely plausible explanation is evolution.

answersingenesis.org

I’ve always found it ironic that when most creationists discuss evolution and creation, they tend to focus on the observable scientific inconsistencies of evolutionary theory and the observable science supporting the Biblical creation model, while most evolutionists simply state evolution as dogma and ridicule the Biblical model – without bringing up actual scientific evidence. Tarico is no different. Granted, two paragraphs isn’t enough space to lay out any real scientific evidence one way or the other. Yet, she does manage to state her dogmatic faith in evolution, and throw out a few question-begging epithets against Biblical creation (“proto-scientific nonsense,” “science denial,” “denial of biological science”). She also throws out a huge straw-man argument: “… young-earth creationists … believe the world appeared in its present form 6,000-10,000 years ago.” Wrong. The 6,000-10,000 years ago part is correct. The “appeared in its present form” is absolutely wrong. Biblical creationists generally believe the earth was created “very good” (Genesis 1:31), but that it was radically changed because of sin (Genesis 3). It was tremendously altered by the global flood of Noah’s day (Genesis 6-8). Furthermore, natural processes such as erosion, weathering, natural selection, and mutations have continued to change the earth and the organisms live here. But, then again, it’s easier to argue against a straw-man with dogma and name-calling than it is to argue logically against actual Biblical creation.

answersingenesis.org

The fact that some naïve Bible study leader ignorantly thought that “dinosaur skeletons actually are the bones of the giants described in early books of the Bible” isn’t an argument against Biblical creationism. It does, however, point out the fact that too many Christians are ignorant of both science and the Bible. 1 Peter 3:15 says, “But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts, and always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you, with meekness and fear.” Unfortunately, most Christians are not ready, and cannot give a defense of the Biblical account of Creation. The un-Biblical compromise positions Tarico mentions, such as the day-age theory, Genesis as a metaphor, or any number of other theories, cause as much confusion about the Bible as atheistic evolution. All origins theories other than the straight-forward Biblical account of six literal days a few thousand years ago take mankind’s fallible ideas and hold them in higher authority than God’s Word. All of these other theories question the authority of the straight-forward teaching of the Bible.

Christians, especially Christian leaders and teachers, need to educate themselves. We need to understand science and evolutionary theory. In fact, Christians need to understand evolution better than most evolutionists do. We need to understand what evolution teaches, as well as the scientific, logical, and theological problems with evolution. We need to understand how various dating methods arrive at ancient ages for the earth, and the arbitrary assumptions behind these methods. We also need to understand what the Bible actually says – and doesn’t say – about origins and the age of the earth. What we actually observe in the universe solidly confirms the Biblical account of creation, and show the millions-of-years-of-evolution dogma to be utterly impossible.

I would argue that it’s not the young-earth position that drives people away, as Tarico believes; rather, it’s ignorant Christians that are unprepared to explain how science confirms the Bible that cause confusion and doubt. Too many Christians appear ignorant of science, not because they embrace the Biblical creation, but because they actually are ignorant of both science and the Bible. Incidentally, most skeptics are just as ignorant – but that’s no excuse. If we want people to realize the absolute truth of the Bible, and embrace faith in Jesus Christ as the only rational reality, then we need to take 1 Peter 3:15 to heart, and stop being so ignorant and unprepared to defend the authority of Scripture.

---

Numerous resources are available to help the Christian understand Biblical creation. I recommend starting with the Answers Book 1, 2, and 3 available from Answers in Genesis. Ministries such as Answers in Genesis, the Institute for Creation Research, Creation Ministries International, and many others have thousands of articles, books, DVDs, and other resources available – many for FREE.

The Irrationality of the Modern Concept of Intolerance

One of the most overused buzzwords today is the word intolerant. Anyone who opposes abortion, gay marriage, illegal immigration, embryonic stem cell research, or government controlled health care as intolerant and a bigot. During an interview with Baptist Press, Chick-fil-A president and COO Dan Cathy was asked about the Chick-fil-A’s support of the traditional family. He responded,

“Well, guilty as charged…We are very much supportive of the family—the biblical definition of the family unit. We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives. We give God thanks for that. We operate as a family business … our restaurants are typically led by families; some are single. We want to do anything we possibly can to strengthen families. We are very much committed to that.”

Cathy’s comments sparked intense media frenzy. Cathy was labeled an intolerant, anti-gay, homophobic bigot. Chick-fil-A restaurants were picketed by opponents, and proponents flocked to show their support.

Christians who take a stand against any belief or practice that is opposed to Biblical teaching are labeled intolerant. It is intolerant to say homosexuality is a sin; it is intolerant to call abortion murder; it is intolerant to suggest that men and women should have different roles; it is intolerant to claim that non-Christians will go to Hell.

Is Christianity intolerant? Does the Bible teach intolerance? What does it mean to be intolerant?

What intolerance means

According Dictionary.com, the word intolerance means:

1. lack of toleration; unwillingness or refusal to tolerate or respect contrary opinions or beliefs, persons of different races or backgrounds, etc.
   

The word tolerate means:

1. to allow the existence, presence, practice, or act of without prohibition or hindrance; permit.
2. to endure without repugnance; put up with.

In other words, the traditional meaning of intolerance is an unwillingness to allow or put up with things with which one disagrees. It involves prohibiting or hindering practices that one finds offensive or disagreeable. Under this traditional understanding of tolerance, a person cannot tolerate something with which they agree; to tolerate means to disagree, but to permit in spite of disagreement.

In modern American politically correct thinking, however, there has been a subtle shift in this meaning. Intolerance now means to oppose any belief or practice. If a person thinks any practice or belief is wrong or immoral, they are now labeled intolerant. Note the subtle difference. Intolerance used to mean prohibiting or hindering beliefs and practices one disagrees with. Now, it means to simply disagree. If a Christian merely believes abortion is a sin, they are now labeled intolerant. If one merely suggests that same-gender marriage is wrong, they are now intolerant bigots. The meaning has shifted from prohibiting that with which one disagrees to merely disagreeing.

Where does this new concept of intolerance come from?

This new concept of intolerance as merely believing an idea or practice is wrong is firmly rooted in the philosophy of relativism. According to Dictionary.com, relativism is “any theory holding that criteria of judgment are relative, varying with individuals and their environments.” In other words, what’s true for you may not be true for me; there is no absolute truth. Relativism is a core belief in humanism, liberalism, and postmodernism. It’s the foundation of American political correctness, and, unfortunately, many Christians have been seduced by this philosophy as well.

In any worldview based in relativism, it is meaningless to say something is absolutely wrong. Right and wrong are entirely determined by circumstances, culture, and personal beliefs. For a relativist, the statement, “You should not do X because it is wrong,” is nonsense. A practice may be wrong for some people in certain circumstances, but since truth is relative, and absolutes do not exist, one cannot claim a practice is always wrong, or wrong for anyone but themselves.

When the Bible states that adultery is wrong, this teaching is inconceivable to a relativist. There are no absolutes, so claiming adultery is wrong is nonsense. It’s like saying blue is wrong, or vanilla ice cream is wrong. Right and wrong are totally determined by the preferences of the individual, depending on the circumstances.

There are several problems with relativism. First, the concept is self-contradictory. According to relativism, absolute truth does not exist. However, this belief is held as absolute truth! If absolute right and wrong do not exist, then anyone who believes is absolute right and wrong is wrong. But, since wrong does not exist, they cannot be wrong. The relativist absolutely believes that absolutes do not exist! On this basis alone, relativism should be rejected – it’s a logical impossibility.

Living with an irrational worldview

When one actually tries to put a relativistic worldview into practice, the irrationality becomes even more pronounced. Since relativism posits that absolute right and wrong do not exist, it would be illogical to say murder, rape, child abuse, or assault are absolutely wrong. Yet, in practice, almost all relativists would say they are absolutely wrong. How do they get around this paradox? Most would state that a practice is immoral only if it harms someone else. So, in practice, there are absolutes; it is absolutely immoral to harm others. The philosophy of relativism completely unravels when put into practice. Yet, most people who hold to this view don’t understand the irrationality of their beliefs.

Let’s take it a step further. Since absolute right and wrong do not exist (except, of course, that we cannot harm others), the concept of sin is inconceivable. When a Christian says that abortion is sin, the relativist is forced to conclude that the Christian is wrong in his belief. But, this is a contradiction – right and wrong don’t exist for the relativist!

This brings us back to the concept of intolerance. For the relativist, any claim that an idea or practice is wrong is intolerant. Right and wrong don’t exist, so when the Bible calls certain practices sin, it completely contradicts the very foundation of the relativist’s worldview.

When applied to the gay marriage issue, when a Christian says gay marriage is wrong, the relativist is forced into the illogical conclusion that the Christian is wrong. The Christian is claiming that absolutes exist, that gay marriage is absolutely wrong. The relativist finds this position is intolerable – in the traditional sense of refusing to put up with or respect. The Christian belief cannot be permitted, because, if true, it means the relativist’s entire worldview is wrong. What’s ironic is that in calling the Christian belief intolerant, it’s actually the relativist that is intolerant.

The modern definition of intolerance is intolerant of other views, and is inescapably hypocritical. Those who hold to this view of intolerance are unavoidably hypocrites. It is hypocritical to be intolerant of others for their perceived intolerance, yet the modern definition of tolerance forces it.

What the Bible says

Romans chapter 1 gives a very clear description of the consequences of this sort of thinking:

¹⁸ For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, ¹⁹ because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them.

The Bible makes it clear that all people know that absolute truth does exist; but those who reject God suppress the truth. God reveals Himself to everyone, but most people refuse to accept Him, and come up with other philosophies and beliefs to replace the truth.

²⁰ For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, ²¹ because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. ²² Professing to be wise, they became fools, ²³ and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man—and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things.

Rejection of God produces futility in thinking. It leads to irrational philosophies like relativism. Any worldview or philosophy apart from the Word of God is foolishness. It leads to belief systems that are completely irrational, yet are clung to by people because they reject the only Truth.

²⁴ Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, ²⁵ who exchanged the truth of God for the lie…

This is why, I believe, so many people get upset with Christians like Dan Cathy for saying he supports the “biblical definition of the family unit.” Non-Christians are trying to suppress the truth; Christians who speak out bring the truth back out in the open.

Is God intolerant? Guilty as charged.

The Bible makes it clear that God does not tolerate sin: “For the wages of sin is death…” (Romans 6:23a). The Bible also makes it clear that the ONLY solution for sin is Jesus Christ: “…but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord” (Romans 6:23b). God does not tolerate sin, because sin separates us from Him. God’s love demands that while He cannot tolerate sin, He has provided a way for us to be reconciled to Him: ^“For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life” (John 3:16).

Because of His holiness, God cannot tolerate sin; but, because of His love, He cannot leave us without a Savior from that sin.

Pushing People Out of the Church – Part 2

Skeptic Valerie Tarico wrote an the article, “8 Ways Christian Fundamentalists Make People Convert — to Agnosticism or Atheism,” for the left-wing, anti-religion, news-and-commentary website Alternet.org. While I find most of the articles on this site either offensive or just plain ignorant, this article caught my interest, because it contains some truths that Christians need to understand.

While people who reject Jesus Christ ultimately do so because they choose to suppress the truth (Romans 1:18-19), there are also things that many in the church do to push people away. As Tarico states, “if you read ExChristian testimonials you will notice that quite often church leaders or members do things that either trigger the deconversion process or help it along.”

As a Christian, I can learn a lot by listening to what skeptics say about why people leave the church. This series looks at the eight reasons Tarico highlights.

Tarico’s second reason:

2. Prooftexting. People who think of the Bible as the literally perfect word of God love to quote excerpts to argue their points. They often start with a verse in 1 Timothy: All scripture is given by inspiration of God (as if this circular argument would convince anyone but a true believer). They proceed to quote whatever authoritarian, anti-gay or anti-woman verse makes their point, like, Whoever spares the rod hates their children…Blows and wounds cleanse away evil, and beatings purge the inmost being or Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination. In doing so, they call into question biblical authority, because the Bible writers so obviously got these issues wrong. Literalists who prooftext are a tremendous asset to those who would like to see Bible worship fade away – because prooftexting on one side of an argument invites the same in return, and it is easy to find quotes from the Bible that are either scientifically absurd or morally repugnant.

Many liberal or modernist Christians see the Bible as a human document, an attempt by our spiritual ancestors to articulate their best understanding of God through the lens of imperfect human cultures and minds. Suppose such a Christian is confronted with a verse that says, for example, Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man (Numbers 31:17-18), or No man who has any defect may come near [to God in the temple]: no man who is blind or lame, disfigured or deformed;  no man with a crippled foot or hand, or who is a hunchback or a dwarf, or who has any eye defect,…(Leviticus 21:17-23). He or she can simply shrug and say, “Yeah, that’s ugly.” A couple of years ago a group of liberal Christians even kicked off an Internet competition to vote on the worst verse in the Bible. Their faith doesn’t stand or fall with the perfection of the Bible. Biblical literalists, on the other hand, give someone like me an excuse to talk about sexual slavery or bias against handicapped people in the Bible – in front of an audience who have been taught that the good book is uniformly good. For a wavering believer, the dissonance can be too much.

First, let’s define the term Prooftexting. Prooftexting means to pull a Bible passage out of context and to use it to justify a doctrinal position. Unfortunately, Tarico is correct; many Christians grab verses out of context to justify bad theology and sin. The ironic thing is that Tarico pulls the verses she quotes out of context to justify her conclusion that “the Bible writers so obviously got these issues wrong.” Prooftexting works both ways; skeptics are at least as bad about ignoring context as the Christians they rant against.

It’s also ironic that Tarico gives the answer to the problem of prooftexting: All scripture is given by inspiration of God… (1 Timothy 3:16). All scripture means ALL scripture. It means we can’t just grab the verses that seem to support our pet belief while ignoring the rest of the Bible. At various times in its history, the church has used prooftexting to justify slavery, inquisitions, and witch hunts. Today, some Christians use prooftexting to justify protesting the funerals of United States servicemen, racism, and hating homosexuals. Tarico is right – many Christians latch onto Leviticus 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination, but ignore John 8:11, “…And Jesus said to her, ‘Neither do I condemn you; go and sin no more.’” And, Tarico is also correct in pointing out that such bad theology and quoting the Bible out of context is “are a tremendous asset to those who would like to see Bible worship fade away.”

In my blogs, I make it a point to link to the Scriptures I quote, usually on BibleGateway.com. I do this in order to make it easier for my readers to check out the passages, in context, looking at multiple translations. I want to give my readers the opportunity to check out the context for themselves, to see that, in context, the passage agrees with the point I’m trying to make. And, if the reader disagrees, and feels I’m prooftexting, I want them to point out my error. Context is the most important element to correctly understanding God’s Word. One must not only look at the immediate context of a passage, but also how the passage fits with other related passages. When we fail to do this, we risk believing bad theology, and in turn, we risk living our lives contrary to God’s will. We risk sin, and sin will destroy us. Bad theology can destroy a church, and can drive away those who are teetering between belief and unbelief.

Tarico compares the approaches of “liberal or modernist Christians” and “Biblical literalists.” She concludes that the “liberal” approach is better, because the Bible contains errors, and those errors don’t create problems for Christians whose faith doesn’t “stand or fall with the perfection of the Bible.” She believes that for “Biblical literalists,” the “dissonance” of conflicting passages drives people away from the faith.

The problem with her argument is that she presupposes that the Bible contains errors and contradictions.

It’s true that there are many Biblical passages that, on the surface, seem to contradict each other, or seem to make God into an evil being. The problem is that most people – Christians and non-Christians alike – tend to prooftext these passages, pulling them out of context. The reason Bible passages seem to contradict each other is because people ignore the context in which they are given. Using Tarico’s example, when confronted with a verse like Numbers 31:17-18, ”Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man,” one needs to look at the immediate context of the entire chapter of Numbers 31. In this case, the Israelites had ignored God’s command to destroy the Midianites. Digging deeper, one would need to look at 1) why the Israelites disobeyed God; 2) why God wanted the Midianites destroyed; and 3) how this event fits into God’s overall plan of the redemption of humankind. When I look at a passage like this in the context of God’s love, holiness, omniscience, and sovereignty, I conclude that God had reasons I cannot fully understand for commanding the destruction of the Midianites, and that those reasons were based on His mercy and love. Perhaps in His mercy, He didn’t want more Midianites to be born, knowing that all of them would reject Him and choose Hell instead – leading others away from Him as well. When I look at the whole context of Scripture and the nature of God, I can begin to understand how a loving God can hate sin, and why He would use genocide to keep more people from ending up in Hell. I arrive at a different conclusion than the skeptic or the liberal Christian about this passage because I presuppose the Bible is true and take the passage in the context of the entire Bible.

The answer to prooftexting is not to simply ignore apparent contradictions. The answer is to begin with trust in God’s goodness, love, and mercy; to examine difficult passages in context, starting with the assumption that the Bible is the true Word of God; to allow the Holy Spirit to give insight and wisdom; and to dig deeper into the Bible to understand the big picture of God’s plan for the redemption of humanity. For a person teetering between belief and unbelief, the answer is not to water down the Bible; the answer is to dig deeper into the context and “give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you” (1 Peter 3:15).

Islam: An Apologetic Analysis and Critique

This was originally a paper I wrote for a class at Liberty Theological Seminary.

Introduction

Islam is the second-largest religion in the world, behind Christianity, and is growing rapidly. There has been a long history of ignorance, intolerance, and resentment of Muslims by Christians in the United States, which has increased greatly since the events of 9/11. Yet, Christians are commanded to preach to all nations (Matthew 28:19), which includes Muslims. In order to reach Muslims with the Gospel, Christians must better understand Islamic thought, and use appropriate apologetic methods. This paper will examine basic Islamic beliefs, analyze the flaws within the Islamic worldview, and suggest apologetic arguments that capitalize on these flaws in order to present the Biblical worldview.

A Summary of Islamic Beliefs

Islam, founded by Muhammad in Saudi Arabia in AD 610, teaches that Judaism and Christianity have become corrupted, and that Islam corrects these religions.

Absolute monotheism is the core axiom of Islam. The doctrine of tawhid states that Allah is utterly transcendent. He is not just monotheistic, but wholly distinct, a completely separate Being.¹ The Islamic view of transcendence is more strict than the Christian view; it “implies that to all intents and purposes God is unknowable; Christians believe that God can be known (John 1:18; 14:7; 17:3, 6).” ²

The term Islam means “surrender.” The Muslim surrenders to Allah by following the Five Pillars of Islam: the creed (shahada), prayer (salat), almsgiving (zakat), fasting (sawm), and pilgrimage to Mecca (hajj).

In the Qur’an, “the greatest Islamic sin is that of shirk—the illicit ‘association’ of a creature in the honor and worship that belongs to God alone.”³ To the Muslim, the concept of Jesus as the Son of God is shirk.

Flaws within Islam

There are many flaws inherent within Islam. As Christians, we accept the premise that the Bible is the perfect, infallible, inerrant Word of God. Therefore, any worldview or religion that contradicts the Bible must logically be false and irrational.

The core doctrine of tawhid, the absolute transcendence of Allah, is self-refuting. Tawhid teaches that Allah is unknowable, yet the statement that Allah is unknowable is itself a statement of knowledge of Allah – we know that Allah is unknowable. How can one know anything about something that is unknowable? Islam also teaches that Allah has ninety-nine names. These names describe various aspects of Allah’s nature. If Allah is unknowable, then how can we have ninety-nine names describing his attributes?

Tawhid also teaches that nothing – no person or entity – can be compared to or analogous to Allah. Therefore, he can neither be a person, nor any other entity. He cannot be something. If he cannot be something, then he must be nothing. Therefore, Allah cannot exist.

The Qur’an teaches that the Bible is the word of God (Suras 34:31; 35:31; 48:29; 66:6, 12). The Qur’an affirms the Bible’s teaching, but the Bible contradicts the teaching of the Qur’an. Therefore, the Qur’an is self-refuting and cannot be true, because it contradicts the book that it cites as the word of God.

Islamic theology teaches that Allah is both just and merciful. William Vandoodewaard suggests,

The problem is that in order for Allah to remain perfectly just and righteous, sin must be punished. If all men are sinful and have committed sin, and Allah is infinite and perfect in his attributes, there can be no mercy. For mercy then would function as a negation of his justice. This leads to the inevitable conclusion that in order for Allah to be both merciful (in the Quranic sense of ignoring the sins of some) and just, he must be an arbitrary and changing being.⁵

Unlike the cross of Christ in Christianity, Islam has no mechanism for satisfying both the justice and the mercy of Allah.

Allah is indeed described in the Islamic theology as arbitrary. He is “a fickle, capricious, untrustworthy being that is inconsistent, irregular, and has a mutable will. He can tell falsehoods and hoodwink men.”⁶ If Allah is arbitrary and changing, then Islam cannot account for the laws of logic, physics, and mathematics, which are absolute and unchanging. If Allah can lie and change his mind, then how can the Muslim know that Allah was telling the truth when he gave Muhammad the Qur’an?

The Qur’an teaches a distorted view of the Christian doctrine of the Trinity. Islamic theology states that the God of the Bible is three gods: God the Father, Jesus, and Mary. The Qur’an states, “GOD will say, “O Jesus, son of Mary, did you say to the people, `Make me and my mother idols beside GOD?’”⁷ Islam also instructs that the Bible teaches that Jesus was the result of a physical relationship between God and Mary. Both of these claims are blatant misrepresentations of the Bible.

Nowhere in the Qur’an is Allah described as a god of love. The absolute oneness of Allah implies that Allah could not have loved before he created the world, because love requires an object. Since Allah was alone in his existence, there was nothing for him to love. If love is not an attribute of Allah, then from where does love come? If Allah is not a god of love, then he could not have created love. Why does love exist, if it did not come from Allah?

Sharing Christ with the Muslim

One of the first considerations when sharing the Gospel with a Muslim is his belief in greatest Islamic sin, shirk – the offensive, blasphemous placement of anything on par with Allah. Edward Challen believes that Christians should refrain from using the term “Son of God” when describing Jesus, stating, “it is not wise to use the term, for it immediately offends.”⁸ He further suggests that we must first explain what the Bible actually teaches about the Trinity – one God, in three Persons – and then refer to the Trinity and to Jesus as the Son of God.

Caner suggests several cultural principles that would be offensive to the Muslim, which Christians should avoid when witnessing. These include shaking the left hand, calling a Muslim “Brother,” refusing hospitality, serving alcohol, pork, or shellfish, interrupting worship, or speaking to a member of the opposite gender.⁹

A two-fold apologetic is an effective way to share the Gospel with a Muslim. One side of the argument is a polemic against Islam, capitalizing on the inherent flaws within Islam. Demonstrate that the absolute transcendence and unknowability of Allah are self-refuting concepts; that the Qur’an affirms the Bible, but the Bible contradicts the Qur’an; and that the arbitrariness and inconsistency of Allah means that Islam cannot account for the absolute laws of logic, physics, and mathematics. By pointing out these and other logical inconsistencies within Islam, the Christian can help the Muslim understand that Islam cannot be the truth.

The second side of the approach to reach the Muslim is a clear apologetic of the truth of Jesus Christ as the only atonement for sin. Islam provides no method for both justice and mercy; only the death of Jesus Christ on the cross can accomplish both. Since Islam is a works-based religion, the Muslim is acutely aware of his own sin. In order for him to understand God’s grace, he must understand that he cannot satisfy God’s justice on his own.

The Christian must emphasize the differences between Allah and the God of the Bible. Allah is unknowable and unlovable, but our God not only can be known and loved, but knowing and loving Him is the very reason he created us.

Christians must emphasize the differences between the Qur’an and the Bible. Daniel Shayesteh explains that

Muslims need to discover and know whether the Bible or the Qur’an is the Word of God. They need to know which one introduces the real justice of God. They need to ask which one truly cares for the world and provides salvation for humankind? Muslims need to be assured that Jesus can answer their desperate need for salvation and can erase any uncertainty about salvation in their lives. We can prove to them how we now have assurance of salvation in Him.¹⁰

Since Islam teaches that the Bible is the Word of God, it is extremely appropriate to use the Bible to show the differences between Christian and Islamic beliefs, and how Jesus is able to provide the eternal salvation that Islam cannot provide.

Conclusions

Due to space limitations, this paper did not explore all of the flaws within Islam. Further study of these flaws, and the logical and Biblical responses to them, is suggested.

Sharing the Gospel with a Muslim can be a difficult task in light of the mistrust and hysteria in the aftermath of 9/11, but with reliance on the Holy Spirit, God can use the Christian to reach the Muslim with the love of Jesus Christ. Every person is created in God’s image, and needs Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord. By understanding the basic tenets and practices of Islam and the inherent weaknesses within those beliefs, and by giving reasoned responses to those inconsistencies, the Christian can be more effectively used by God to reach the Muslim.

Bibliography

Caner, Ergun. “Islam.” In The Popular Encyclopedia of Apologetics, edited by Ed Hinson and Ergun Caner, 277-281. Eugene, Oregon: Harvest House Publishers, 2008.

Caner, Ergun, and Emir Caner. Unveiling Islam. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Kregel Publications, 2009.

Challen, Edward. Love Your Muslim Neighbour. Leominster, England: Day One Publications, 2006.

Robinson, Mike L. One Way to God. Denver, Colorado: Outskirts Press, 2008.

Schlorff, Samuel P. “Muslim Ideology and Christian Apologetics.” Missiology 21, no. 2 (April 1993): 173-185. http://search.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/ login.aspx?direct=true&db=rfh&AN=ATLA0000863905&site=ehost-live&scope=site (accessed September 13, 2009).

Shayesteh, Daniel. The Difference is the Son. Castle Hill, New South Wales: Daniel Shayesteh, 2004.

Swanson, Mark N. “The Trinity in Christian-Muslim Conversation.” Dialog 44, no. 3 (Fall 2005): 256-263. http://search.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/login.aspx? direct=true&db=rfh&AN=ATLA0001495658&site=ehost-live&scope=site (accessed September 13, 2009).

Vandoodewaard, William. “The Necessity of Theology and Practice in Islamic Studies.” Christian Higher Education 4, no. 3 (July 2005): 211-230. http://search.ebscohost .com.ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eoah&AN=7402365&site=ehost-live&scope=site (accessed September 13, 2009).

.

Notes:

1. Caner, Ergun, “Islam,” in The Popular Encyclopedia of Apologetics, ed. Ed Hinson and Ergun Caner (Eugene, Oregon: Harvest House Publishers, 2008), 280.

2. Schlorff, Samuel P., “Muslim Ideology and Christian Apologetics.” Missiology 21, no. 2 (April 1993): 175, http://search.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/login.aspx?direct=true&db=rfh& AN=ATLA0000863905&site=ehost-live&scope=site (accessed September 13, 2009).

3. Swanson, Mark N., “The Trinity in Christian-Muslim Conversation.” Dialog 44, no. 3 (Fall 2005): 256, http://search.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/login.aspx?direct=true&db=rfh& AN=ATLA0001495658 &site=ehost-live&scope=site (accessed September 13, 2009).

4. Ergun Caner and Emir Caner, Unveiling Islam, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Kregel Publications, 2009), 110.

5. Vandoodewaard, William, “The Necessity of Theology and Practice in Islamic Studies.” Christian Higher Education 4, no. 3 (July 2005): 217, http://search.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/ login.aspx?direct=true&db=eoah&AN=7402365&site=ehost-live&scope=site (accessed September 13, 2009).

6 Robinson, Mike L., One Way to God, (Denver, Colorado: Outskirts Press, 2008), 89.

7. Surah 5:116 (translated by Dr. Rashad Khalifa).

8. Challen, Edward, Love Your Muslim Neighbour. (Leominster, England: Day One Publications, 2006), 200.

9. Caner and Caner, Unveiling Islam, 223-224.

10. Shayesteh, Daniel, The Difference is the Son (Castle Hill, New South Wales: Daniel Shayesteh, 2004), 294-295.

Is the Message of the Cross Foolishness?

1 Corinthians 1:18-25

¹⁸ For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. ¹⁹ For it is written:

“I will destroy the wisdom of the wise,
And bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.”

²⁰ Where is the wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the disputer of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? ²¹ For since, in the wisdom of God, the world through wisdom did not know God, it pleased God through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe. ²² For Jews request a sign, and Greeks seek after wisdom; ²³ but we preach Christ crucified, to the Jews a stumbling block and to the Greeks foolishness, ²⁴ but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. ²⁵ Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.

As I have talked with many atheists and skeptics over the years, the one attitude that comes up over and over is the belief that Christianity is foolish. They argue, God cannot be proved; the Bible is a collection of myths; and dead people don’t come back to life. Anybody who actually believes this stuff must be a simpleminded fool.

My typical response is to point out that the only reason these things seem foolish to them is because of their presuppositions. Most atheists begin with the presupposition that nothing supernatural exists; therefore, any argument for the existence of God must be false. The logic here is totally circular, yet, when I point this out, they can’t seem to understand. Because most atheists presuppose some version of naturalism, they believe that the scientific method is the only way we can know anything for certain. However, the very belief that all knowledge must come through observation of the natural world is self-refuting – one cannot observe that this belief is true. The very foundation of almost all of their arguments is based on a logical fallacy! But when I point out the fallacies in their thinking, they just don’t understand. It is incomprehensible to them that their entire worldview is based on an absurdity.

Most of the atheists, agnostics, humanists, and skeptics I’ve interacted with are quite intelligent. I have often been frustrated by the fact that such obviously intelligent people can’t seem to understand the incongruity of their unbelief. To believe that the entire universe popped into existence all by itself, in all its vastness and complexity, without any supernatural intelligence guiding the process, is absurd. Yet, when I clearly show them why their thinking is preposterous, they just can’t seem to understand. How can intelligent people not understand simple logic, clearly explained?

The message of the cross is foolishness to those who choose to reject God. But, in reality, it is those who reject the Gospel who are fools.

¹ The fool has said in his heart,
“There is no God.”
They are corrupt,
They have done abominable works,
There is none who does good.
Psalm 14:1

“The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom,
And the knowledge of the Holy One is understanding.
Proverbs 9:10

Paul talks about the cross of Christ being a stumbling block to the Jews, and foolishness to the Greeks. In Paul’s day, the Jews knew a lot about God and the Bible, but most didn’t actually know God. To them, the cross was a “stumbling block.” Today, there are many “religious” people for whom the cross is also a stumbling block. The cross gets in the way of religiosity. The cross means we cannot make ourselves acceptable before a holy God. Only through the blood of Jesus can we be accepted by God.

The Greeks of Paul’s day were nominally polytheistic, but actually lived as atheists or agnostics. Much like today’s humanists, they believed human understanding was the ultimate authority, and they saw the cross of Christ as foolishness.

I finally realize that the reason most skeptics can’t understand the Gospel is not an issue of intelligence – it’s a matter of the will. They don’t understand because they don’t want to understand. 2 Peter 3:5 says that they are “willingly ignorant” – they choose to ignore the truth. Looking back, I was the same way before I received Christ. None of us seeks after God on our own (Romans 3:11); it is only because God seeks after us that any of can respond to the Gospel. The Bible clearly teaches that God seeks everyone in the world (John 3:16), but only those who choose to believe will be saved. And, it’s only after we have received Christ that God opens our minds so that we can really understand.

The cross of Christ seems foolish to those who choose to reject it. But, to those who choose to receive Christ when the Holy Spirit draws them to Himself, the cross is the power of God. The cross has the power to overcome our sin. The cross has the power to restore the relationship between us and God. And, the cross has the power to transform our lives. Real foolishness is to reject the cross.

Dinosaurs in the Bible

Most people think that dinosaurs and people could not have lived together at the same time. However, there is evidence in the Bible that they did live together. This evidence is confirmed by extra-Biblical historical and observational evidence.

When were the Dinosaurs created?

According to the Bible, dinosaurs were created on Day 6 of creation week with all the other land animals:

Genesis 1:24-25
²⁴ Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth the living creature according to its kind: cattle and creeping thing and beast of the earth, each according to its kind”; and it was so. ²⁵ And God made the beast of the earth according to its kind, cattle according to its kind, and everything that creeps on the earth according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.

Non-dinosaur aquatic species (such as plesiosauria) and flying species (such as pterodactyl) were created on Day 5:

Genesis 1:20-21
²⁰ Then God said, “Let the waters abound with an abundance of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the face of the firmament of the heavens.” ²¹ So God created great sea creatures and every living thing that moves, with which the waters abounded, according to their kind, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.

What about Dinosaurs on the Ark?

Many skeptics claim that the Bible cannot be correct, because the more than 700 species of dinosaurs could never have fit on Noah’s Ark. Such critics don’t know what they’re talking about. Consider the following:

• The average dinosaur was about the size of a sheep.
• Noah didn’t need every species of dinosaur, just 2 of every kind (roughly equivalent to the family in modern classification systems) – only about 50 kinds.
• All dinosaurs started out small. Noah would have taken juveniles, not older adults.

Fifty pairs of sheep-sized dinosaurs could have easily fit on the Ark. For that matter, all dinosaurs began as eggs – the largest were slightly bigger than a football. Noah would have had no difficulty fitting the dinosaurs on the ark.

Why does the word “dinosaur” not appear in the Bible?

The word “dinosaur” was coined in 1841 by Sir Richard Owen, by combining the Greek terms deinos “terrible” and sauros “lizard.” The word “dinosaur” did not exist in either the Hebrew of Greek languages, nor did it exist in any language until 1841.

There are three Hebrew terms in the Bible that may have been used to describe what we commonly think of as dinosaurs: Tannin, Leviathan, and Behemoth.

Tannin תַּנִּין

(tan-neen’)

dragon, monster, sea monster, serpent, jackal

Genesis 1:21 NKJV

²¹ So God created great sea creatures (KJV “whales;” NIV “great creatures of the sea”) and every living thing that moves, with which the waters abounded, according to their kind, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.

Psalm 44:19 NKJV

¹⁹ But You have severely broken us in the place of jackals (KJV “dragons”),
And covered us with the shadow of death.

Ezekiel 29:3 NKJV

³ Speak, and say, ‘Thus says the Lord God:

“Behold, I am against you,
O Pharaoh king of Egypt,
O great monster (KJV “dragon”) who lies in the midst of his rivers,
Who has said, ‘My River is my own;
I have made it for myself.’

Isaiah 27:1 NKJV

²⁷ In that day the Lord with His severe sword, great and strong,
Will punish Leviathan the fleeing serpent,
Leviathan that twisted serpent;
And He will slay the reptile (KJV “dragon;” NIV “monster”) that is in the sea.

Leviathan לִוְיָתָן

“serpent,” a sea monster or dragon

Possibly Sarcosuchus

Psalm 104:25-26 NKJV

²⁵ This great and wide sea,
In which are innumerable teeming things,
Living things both small and great.
²⁶ There the ships sail about;
There is that Leviathan
Which You have made to play there.

Psalm 74:13-14 NKJV

¹³ You divided the sea by Your strength;
You broke the heads of the sea serpents (tannin) in the waters.
¹⁴ You broke the heads of Leviathan in pieces,
And gave him as food to the people inhabiting the wilderness.

Job 41:1-2; 12-34 NKJV

41 ”Can you draw out Leviathan with a hook,
Or snare his tongue with a line which you lower?
² Can you put a reed through his nose,
Or pierce his jaw with a hook?

¹² “I will not conceal
his limbs,
His mighty power, or his graceful proportions.
¹³ Who can remove his outer coat?
Who can approach him with a double bridle?
¹⁴ Who can open the doors of his face,
With his terrible teeth all around?
¹⁵ His rows of scales are his pride,
Shut up tightly as with a seal;
¹⁶ One is so near another
That no air can come between them;
¹⁷ They are joined one to another,
They stick together and cannot be parted.
¹⁸ His sneezings flash forth light,
And his eyes are like the eyelids of the morning.
¹⁹ Out of his mouth go burning lights;
Sparks of fire shoot out.
²⁰ Smoke goes out of his nostrils,
As from a boiling pot and burning rushes.
²¹ His breath kindles coals,
And a flame goes out of his mouth.
²² Strength dwells in his neck,
And sorrow dances before him.
²³ The folds of his flesh are joined together;
They are firm on him and cannot be moved.
²⁴ His heart is as hard as stone,
Even as hard as the lower millstone.
²⁵ When he raises himself up, the mighty are afraid;
Because of his crashings they are beside themselves.
²⁶ Though the sword reaches him, it cannot avail;
Nor does spear, dart, or javelin.
²⁷ He regards iron as straw,
And bronze as rotten wood.
²⁸ The arrow cannot make him flee;
Slingstones become like stubble to him.
²⁹ Darts are regarded as straw;
He laughs at the threat of javelins.
³⁰ His undersides are like sharp potsherds;
He spreads pointed marks in the mire.
³¹ He makes the deep boil like a pot;
He makes the sea like a pot of ointment.
³² He leaves a shining wake behind him;
One would think the deep had white hair.
³³ On earth there is nothing like him,
Which is made without fear.
³⁴ He beholds every high thing;
He is king over all the children of pride.”

Behemoth בְ֭הֵמֹות

An unknown kind of animal

Usually thought of as a hippopotamus, although occasionally as an elephant, crocodile, or water buffalo.

Probably a Sauropod.

Job 40:15-24 NKJV

¹⁵ “Look now at the behemoth, which I made along with you;
He eats grass like an ox.

Eating grass like an ox pretty much kills the crocodile idea!

¹⁶ See now, his strength is in his hips,
And his power is in his stomach muscles.
¹⁷ He moves his tail like a cedar;
The sinews of his thighs are tightly knit.

If you’ve ever looked at the backside of an elephant, a hippo, or a water buffalo, the tail does not look much like a tree. However, a sauropod tail does look rather tree-like.

answersingenesis.com

¹⁸ His bones are like beams of bronze,
His ribs like bars of iron.
¹⁹ He is the first of the ways of God;
Only He who made him can bring near His sword.

“First in the ways of God” indicates that this was the largest animal God had made.

²⁰ Surely the mountains yield food for him,
And all the beasts of the field play there.
²¹ He lies under the lotus trees,
In a covert of reeds and marsh.

Behemoth lived in marshy areas – like an Apatosaurus.

²² The lotus trees cover him with their shade;
The willows by the brook surround him.
²³ Indeed the river may rage,
Yet he is not disturbed;
He is confident, though the Jordan gushes into his mouth,

Behemoth was large enough that flood water didn’t bother it. A flood would wash away a hippo.

²⁴ Though he takes it in his eyes,
Or one pierces his nose with a snare.

What Happened to the Dinosaurs?

Beginning with the Bible, it is reasonable to conclude that:

• Most drown during the flood.
• Those that survived on the Ark probably had difficulty adapting to the new environment after the flood.
• Those that did adapt were probably hunted by men to extinction.
• There may be a few alive today in remote areas.

Dinosaur Evidence Outside of the Bible

What evidence is there that humans and dinosaurs lived together?

• Sumerian story where Gilgamesh slays a dragon.
• Alexander the Great recorded Indians worshipping large hissing reptiles.
• Chinese dragon legends – descriptions and drawings match known dinosaurs.
• England – Saint George and the Dragon.
• 1500s European science textbook Historia Animalium listed several dinosaurs.
• Peasant killed a dinosaur near Bologna, Italy in 1572.
• Petroglyphs around the world.

Conclusions

The evidence from the Bible, confirmed by historical and archaeological records, is that dinosaurs and humans lived at the same time. Both were created on day six of creation week. Both were on the Ark. Job was familiar with dinosaurs, as were Ezekiel, Isaiah, and Asaph the Psalmist. Alexander the Great saw them, the ancient Chinese saw them, and sixteenth century European zoologists saw them. Only when one presupposes the anti-Biblical evolutionary paradigm that the idea of humans and dinosaurs living contemporaneously problematic.

The Christian Foundation of Atheist Values

What most atheists fail to recognize is that the majority of the beliefs that they value are Christian in origin.  In an April 15, 2012 article posted on www.theage.com.au, atheist Chris Berg acknowledges the Christian foundation of modern secular values.  Berg writes,

Berg

…virtually all the secular ideas that non-believers value have Christian origins. To pretend otherwise is to toss the substance of those ideas away. It was theologians and religiously minded philosophers who developed the concepts of individual and human rights. Same with progress, reason, and equality before the law: it is fantasy to suggest these values emerged out of thin air once people started questioning God.

Bacon

He is, of course, correct.  For example, most atheists highly value the scientific method as the primary means of gaining knowledge.  The scientific method was developed by Sir Francis Bacon – a Christian.  Bacon wrote, “There are two books laid before us to study, to prevent our falling into error; first, the volume of the Scriptures, which reveal the will of God; then the volume of the Creatures, which express His power.”  The scientific method was derived from Biblical principles.

A mantra of atheism is the separation of church and state – the core of atheist political philosophy.  Berg points out the Biblical origins of this concept:

Early Christian philosophers thought seriously about what Jesus’s words, ”Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s,” meant for the formation of political society.

Another core belief of most atheists if human rights.  Again, Berg points out the Christian origins of human rights:

The idea of human rights was founded centuries ago on Christian assumptions, advanced by Biblical argument, and advocated by theologians. Modern supporters of human rights have merely picked up a set of well-refined ethical and moral arguments.

At the end of his article, Berg makes the following profound statement:

But while our age may be secular, it is, at the same time, still a deeply Christian one. If atheists feel they must rip up everything that came before them, they will destroy the very foundations of that secularism.

I doubt that even Berg understands the implications of this statement.  Since modern atheism is built on a foundation of Christian beliefs, it is ultimately self-refuting!  If atheism is true, then God does not exist;  if God does not exist, then Biblical principles, such as truth, love, human rights, honesty, and reason are meaningless;  and, if these values are meaningless, modern atheism is also meaningless!

Here’s another example:  Atheists typically believe the scientific method is the source of knowledge.  The Humanist Manifesto III states, “Knowledge of the world is derived by observation, experimentation, and rational analysis. Humanists find that science is the best method for determining this knowledge as well as for solving problems and developing beneficial technologies.”  The scientific method is predicated on the fact that the universe follows absolute, unchanging, universal laws.  Here’s the paradox:  If there is no God, then why would the universe follow absolute, unchanging, universal laws?  If there is no God, then the universe should be random, and should not follow any laws at all!  Yet, it’s not random; it’s highly organized by absolute physical laws that should not exist if God does not exist.

Chris Berg is correct to recognize the Christian foundation for modern atheist values, but he’s completely missed the implications of this truth:  atheism is self-refuting, and therefore irrational.  Atheism couldn’t exist if it were true.  “If atheists feel they must rip up everything that came before them, they will destroy the very foundations of that secularism.”  If only atheists understood the implications of this statement!