|
|
|
WHY WE SHOULD ACCEPT THE BIBLE'S INSPIRATION (Part 5) By Bob Myhan A fourth reason for accepting the Bible’s claim to inspiration is the need for an objective moral standard. It is clear that mankind has a moral nature. Even those who say they do not believe in God make moral judgments; they feel a sense of ought; there are things they feel they ought to do and there are things they feel they ought not to do. But the only reason for a sense of ought is the fact that man was not only created in the image of God but was informed of this fact by God Himself. As a moral being, man needs an objective moral standard. What is right cannot be subjectively determined by each individual. It must be based on a moral standard that is external to those who will be judged thereby. That is, the moral standard must exist outside of the human mind. But, at the same time, it must be made accessible to the human mind, which demands supernatural revelation. O Lord, I know the way of man is not in himself; It is not in man who walks to direct his own steps. (Jer. 10:23) #5 THE ACCURACY OF THE BIBLE It has been demonstrated time and time again that the Bible is accurate in what it says on every subject it addresses. That is, not one thing that is affirmatively taught in the Bible has proven false. Archaeological findings support the history recorded in the Bible. Though many have tried to disprove the Bible, they have failed. For example, the existence of the Hittite nation was denied for years because of the absence of archeological evidence. But in the 19th and 20th centuries, archeological evidence was unearthed. Clearly, the lack of archeological evidence in the past did not prove that the Hittites did not exist. Though the Bible is not a scientific book, per se, it is in complete harmony with what scientists have learned about the universe from their investigations. “Science is man’s attempt to subdue and have dominion over the earth. It is man’s attempt to understand God’s creation. English philosopher Herbert Spencer acknowledged that science is divided into five basic fundamentals: time, force, action, space and matter. That is exactly what Moses wrote in Gen. 1:1—’In the beginning (time) God (force) created (action) the heaven (space) and the earth (matter).’” (What Is Science? By Bert Thompson) It is suggested that no account of the origin of the universe is as accurate, scientifically, as that in the Bible. Even the fact of creation is scientifically valid. This is because scientists have determined that matter is not eternal. Therefore, it must have been created by that which is eternal—God. The first chapter of Genesis, which reveals how the earth, which at first was “without form and void,” was formed and filled by the Creator. This, too, is scientifically accurate. Scientists tell us that the mineral, vegetable and animal kingdoms appeared in that order. This was revealed in the Bible thousands of years before being “discovered” by man. First, the soil with its nutrients (1:1-10), then vegetation (1:11-13) then fish, fowl, land animals and man (1:20-31). Some insist that the Bible contradicts known fact when it says, “the hare ... chews the cud but does not have cloven hooves” (Lev. 11:6). But it is certainly possible that Moses was speaking of a genus of hare that has long been extinct. Does any man know for certain that there never was a “hare” that chewed the cud? Dinosaurs have long been extinct and many animals are now considered endangered species because they have been hunted and killed to near extinction. It is also possible that Moses was using the term, “chews the cud,” accommodatively because the hare seems to chew the cud. The Bible also mentions “flying insects that creep on all fours” (Lev. 11:20). Some attack this as a contradiction between the Bible and known fact because, as everyone knows, insects have six legs. But the phrase, “creep on all fours,” could be a figurative expression for walking parallel to the ground, as opposed to walking upright. “The Heb. sherets is a broader term than the English translation insects suggests; ‘swarming things’ or ‘swarmers’ expresses its meaning more aptly.... Going on all fours is the opposite of walking uprightly: the number of legs is irrelevant” (Gordon J. Wenham, The Book of Leviticus, p. 175). Young’s Literal Translation renders the verse, “’Every teeming creature which is flying, which is going on four--an abomination it is to you.’” Again, perhaps four-legged insects once existed. No man living knows that they did not. There is no justification for interpreting the Bible in the light of modern scientific classifications—phylum, class, order, family, genus and species. Such is confusing enough for those living in the twenty-first century. It is no wonder that the creation account simply speaks of “kind.” The Bible also accurately distinguishes between different kinds of flesh. All flesh is not the same flesh, but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of animals, another of fish, and another of birds. (1 Cor. 15:29) “Scientists know there is such a difference they are able to tell whether a single cell comes from a human, an animal, a bird, or a fish! How did Paul know this before modern science ‘discovered’ it? Paul knew it directly from the Creator, by revelation.” (Paul Butler, First Corinthians, pp. 340-341) The above verse also demonstrates the folly of distinguishing human beings on the basis of race. As late as 1987, it was thought that there were 9 or 10 different races (World Book Encyclopedia, p. 52). It is now known, however, that “there is one kind of flesh of men.” This is because God “has made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth” (Acts 17:26). The Bible only distinguishes humans by geography and genealogy. It is easy to say that the Bible is inaccurate but proving it to be inaccurate is a different story. It has not been done. Do False Unicorns Exist? By Bob Myhan In the August 13, 2006, issue the writer ended an article with this statement: “It cannot be the case that all religions are false. If there were no true religion, there would be nothing to falsify. “ A Reader’s Response Why can’t it be the case that all religion is false? The word falsify is a verb that means to counterfeit that which is the real thing. If the case is that there is no real thing (true religion) all that would mean is that there is nothing to counterfeit. Therefore the word falsify would not be the appropriate word to use because no action against the true could have taken place. The result would be that there is an adjective that could be used for all religions—false. The word false just means contrary to fact. All religions stand or fall on the facts. Not on whether there is a true religion to falsify. The claim might be made that true unicorns are white. All other colored unicorns are merely falsifications of the true unicorn. Do these statements about unicorns mean that therefore there must be a true unicorn that exists? Let’s see how your statement above fits with unicorns substituted for religion. “It cannot be the case that all (unicorns) are false. If there were no true (unicorns), there would be nothing to falsify?” & The Reader’s Mistake The above reader was so blinded by his total lack of objectivity that he could not see that “false unicorns” and “false religions” are not parallel. Unicorns are, indeed, “contrary to fact” for they do not exist. But religions do exist and are not “contrary to fact.” &
|