How Skepticism Masquerading as Christianity Almost Cost Me My Soul

from here

I came to Christ after being steeped for several years in the rankest brand of liberal Methodism. In the church I attended as an adolescent, the pastor and nearly all of my Sunday school teachers treated the Bible as a collection of legends, concocted by fallible human authors. They taught me that the Bible is scientifically and historically unreliable—but, they said, it contains moral principles that are good and helpful. Moreover, they said, it is great literature.

They clearly did not believe the Bible is true or trustworthy. In fact, they were convinced the Bible could be dangerous if you took it at face value, wihout demythologizing it. In effect, they denied that the Bible was either reliable or authoritative—and yet they claimed to hold it in high esteem.

Once while I was in high school, I pressed one of my Sunday-school teachers with questions when she said that the stories about Jesus' miracles were merely fables with moral lessons—not to be taken as literal truth. I asked how she could be so sure of that, when she seemed skeptical of what the Bible actually said about itself. I petulantly suggested that if all the tales in the Bible about Jesus were fictional, perhaps we were wasting our time talking about them in Sunday-school. I wondered out loud whether it might be a better use of my time to stay home and watch the NFL pregame shows on TV.

So the pastor summoned me to his office and cautioned me that it sounded like I was flirting with fundamentalism. I had never heard that word before. But I could tell by the way he said it that it wasn't a good thing. He spent about an hour explaining to me why the Bible is important even though it isn't true. Yet he flatly denied that there is anything supernatural about the Bible. Its stories aren't to be believed, and its teachings are not to be applied without carefully sifting the good principles it teaches from the "supernatural nonsense." He said things to me I knew he would never admit in a sermon, and by the time he had finished, he had persuaded me that the Bible was not to be taken seriously. (I was never able to take that pastor's preaching seriously again, either.)

That was about 1967 or 1968. By 1970, I had quit going to church altogether. I did, in fact, spend my Sunday mornings watching television. I would have become a convinced and devoted pagan if God had not reached out and sovereignly drawn me to Christ.

There was a meaninglessness to my life that I could not endure. I tried getting involved in politics and music and other things to feed my mind and keep me interested in life. I figured that whatever the truth was about God, He would accept me if I strove to be wise and good. But my heart was empty.

Then one night, almost on a whim, I picked up my Bible and began reading it. It was the first time I ever remember seriously reading more than a verse or two of Scripture to see what the Bible taught. And on that night, the Lord opened my eyes to the truth of Christ.

[...]

From that night to this day, I have never entertained one moment's doubt or uncertainty about the power and authority of God's Word. The whole course of my life was radically changed by the Word of God alone, and there is only one explanation for it: Because "the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart" (Hebrews 4:12).

God’s justice and ‘the things that are made’ ~ An exposition of Romans 1:19–20

from here

by Marc Ambler

Published: 13 August 2013 (GMT+10)

sxc.hu/ba1969

Sincere Christians often ask the question of what happens to those that have never heard the Gospel. Non-believers also sometimes pose it as a challenge to the notion of a just God condemning someone who has never had the opportunity to respond to the message of salvation. The Bible in many places confirms the fact that we are all under the wrath of God and can only be saved by grace through faith in God’s provided salvation, made possible by the sacrifice of His Son Jesus Christ. Jesus said that “whoever does not believe (in Him) is condemned already” (John 3:18). So how could God condemn those that have never heard of the ‘way’ of salvation and still be just?
An important part of the answer to this question is found in Paul’s letter to the Romans. After asserting that the Gospel of Christ is “the power of God to salvation to everyone who believes” (Romans 1:16), Paul goes on to explain why apart from Christ, God can justly condemn the human race. In Hebrews 11:6 we read of a necessary first step in salvation, namely that “whoever would draw near to God must believe that he exists.” Some claim that even this minimalist first step is a nigh-impossible ‘ask’—where is there any evidence for God? How can I be blamed for not believing in Him if there is so little evidence—why doesn’t He reveal Himself? But Paul teaches that in fact His existence, and even something of His attributes, is self-evident in nature.
“For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.” (Romans 1:19–20) He goes on to describe how men have chosen to suppress the truth about God, and are not willing to acknowledge God (1:28—some versions say they do not like to retain God in their knowledge). Paul seems to indicate that at some level, all are aware of this suppression of truth, which is one reason why God is just to condemn.
Paul is also saying that there is something about God’s handiwork, His craftsmanship, His creation, that makes it obvious to men and thus they have no excuse for unbelief. I.e. it justifies and vindicates God’s judgement of all mankind because of our sin.

Who are those left ‘without excuse’ based on the criteria given by Paul in these verses? Does it apply only to those alive since the time of Christ, or to all mankind? The phrase ‘ever since the creation of the world’ makes it clear that this opening to knowledge of God has existed since creation itself. This statement also would disqualify the idea that ‘the creation of the world’ took place eons of time prior to mankind, as the word ‘perceived’ implies something being manifest, evident, plainly recognised or known². This in context can only apply to humans. And it is one more place in the New Testament where it is clear that people were around right at the dawn of the universe, in Creation Week, or as Jesus put it in Mark 10:6, “from the beginning of creation”. Not billions of years afterwards, as an afterthought close to the end of some long imagined creative process.³
It is our perception of ‘the things that are made’ that should lead us to accept the fact of a powerful, divine being. All of our experience in life leads to the intuition that when we find design, purpose, information, law and order, these emanate from personal intelligence and purpose. This was Paley’s argument in his book Natural Theology.⁴
Many have tried to counter the argument that design in an object logically infers a creator who “comprehended its construction and designed its use”.⁵ By pointing to real or perceived imperfections or malfunctions these people claim it is evidence that it was not designed. This is errant (as well as arrant) nonsense! If Paley’s watch picked up in the countryside was not keeping perfect time, or had even stopped due to sand in the mechanism, would this have been taken as proof it was not designed? The very argument of inefficiency or malfunction presupposes design. A watchmaker would look at that watch and decide how it should have been and then repair it. The idea that something that is ‘broken’ is not designed is illogical. And in any case, a worldview based on Genesis history gives a powerful reason why some things will be ‘broken’—the Fall and subsequent Curse on creation.
Purpose and design have always been evident in the universe but the past few hundred years have enabled mankind to look increasingly further and deeper than ever before into the nature of matter, space and life and we are faced with layer upon wonderful layer of design, complexity and information. On the basis of our knowledge and experience of cause and effect, we should know that there is a supreme being to whom our worship and obedience are due.
This is why evolutionists have to purposely and consciously deny a creator. All of their observations and experience of life tell them that certain objects are designed, but “since they did not see fit to acknowledge God” (Romans 1:28), they have to deny the evidence of their own eyes. In a sense they are denying the observations of the very science they claim to represent. This is why a brilliant scientist like Francis Crick says “biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed”.⁶ If you constantly keep telling yourself a lie, you might come to believe it, so goes the hope.

Can you imagine what atheists would make of a creationist scientist saying to his colleagues, “we must constantly keep in mind that what we see was designed”? We have no need to keep convincing ourselves as design is obvious. This is why Richard Dawkins must forever climb ‘Mount Improbable’,⁷ never reaching the summit as it is actually ‘Mount Impossible’ he is attempting to scale.
The use of the personal pronoun ‘His’ in v.20 even suggests that people should be aware that this ‘divine nature’ is personal. He connects with men and women and an acceptance of the testimony of creation can lead to, in the providence of God and on the merits of the atoning death of His Son, a relationship with Him. The book of Hebrews tells us that God “rewards those who seek Him” (11:6). Creation should lead men to seek the true and living God. In our spiritual deadness we don’t, but we are ‘without excuse’. God is totally justified in the condemnation of men.
Is this justification of God achieved through an evolutionary interpretation of ‘the things that have been made’? By definition, the theory of evolution is an attempt to explain the origin of the universe, and its vast number of components, by ‘non-supernatural’ processes. Evolution and long-ageism seeks to ‘free science from Moses’.⁸ This goal began with naturalism⁹ and its attendant long-ageism in cosmology, and with uniformitarian (slow and gradual) ideas in geological science through men like the deist¹⁰ Charles Lyell. It gathered momentum to include biology, anthropology, and even theology by those in his wake, including Darwin himself who was influenced by Lyell’s book, Principles of Geology. All had to be explained from matter and energy working by natural laws.
If indeed the universe can be explained from such a basis of philosophical naturalism, then ‘the things that have been made’ tell us nothing of God’s power and divinity, or at best provide only an illusion of God. Is Paul telling us that men are ‘without excuse’ based on an illusion of design in nature? Expressing it differently, if creation does not point truly to a Creator, we have every reason to reject and ignore Him. Any attempt to incorporate evolution into creation undermines the justness of God.
Psalm 19 in many ways parallels what Paul tell us in Romans.

“¹The heavens declare the glory of God,

and the firmament shows His handiwork.

²Day unto day utters speech,

And night unto night reveals knowledge.

³There is no speech, nor language

Where their voice is not heard.

⁴Their line has gone out through all the earth,

And their words to the end of the world.”

Every cognisant, rational human being has available to him or her a witness of God’s existence, power and divinity. If we choose to ignore that witness, we are ‘without excuse’ before God.
The design and information in creation tell us that God is intelligent and personal like ourselves. The design, detail and intricacy tell us of His omniscience, the scale tells of His omnipotence, and the universal application of His natural laws tell of His omnipresence. The entropy that we observe everywhere continually increasing, running down the universe, tells us that the Creator must Himself be eternal, ‘outside’ of and greater than the universe, in order to have wound it up in the first place.
In verses 7 to 14, the Psalmist goes on to tell us that the other witness God has given us is His Word. The Bible tells us of God’s holiness, of His judgement of sin, of His love and of His Son Jesus Christ through whom we may have a relationship with our Creator and “Be acceptable in your sight, O Lord, my strength and my redeemer.” (Psalm 19:14)

Related Articles

• 10 dangers of theistic evolution
• Theistic evolutionary doublespeak
• A brief history of design

References

1. The title of one of his best selling books, Climbing Mount Improbable, which attempts to show how natural selection and mutations allegedly explain the appearance of design. Return to text.
2. Strong’s. Return to text.
3. Perhaps those not fully capable of such perception, e.g. infants and those mentally disabled since childhood, would be excluded from being ‘without excuse’. Return to text.
4. Grigg, R., A brief history of design. Return to text.
5. Paley – Natural Theology, as quoted in A brief history of design. Return to text.
6. Crick, F., What mad pursuit: a Personal View of Scientific Discovery, Sloan Foundation Science, London, 1988, p. 138. Return to text.
7. The title of one of his best selling books, Climbing Mount Improbable, which attempts to show how natural selection and mutations allegedly explain the appearance of design. Return to text.
8. This was the stated aim of the patron of long-age geology, Scottish lawyer Charles Lyell. See Charles Lyell’s hidden agenda—to free science from “Moses”. Return to text.
9. Matter and energy is all there is. Return to text.
10. Deism was the idea that a remote, impersonal God was involved in setting the universe and its physical laws into motion, but after that only natural processes took place with no or very little interference from this ‘god’. Return to text.

Shifting sands ~ How do we handle conflicts between geology and the Bible?

from here

Figure 1. The above image shows sandstone cliffs around Bridgnorth, England which many think were once a desert. But the presence of water channels, and the angle of crossbedding, suggest otherwise. Australia’s Hawkesbury Sandstone was also once thought to have been a desert—but no longer.

by Tas Walker

A well-dressed man came up to me as soon as my talk was over. I had explained to the people who packed the auditorium in Bridgnorth, England, that the Bible records the true history of the universe. Thus, we should use the Bible as our starting point in science, especially sciences like geology that deal with Earth history.
‘I believe the Bible,’ my visitor said, ‘but how can we accept what it says when it contradicts scientific facts? It is clear from geology that the rocks did not all form in a worldwide Flood.’

‘What do you mean?’

‘I’m a lecturer in chemistry at university. My geological colleagues tell me that the area all around was once a desert. You can see the sand dunes in the cliffs. How could there have been a flood here when it was a huge desert?’

Why a global Flood?

In the talk, I had explained how the Bible describes a global flood (Genesis 6–8). Noah would not have built an Ark 140 metres long¹ for a local flood. Most animals would have survived a local flood, so Noah needn’t have worried about all the animals dying.² Certainly, most birds would have survived a local flood. Without the animals, Noah could have managed with a much smaller boat, or none at all if he had simply migrated out of the area. However, it rained for almost six weeks (40 days)³ and the water kept rising for five months (150 days).⁴ The Bible is certainly describing something bigger than a local flood. The waters continued to rise until the highest mountains were covered.⁵ How could the highest mountains be covered in a local flood?
Anyone who takes the Bible seriously cannot escape the obvious—the Flood was global. My questioner now realized this and was concerned. How could there be a huge desert in England in the middle of a global flood?

Why a desert?

I had seen the spectacular red cliffs he spoke about with the large sand beds (Figure 1). They reminded me of similar sandstone cliffs in Australia (Figure 2). The geological handbook of the Bridgnorth area described the beds as sand dunes similar to the dunes ‘which can be seen today in the Sahara and other sandy deserts.’⁶ Interestingly, the sand formation around Sydney, the Hawkesbury Sandstone, was once thought to have formed in a desert environment, but not any longer.
It is important to understand how geologists think. Obviously, neither they nor anyone else alive today observed how the sand was deposited. So how do they know it was a desert? The fact is, they don’t. They simply use what they can observe to explain what they can’t. They use modern environments to explain how ancient rocks formed. The problem with this thinking is that Noah’s Flood was very different from the environments we observe today.

Warwick Armstrong

Figure 2 (Sydney, Australia).

What stands out about the sand formations around Bridgnorth and Sydney is the colossal quantity of sand. The deposits are hundreds of metres thick and cover a huge area. The only place we find this much sand on Earth today is in a large desert. That’s what leads geologists to say that the rocks around Bridgnorth formed in a desert.

Ideas change

That’s also what the geologists thought about the Hawkesbury Sandstone in 1883.⁷ However, scientists did not always think the sand amassed in a desert. In 1844 Charles Darwin described the Sydney rocks as forming in a marine environment. However, in 1880 another scientist said they had been partly formed by glaciers. In 1883 yet another scientist said the rocks had partly formed in a lake.
So, the various ideas about how the sandstone formed were tossed back and forth like shifting sands. In 1920 a geologist proposed that all the sand accumulated in a large lake. Thus, between 1920 and 1960 the lake interpretation was taught at the universities and presented to the public as fact.

However, by the 1960s, some geologists questioned how such large sand waves, which point to fast flowing water,⁸ could form in a lake. Accordingly, in 1964 it was proposed that the sand was deposited by a river. Yet the size of the deposits was still a puzzle, so in 1969 it was said that the sand was deposited by tides on a marine barrier in a river delta. But this didn’t make sense either.
Since the late 1970s, geologists have thought that the Hawkesbury Sandstone was deposited in a very wide river. Not only was the river wide, but also very long, extending over 2,000 kilometres north. Rock was eroded from either side of the river, transported thousands of kilometres, sorted into a uniform sand size, and deposited in the Sydney area. But how could normal rainfall sustain a fast-flowing, 250-km-wide river? The latest suggestion is that the river flowed intermittently.⁹ A huge lake upstream accumulated a large volume of water, which periodically burst through its ice dam. Massive flood waves, 20 metres high and 250 km wide roared downstream at enormous speed, delivering tonnes of sand into the Sydney area.

The Flood makes sense

Tas Walker

Figure 3 (Bridgnorth, England—Ancient water channels)

This interpretation, which is becoming increasingly accepted, sounds very like the catastrophic Flood of Noah. Especially since there is no evidence of extended time-breaks in the Hawkesbury Sandstone. For example, there are no soil horizons or fossils of marine communities. We just see hundreds of metres of sand that have been deposited rapidly. This, of course, is what we would expect from the global Flood.
The sandstone around Bridgnorth has similar characteristics and is long overdue for reinterpretation. The cross beds are not windblown desert dunes but underwater sand waves. Geologists in England need to address the problems of the desert interpretation.¹⁰ For example, the angles of the cross beds are wrong for windblown dunes, and there is evidence for ancient water channels in parts of the deposit (Figure 3).
So, what should we do if a geological interpretation doesn’t fit with the Bible? Question the geological interpretation! Often we will need to re-examine the evidence directly. Frequently, even the ‘facts’ reported in geological books are not facts, but interpretations. When we carefully observe the evidence directly, and interpret it starting from the true history given in the Bible, we can confidently expect to find that the evidence fits the truth of the Bible, God’s infallible revealed Word.

Related Articles

• Hawkesbury Sandstone deposited from a wall of water?
• Geology and the young earth
• Seeing Noah’s Flood in geological maps
• Biblical history and the role of science
• Beware of paleoenvironmental deductions
• The man who made the wedge: James Hutton and the overthrow of biblical authority
• Paleoenvironments and the Bible

Further Reading

• Geology Questions and Answers

References and notes

1. Genesis 6:15. Return to text.
2. Genesis 6:19–21. Return to text.
3. Genesis 7:12. Return to text.
4. Genesis 7:24. Return to text.
5. Genesis 7:19–20. The highest mountains at that time were covered, not the present-day mountains, which were uplifted as the floodwaters receded and afterwards. Return to text.
6. Toghill, P., Geology in Shropshire, Swan Hill Press, Shewsbury, England, p. 143, 1990. Return to text.
7. These and the other geological interpretations are documented in: Jones, D.C. and Clark, N.R. (Eds.), Geology of the Penrith 1:100,000 Sheet 9030, New South Wales Geological Survey, Sydney, pp. 14–16, 1991. Return to text.
8. Allen, D., Sediment transport and the Genesis Flood—case studies including the Hawkesbury Sandstone, Sydney, CEN Tech. J. 10(3):358–378, 1996. Return to text.
9. Woodford, J., Rock doctor catches up with our prehistoric surf, Sydney Morning Herald, 30 April 1994. Return to text.
10. Austin, S.A. (Ed.), Grand Canyon: Monument to Catastrophe, Institute for Creation Research, California, pp. 32–35, 1994, explains carefully why similar sand deposits in Grand Canyon were accumulated underwater and not in a desert. Return to text.

Clearly Perceived ~ A review of Without Excuse by Werner Gitt, in cooperation with Bob Compton and Jorge Fernandez

from here
Creation Book Publishers, 2011

Reviewed by Rachael Denhollander

Published: 15 August 2013 (GMT+10)

For God’s invisible attributes, namely, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So that men are without excuse.—Romans 1:20

Perhaps more than any other verse in Scripture, Romans 1:20 has formed the backdrop for creation/science apologetics. Information theorists in particular have focused on the reality that the design and information contained in the universe must necessarily testify to an all-powerful creator, forming an integral and vital part of Christian apologetics.
Yet few have explored the foundational questions this raises. What is information? Is information material or nonmaterial? What implications does information have on the assumptions of materialism? Is there any scientifically valid evidence that information leads us to the God of the Bible? It is precisely these questions that the authors, Werner Gitt, Bob Compton, and Jorge Fernandez address in their book, Without Excuse.
Few people are as qualified as Gitt to lay this foundation—with an impressive repertoire of awards and published works, Gitt has long been recognized as an expert in information theory. While proponents of materialistic evolution may not like the conclusions reached, the work cannot be lightly dismissed. Without Excuse relies upon undisputed laws of science and logic, drawing from a wide range of mainline, peer-reviewed scientific publications in formulating the premises of the book as well as in representing the claims of today’s prevalent scientific materialism.

While this work is significant to experts, it is also important for any Christian desiring to better understand the claims of materialistic evolution and be capable of following the biblical command to “tear down strongholds and every lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of God.” Relevant to both the information theorist and the average person, Without Excuse contains essential information for understanding and engaging the culture.
Premised on the truth of Romans 1:20, the authors decisively confront the issue of defining information and its properties, and proceed to formulate a scientifically valid series of deductions demonstrating how the existence of information leads one first to the existence of a ‘god’, and then specifically to the God of the Bible. A critical component of the book is in the Introduction, where the authors bring the debate into the realm where it properly belongs: that of religion. The authors note that this “ancient war” between creationists and evolutionists is ultimately one of competing worldviews, wisely refusing to give ground where it matters the most: defining the conflict, thereby establishing a critical framework for the remainder of the book.

Chapter one focuses on the immense level of detail and organized complexity in the physical world. Gitt’s presentation of a variety of natural marvels captures the imagination and instils a sense of wonder in readers of all ages and backgrounds, providing a springboard for the next seven chapters.
Chapters two through five delve deeply into fundamental questions of information theory. Gitt begins by exploring the definition and characteristics of information and explaining why previous theories fall short. He proposes three necessary conditions for, and five levels of, information, followed by 23 empirical statements which define the characteristics and effects of what he has called “Universal Information”. Throughout, Gitt discusses the necessary effect the existence of information has on one’s perception of reality, as well as the impact it has on both materialism and a Christian apologetic. While chapter two does signal a shift into technical work, the material is made accessible through the use of graphics, diagrams, and real-life examples of the concepts.
Chapters four through five lay the final pieces of groundwork through a discussion of the characteristics and limitations of science and then apply these principles to information theory to formulate laws of science which govern the realm of Universal Information. The importance of understanding this foundation cannot be overstated—indeed, the common misunderstanding of ‘science’” is arguably the center of the controversy, and until Christians gain a proper understanding it will be difficult, if not impossible, to make significant progress. The authors’ continued emphasis on the foundational issues at play makes Without Excuse unique in its approach, as well as vitally important for readers in all walks of life.

The Rosetta Stone (kept in the British Museum in London) gave the key to deciphering hitherto unknown coded sequences. But even before that, no-one disputed that the information in such sequences was the consequence of intelligence. Without Excuse shows that the type of information in biological codes fits the same criteria.

Chapter eight begins the application of information theory to a Christian apologetic. The authors demonstrate eight “far-reaching deductions” that flow from Universal Information, including the existence of an intelligent sender, and that sender’s characteristics. This leads to the conclusion that there must be some sort of deity as the creator of life. Each truth statement is supported by the laws of science and logic and arrived at by careful deductive reasoning, making the case for a creator with academic precision.
Gitt’s work culminates in chapter nine, where he demonstrates that this creator must be the God of the Bible, providing a compelling argument that the God of the Bible is, and must be, the source of life, making the claims of Scripture true for all humanity.
Taken as a whole, the most appreciated and essential feature of Without Excuse is the interweaving of solid academic material with worldview analysis, providing a work that addresses the foundational aspects of the culture war and vital tools for engaging it.
The layout of the book is technical in nature, and some readers may require adjustment to the style, but will ultimately find this format helpful in navigating the material and grasping key concepts. Some readers may also find it helpful to first read the Introduction and chapter one, then chapters six through nine, to gain a better framework for the relevance and direction of the heavier concepts in chapters two through five. On the other side of the spectrum, readers desiring more in-depth discussions will find the appendices helpful and engaging.
Without Excuse is an excellent tool for every Christian, providing insight into the clash of worldviews and tools for defending the claims of Scripture. Moreover, it is highly recommended for any individual willing to genuinely investigate the claims of Christianity—they truly will find themselves “without excuse”.

Related Articles

• Scientific laws of information and their implications—part 1
• Implications of the scientific laws of information—part 2
• Information, science and biology

Further Reading

• Information Theory Questions and Answers

Ophel inscription: oldest Hebrew writing in Jerusalem corroborates biblical history

from here

by Douglas Petrovich

Published: 17 August 2013 (GMT+10)

Reconstructed Reading of the Ophel Inscription (suggested by Douglas Petrovich)

A team of Israeli archaeologists, led by Eilat Mazar of Hebrew University, made an important discovery in 2012 at the Ophel in Jerusalem, which is located between the Temple Mount and the City of David. They uncovered the foundations of a building that roughly dates to 1000–900 BC. This building was constructed on bedrock, but since there was a dip at one point in the bedrock underneath it, 7 large storage jars (called pithoi, singular pithos) were placed in this depression in order to help stabilize the building.
One of the storage jars, Pithos 1 (see drawing left), was inscribed with writing along the rim. This is now called the Ophel inscription. The text was written in a script with parallels from a number of other sites in Israel during the Israelite monarchy. Strangely enough, several very qualified scholars called this script Canaanite, and Mazar suggested that the inscription likely was written by one of the non-Israelite residents of Jerusalem, such as the Jebusites.
However, the Ophel inscription clearly was written in a form of Hebrew that far predates the script found in any Hebrew Bible. This early Hebrew script actually follows approximately 22 Egyptian hieroglyphs, though the ancient Hebrews assigned their own sounds to the hieroglyphs—which became letters for them—and adopted a simpler way of writing these hieroglyphs than the Egyptians drew them. Only 6 of these letters are found on what remains of the Ophel inscription, though originally there were more letters to the right and left of them.

Two of the six letters were repeated, giving a total of 8 letters that have been preserved. Two of the letters (letters 2 and 3) were poorly preserved, due to a break in the storage jar that left the majority of these letters impossible to see or read. The brilliant work of an Israeli scholar named Gershon Galil, a professor at Haifa University, has helped us to restore these letters properly. The letters are two Hebrew yod’s, which make a sound no different than the English y.
Galil also correctly proposed that the inscription reads from right-to-left, and that it represents a label for a commercial product, using this formula: (1) year-date of a king’s reign, (2) kind of product, (3) place of production, and (4) owner’s name. This type of labeling was used in Egypt from the 15^th –12^th centuries BC and in Israel during the time of the monarchy. As an example, one Egyptian wine-jar label reads, “Year 5: Sweet wine – from the Estate of Aton”.
One word on the inscription that can be read fully is “smooth”. The word that comes before it is “wine” (Hebrew yayin), which can be read after Galil’s restoration of the two yods (s). The letter after “smooth” is “from”. The word before “wine” only reveals its last letter, which either is a mem () or a nun (). Several readings are possible, but the most likely one, written with a nun (), is this: “[In the ?? (regnal) year, firs]t (month): smooth [win]e from [the Garden of ??]”.

Clearly some year of an Israelite king’s reign originally was recorded, but what is not known is whether a month was written after it or not. Many such commercial labels on ceramic jars included a numbered month, but certainly not all of them. If no month was recorded, the year of the unknown king’s reign almost undoubtedly was the 1^st, 20^th, 30^th, or 40^th year.
Since the house built over the 7 storage jars dates to the 10^th century BC, the jars most likely date to the first half of the century, or possibly the early part of the second half of the century. If “1^st Year” was inscribed on the storage jar, David’s reign could not have been the year of manufacturing, because he did not conquer Jerusalem until his Year 8 (2 Sam 5:5), which translates to ca. 1002 BC. Solomon’s Year 1 (971 BC) thus would be the most likely candidate.
If letter 1 of the inscription is a mem () instead, an unknown year from Year 20–40 must be read, which would restrict the vessel’s production to the reign of David or Solomon, with no realistic exception, because no other Israelite king experienced a 20^th regnal year until the 9^th century BC (King Asa).
A scholar named Christopher Rollston correctly observed that the script of the Ophel inscription traces back to the so-called proto-consonantal script of the Egyptian New Kingdom inscriptions at Serabit el-Khadim (in Sinai), which are dated from ca. 1550–1450 BC. Ancient Egypt controlled this remote site, where their laborers mined turquoise for the Egyptian crown.
The form of this script at Serabit, dating about 500 years before the Ophel inscription, represents a much earlier version of the exact same alphabet and script that is found on the Ophel inscription and other contemporary Hebrew inscriptions from throughout the same part of Israel, such as the Qeiyafa ostracon, which probably dates to the reign of King Saul.
In my article on the Ophel inscription¹ that is uploaded onto ABR’s website, I demonstrated carefully and methodically how each one of the 6 different letters on the inscription both cannot be traced back to the Canaanite language, and can be traced back to Egyptian hieroglyphics as the source-script.
This fact ties the origin of the inscribers to Egypt and vehemently argues against Canaan as the crucible where the written language of the Hebrew-speakers was formulated. Currently I am writing an unprecedented book that will trace both the script used at Serabit and the writers of this script back to the ancestors of the Israelites who first moved to Egypt under Jacob.

What is the significance of the Ophel inscription for the devoted student of the Bible? Most significant is that—since the inscription certainly was written in Hebrew and dates to the 10^th century BC—there was an Israelite king sitting on the throne during the century in which David and Solomon reigned. The inscription does not provide any insight about the size of the Israelite monarchy, the location of its capital, or the name of its king at the time.

Thus the inscription cannot verify that David and Solomon reigned or possessed powerful kingdoms that were centered in Jerusalem. However, it does show that Jerusalem probably was controlled by Hebrew-speakers, and certainly that an Israelite king was in power over Israel during the century when biblical chronology demands that these two kings would have reigned.
The storage jars under the house were of two types, one of which preceded the other. Pithos 1 was of the latter of these types. Since these storage jars contained wine and consisted of two successive types, obviously a thriving wine-making industry existed for an extended period of time, implying a high level of stability in Israel, as such an industry could not have existed for such a long time if conquerors were invading and performing the normal ritual of destroying all of the crops of the people whose territory they had invaded.
Therefore, the discovery of the Ophel inscription is a tremendous asset to biblical history, since it confirms that Israelites lived in and around Jerusalem during the time when David and Solomon reportedly reigned, and that Israel was ruled by a Hebrew monarch. The inscription also argues for an extended period of peace and stability within the kingdom, which is perfectly in keeping with the picture painted by the biblical text. Thus in relation to the period of the biblical monarchy of ancient Israel, the Ophel inscription is one of the most important discoveries ever made.

Related Articles

• False History—‘out with David and Solomon!’
• A reliable historical record

Further Reading

• Archaeology Questions and Answers

Reference

1. Petrovich, D., New find: Jerusalem’s oldest Hebrew inscription, 25 July 2013, biblearchaeology.org/post/2013/07/25/New-Find-Jerusalems-Oldest-Hebrew-Inscription.aspx. Return to text.

Natural selection ≠ evolution

from here

by Marc Ambler

This is an important ‘equation’¹ that all people should be aware of, namely ‘Natural Selection does not equal (≠) Evolution’.² Christians should know it so they do not get conned, and evolutionists should know it as a reminder that they still have lots of work to do to be able to claim that they have a mechanism for evolution.
How often we hear an example of natural selection being used as proof of evolution. Changing sizes, colours, skin patterns and shapes are often paraded as evolution’s honour roll. This bait-and-switch tactic has been so often exposed for what it is, it’s a wonder that it is still used, or that people are still taken in by it.
The very term should put people on their guard that something is missing. If we think of the word ‘selection’, in our common, daily experience, we select from something pre-existing. Think of being asked to select cards from a pack. You could select cards from a pack every second for the rest of your life and all you would only ever produce is different groups of the same cards. You would not have created anything new—only re-arranged cards, or removed cards or added cards from another pack.

If an illusionist asks you to select a card from a pack, and surprises you with something new, you know it is an illusion, a sleight of hand. We need to learn to see the evolutionists’ sleight of hand when they claim to have pulled something ‘new’ out of the pack. Selection is always from a pre-existing series or range; it creates nothing new.
This illustration applies equally to ‘selection’ in the biological context. The all-wise Creator knew the different environments that His creatures would have to adapt to after the Fall and Curse, and particularly after the Flood of Noah, in order to survive. He included in the genetic information of each ‘kind’ of creature He created, a smorgasbord of variety in their makeup. This includes those features that would interact with the environment: the overall size of a plant, animal or person; the size of individual organs or limbs such as beaks and noses, leaf sizes, skin colours, hair and feather lengths, textures and colours. All of these and many more variations were programmed into the DNA of His creatures in order that as populations of the various kinds moved into new environments, expression of those variations enabled individuals to survive those environments. Individuals with those variations then passed them on to their young. When these variations and the habitat of the population expressing that variation are distinct enough, we might distinguish different ‘species’. In all of this selection process, new information is never added. It can be conserved or lost, but never gained.

The creationist chemist/zoologist Edward Blyth (1810–1873) wrote about natural selection about 25 years before Darwin misappropriated it to support his theory of evolution. Blyth clearly saw this remarkable phenomenon as arising from the providence of the all-wise, all-knowing, ingenious Creator God.
Knowing God’s love for beauty (reflected in men and women who are made in His image), God probably also had in mind the spectacular array of birds, fish, dogs and cats that we have varied by ‘artificial selection’ purely for the sake of ‘beauty’ rather than survival.³
But whether variation is selected naturally by the environment, or artificially by breeders for a particular trait, it remains just that, ‘selection’ from existing genetic information. Nothing new is created.

Patent law calls for a product to have an ‘inventive step’ in order for it to be patented. Mere changes in design of an existing product cannot be patented. Many legal battles over patent rights have been waged over this point. Evolution requires the same thing—an ‘inventive step’, a novel organ or body part, facilitated by new information in the DNA that wasn’t there before. Despite the huge resources thrown at evolution in universities and research institutions, natural selection has never been shown to bring about this type of ‘inventive step’.
Today’s Darwinists point to mutations as the mechanism which provides this novelty from which ‘Natural Selection’ selects. Evolutionists should then focus on mutations to defend their theory, instead of ‘Natural Selection’. When pressed for examples of novel genetic information or body organs created by mutation, they typically point to instances such as wingless beetles⁴ on islands, or the flightless cormorant on the Galapagos islands.⁵ The problem with these examples is obvious. While they may confer a benefit to the creatures in a specific, very unusual environment, nothing ‘new’ is added to the DNA or creatures’ body parts. They actually involve a loss or corruption of existing genetic information.⁶
Evolution desperately needs ‘Natural Invention’, ‘Natural Novelty’ and ‘Natural Creation’. ‘Natural Selection’ just does not pass muster as exhibit A for evolution. Rather, it is a wonderful tribute to God’s design, and His providence for a fallen world. Natural Selection ≠ Evolution.

Related Articles

• Refuting Evolution
• Muddy Waters
• Defining terms

References and notes

1. This is not really an equation; the precise mathematical term is an inequality. Return to text.
2. The mathematical symbol ≠ means ‘is not equal to’. Return to text.
3. In the hands of sinful, fallible humans subject to vanity, etc. the world of show-breeding has taken things to extremes beyond anything that can be justified (or even classed) as aesthetic. This is especially so when it involves defects and deformities that cause serious health problems to the dogs themselves. See Cosner, L, A parade of mutants, creation.com/pedigree, Creation 32(2) 28–32, 2010. Return to text.
4. See creation.com/beetle-bloopers. Return to text.
5. See creation.com/galapagos-birds. Return to text.
6. The Frog to a Prince DVD available from CMI shows well-known evolutionist Richard Dawkins stumped by a request to provide examples of addition of genetic information from mutations. creation.com/Dawkins-stumped. Return to text.

Can you answer: ‘How did we get our Bible?’

from here

A new resource tackles an age old criticism that impacts on the authority of Scripture

By Gary Bates and Lita Cosner

Published: 22 August 2013 (GMT+10)

Not only keen creationists, but even lay Christians will know that one of the biggest skeptical objections to the Christian faith is “Isn’t the Bible just a book written by men?” This question presumes that there all sorts of historical and scientific errors in the Bible, because they believe it is not the infallible Word of God. But if it has historical and scientific errors, how could we trust its doctrinal claims? It’s a great way for people to determine their own anti-biblical doctrines and a self-serving view of God that their ‘itching ears’ want to hear.
For instance, the book of Genesis clearly states God created man and woman for monogamous lifelong marriage, and ordained this union as the only model for the family unit. In the New Testament, Jesus reaffirmed this model deferring to what God had made in real space time history (Matthew 19:4–6; Mark 10:5–8). But if Genesis was not inspired by God and wrong in the history it teaches, then Jesus was also wrong when He used its authority as His basis for teaching about marriage. As such, if the Bible is not the view of the Creator expressed to humanity, then there is nothing wrong with gay marriage, because it no longer violates a feature of God’s created order. Indeed, legislators all around the world are keen to impose this deviation of the Creator’s rules as the norm.

Sadly, this is where many professing Christians and ministries ‘shoot themselves in the foot’. By watering down the Bible’s history by trying to accommodate the secular interpretations of origins and its corollary of billions of years into Scripture, they ultimately undermine the complete authority of Scripture.
Everything we need to know about the Christian faith, our need for salvation, eternity, and the nature of God comes from only one authoritative source, and that’s the Bible! It’s not rocket science for the unbeliever to work out that if a Christian doesn’t believe the first book to be real history then there is no reason to trust the rest of it, either. Where does the truth actually begin? If any part of Scripture is not really the truth then there is little justification for believing any of it.

An example of a futile defense

For example, the US’s famous self titled ‘Bible Answer Man’, Hank Hannegraf, seeks to provide answers to seekers (including Christians) on a range of Bible and cultural topics. He’s even published a ‘Creation Answer Book’. Its title is only one letter different to CMI’s Creation Answers Book, which we have published for over 20 years (at the time of writing). One wonders how he can claim to be an authority on origins though. He’s long been known as a compromiser on the book of Genesis deferring to the secular view of a big bang an alleged 14 billion years ago and even saying that there was no global Flood. He also believes that the serpent in the Garden was not a literal snake which tempted Eve, and that Behemoth (Job 40: 15–18) and Leviathan (Job 3:8, 41:1; Psalm 74:14, 104:26 and Isaiah 27:1), were metaphors and not dinosaurs that were made on day 6 along with man (though one wonders, how God, when describing something to Job, could ask Job to “behold” a metaphor?).¹ On what basis could he claim the Bible is authoritative and inspired if it simply doesn’t mean what it clearly says?
When it comes to a watering down of God’s Word, even arch atheist Richard Dawkins noted that the “sophisticated theologians who are quite happy to live with evolution, I think they’re deluded!” So, one wonders who we think we can win over by pointing to a Bible full of holes and vague meanings.

Chart showing the over 2,800 instances of cross referencing within the books of the Bible

Legend:
Blue lines—references from the Old Testament
Red lines—references from the New Testament
Click for larger version.

The biggest selling and most popular book in human history

Besides the history that is recorded in Scripture itself, there is an historical basis for understanding why we believe the 66 books comprise the Bible we have today. That’s why we produced a brand new resource, in the form of a small booklet that is easy for Christians to digest, and one that is cheap enough for them to give away to others (bulk discounts are available). It’s called How did we get our Bible: And is it the Word of God? It includes topics like:

• How do we know the Bible was inspired?
• How was it communicated to human beings?
• What was God’s purpose in doing this?
• How did we arrive at the books we call the Bible?
• How were they preserved throughout history?
• How can we trust the copies we have?
• Are there corrupt translations?
• And much, much more.

In addition, on the inside back cover of the booklet we have produced a full colour chart that shows all the cross references in the books of the Bible (see illustration, right). It is a staggering sight to see the interconnectedness between them, and it aptly demonstrates the incredible unity of Scripture in a visual way. You can view a larger version of it here.
We believe that every person who claims to be a born again believer should be able to answer these questions. Churches and pastors, wouldn’t it be a great idea to get a copy to every single member of your congregation? After all, if all the “I know what the Bible says … but” type comments were diminished because people really did believe the Bible to be the Word of God, wouldn’t our churches be healthier, and possibly more motivated?
Click on the picture above or on the top, right-hand side to order your copies.

References

1. Hanegraaf, H., Leviathan, Dragons, and Dinosaurs, Oh My!, CRJ 36(2):10–11. Return to text.

Satan knows where your lost keys are

from here
No, the title isn’t the worst name ever for a horror film.  It is the thought that goes through my mind when I read things like Novena [a devotion] to Saint Anthony to Find a Lost Article –The Patron Saint of Lost and Found:

St. Anthony of Padua is invoked thousands (maybe millions!) of times daily to help find items that have been lost. This novena, or nine-day prayer, to find a lost article reminds us as well that the most important goods are spiritual.

NOVENA TO SAINT ANTHONY TO FIND A LOST ARTICLE

St. Anthony, perfect imitator of Jesus, who received from God the special power of restoring lost things, grant that I may find [name the item] which has been lost. At least restore to me peace and tranquility of mind, the loss of which has afflicted me even more than my material loss. To this favor, I ask another of you: that I may always remain in possession of the true good that is God. Let me rather lose all things than lose God, my supreme good. Let me never suffer the loss of my greatest treasure, eternal life with God. Amen.

I mean the title quite seriously.  This Anthony fellow is dead and there is no biblical support that he can hear the prayers of billions of people simultaneously in all their languages and that he then can tell you where to find your keys (or whatever you lost).
Let me break that out for emphasis.  Allegedly, he and other saints can:

• Hear from billions of people at once and know which messages are for them
• Understand all languages
• Have the power to communicate back to you in some way

So having read the Bible through quite a few times I’m pretty skeptical of those claims.  Apparently people think that certain dead people can answer certain types of prayer requests.  It reminds of the line in This is Spinal Tap about St. Hubbins being the patron saint of quality footwear (see the 2:03 mark here).
But guess who does know where your keys are?  Satan and/or his demons.  I think it is much more likely that any prayer to Anthony is being “answered” by Satan, because by praying to the dead you opened yourself up to it.
I encourage people to read the Bible and just go straight to Jesus.  There is one mediator between God and man, and He is Jesus.  Do not pray to Mary or any other human being, dead or alive.  Just stick with any member of the Trinity, or any combination of the three.