Fri, Aug 10th - 1:38AM

The Holy Bible Is The Infallible Word Of God

The Holy Bible is the infallible word of God, God's message to mankind. Those who do not believe this are challenged to study for themselves and examine the evidence honestly and objectively to see that the Bible is accurate and reliable. Bible-believers should not be afraid to examine the evidence or worry that this will weaken their faith. Examining the evidence will strengthen your faith. (Especially Biblical Creationism and the evidences of the Noachian Deluge)

This is what we are told to believe instead of the Genesis account of creation: Hydrogen was produced when nothing exploded, then heavier elements were formed when the explosion of hydrogen stars caused hydrogen atoms to jam together, and from these elements stars and galaxies were formed and the whole universe became intricate and ordered by accident. Some exploding stars left a swirling disk of cosmic dust which formed our Solar System with the matter in the center just happening to achieve enough mass to produce nuclear fusion (the Sun) and Earth just happening to be in just the right place for the sustainment of life. Eventually a molten blob (Earth) cooled enough to form water and a chance combination or mixture of chemicals produced a living cell and a series of extremely fortunate events just happened to occur in the right sequence to change that first one-celled organism into modern man and modern animals and plants in defiance of science. In other words: Nothing became hydrogen and hydrogen became people over eons of time.

How well does the theory of evolution harmonize with genuine science? Consider: What scientific evidence is there that an uncontrolled explosion can produce something as intricate and ordered as the universe? What scientific evidence is there that a chance combination or mixture of chemicals can produce a living organism? What is the scientific evidence that a series of thousands of extremely fortunate events just happened to occur in the right sequence to change a one-celled organism into modern man and modern animals and plants? How can a mutation result in a change from one species into another, since mutations take away from a genetic code but never add to it? How can the theory of evolution be considered scientific when the DNA Code Barrier, Gene Depletion, & Natural Selection make the theory of evolution scientifically impossible? Why does the theory of evolution lose credibility in the absence of logic fallacies? Basic science relies on observation, fact, hypothesis, theory, and law. Observation means describing or measuring what is observed, a fact is based on repeated observations that can be confirmed, a hypothesis is a statement that can be tested so the conclusions or inferences can be explained, a theory is a general explanation into which facts and experimental conclusions can be incorporated, and a Law is a functional generalization that has stood the test of time and is reliable. The theory of evolution relies on these presuppositions: A gradual change over unimaginable eons (many different and often conflicting explanations are offered to explain how), the organizing force for life is internal and dependent of random chance, and time, chance and natural processes are responsible for material reality without intelligent design. The theory of evolution does not meet the requirements of basic science or withstand application of the scientific method that is accepted by evolutionists and used by evolutionists to denounce opposing views (e.g., creationism) as non-science. Atheism originates in the heart, the emotions, and not in the mind or intellect. (Psalm 14:1; 53:1)

Why do the earth and the universe look so old? Does this discredit the Genesis account of creation? No. Consider a few possibilities: God created everything with the appearance of age. For example, when He created man He made a full-grown man and not a baby, when He created fish and fowl He made grown birds and fish and not eggs, etc…. (Genesis 1) Consider also that the Bible does not say if how much time may have elapsed between verses one and two of chapter one of Genesis.

How could light be produced on the first day if the sun, moon and stars were not created till the fourth day? We should take into account that God is infinite and omnipotent and does not need the sun and stars to provide light. (Consider I John 1:5 & Revelation 22:5) Consider also that verse two and subsequent verses do not indicate or determine whether or not light had already existed elsewhere or if God removed or changed a condition that prevented light from reaching the globe or regions of the globe. (E.g., dust cloud, rarefraction of gases in the upper atmosphere, change of the polar axis, etc.)

In an attempt to disprove or discredit the Bible, many insist that man has been on the earth longer than six thousand years, but this does not disprove anything. Theories of modern Bible-believers about the time of Adam's creation or the time of the world-wide Deluge could be off by thousands of years due to the difference in the way ancient historians recorded genealogies. Ancient Hebrews often listed the most important son or the legal heir first, not necessarily the eldest son. For example, Genesis 11:26 says "And Terah lived seventy years, and begat Abram, Nahor, and Haran," but a comparison of Scripture passages reveals that Terah was at 130 years old when Abram was born. (Genesis 11:32; 12:1-4; Acts 7:4) Apparently Genesis 11:26 means that Terah was 70 years old when he begot his sons, of whom Abram was the legal heir or the most important. Modern writers like to include every name in a genealogy, but ancient writers just included the important names and often skipped several generations at a time. For example, Genesis 11:12 says "And Arphaxad lived five and thirty years, and begat Salah" even though Arphaxad was the grandfather of Salah. (Luke 3:35-36) In listing his own genealogy Ezra gives the names of only sixteen generations between himself and Aaron even though his list covers about a thousand years. Ezra evidently just listed the officially reckonable names. (Ezra 7:1-5) Matthew 1:8 says "Joram begat Ozias," but according to the Old Testament Joram was the great-great-grandfather of Ozias (Uzziah). Matthew evidently means the officially reckonable generations when he speaks of generations. (Matthew 1:17) The original writers and the first readers understood why certain names were included and others were omitted, but we come to wrong conclusions when we assume that Bible writers recorded genealogies like western or modern historians and then interpret their writings accordingly.

Do dinosaur fossils discredit the Genesis account? No. Scientists have been able to examine the DNA of dinosaur bones and dinosaur bones with rotten flesh have been discovered, which would indicate that the bones are hundreds or thousands and not millions of years old. What happened to dinosaurs? Post-Deluge climatic changes, diseases, insufficient food, and activities of man caused many animals to die out. (Consider http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/dinoscoexist.html  http://paranormal.about.com/od/livingdinosaurs/Livin )

Why is the Genesis account of creation so important? It is not possible to understand Jesus Christ and New Testament teachings without the Old Testament. (John 5:39; II Timothy 3:16) The Bible does not separate the knowledge of God the Redeemer from God the Creator, and the Genesis account shows the depravity of man, the effects of sin, and man's need for atonement. (Consider Romans 5:17-19; I Corinthians 15:45)

Is the Bible scientifically accurate? Certainly the Bible contradicts numerous theories and opinions held by many scientists, but this does not disprove the Bible, it merely proves that scientists are human after all. When a scientist says that the Genesis account of creation is wrong or that the miracles of the Bible could not happen he is not stating a scientific fact, he is expressing an opinion. Studying and comparing the theory of evolution and the Genesis account of creation reveals that it takes far more faith (or credulity) to believe the theory of evolution than it takes to believe the Genesis account of creation or the miracles of the Bible. Not only is the Bible in harmony with true science, the Bible is scientifically accurate on matters that scientists discovered only at a later time. (Genesis 1:11,21,5; 9:4; Leviticus 11:6; 17:11; Job 19:20; 26:7; 28:2; 36:27-28; Ecclesiastes 1:7; 11:2; Isaiah 40:22; I Corinthians 15:39)  

Consider the Mosaic Law. Moses said the Law came from God. (Deuteronomy 4:7-8, 12, 14) If he had said that the Law came from his own mind that would have really been outrageous. How could his mind have managed to produce the Law? Look at his background. The Law contradicted Egyptian science, medicine, philosophy, and religion. How could Moses have anticipated the discoveries of modern science, medicine, hygiene, conservation, sociology, and economics?

Is the Bible historically accurate? The Bible is filled with references to specific people, places, and events which have been confirmed by secular history and archaeology, and archaeologists continue uncovering more evidence to verify the Bible record. For example, for centuries skeptics pointed to Bible references to the Hittites as evidence of inaccuracy because no evidence of such a people had been discovered, and then in 1906 the Hittite capital was discovered.

We still observe evidence of the Noachian Deluge in mankind's collective memory. A cataclysm like the Noachian Deluge would never be forgotten by the survivors, who would tell their children and their children's children all about the experience. (Genesis 8:15-17) As people scattered abroad it was only natural that stories of the Flood would pass from generation to generation. (Genesis 11:9) The fact that there are stories about an earth wide global destruction of life by water, with a place of refuge for a few survivors, and a seed of mankind preserved, in the traditions and folklore of ancient or primitive peoples the world over is strong proof that those people had a common origin and that their ancestors shared the Flood experience in common. The Flood occurred on the seventeenth day of the second month (Heshvan), which corresponds to November 1. (Genesis 7:11) Various primitive peoples preserved a remnant of traditions about the Flood by observing a 'feast of the ancestors' at this time of year. The Hindus celebrate this festival on the seventeenth day of November, and the Egyptians on the seventeenth day of Athyr (the day they say the Flood began). The Celtic year ended October 31 and November 1 was the Celtic New Year, and the Celtics celebrated the Eve of Samhain, the Celtic Lord Of The dead, the evening of October 31, and this is the origin of Halloween in America.

The unity and consistency of the Bible is evidence of divine inspiration, which is why skeptics are quick to point out so-called contradictions. Does the Bible contradict itself? It is inevitable that the Word of God will contradict the theories and sentiments of men, and it is easy for man to assume that something is wrong with the Bible because of what is wrong with man. (Psalm 33:10-11; Proverbs 19:21; Isaiah 55:8-9; Romans 8:7; I Corinthians 3:19; Galatians 5:17) But the Bible does not contradict itself.

Most so-called contradictions are cleared up through further study of the Bible, such as the supposed contradiction between the promise to destroy Israel and the promise to preserve Israel. (Leviticus 26:44; Deuteronomy 28:20) The prophet Amos clears up the misunderstanding: God would destroy the kingdom of Israel and preserve the people of Israel. (Amos 9:8) When the Assyrians conquered the ten-tribe kingdom of Israel they carried its people into captivity and they were never heard from again, and so the ten-tribe kingdom is often called the lost ten tribes. But were the people of Israel actually lost? After the ten tribes broke away to form the northern kingdom of Israel they lived in idolatry and never had even one godly king. King Baasha fortified the border because the God-fearing people in the northern kingdom wanted to immigrate to the Kingdom of Judah that had the Temple in Jerusalem to preserve true worship. (I Kings 15:17) Over time the God-fearing people in the north migrated to the southern kingdom so that only the dregs of the ten-tribe kingdom of Israel were actually lost. (II Chronicles 15:9; 19:4; 34:9)

Where did Cain get his wife? When Cain went to the land of Nod did he find humans that were not descended from Adam, as some speculate? The Bible gives no indication that anyone already dwelt in the land of Nod or that it was called the land of Nod before Cain went there. (Genesis 4:16) Adam had both sons and daughters. (Genesis 5:4) If Cain married his sister would this mean that God condoned sin, as some argue? Marriage to a close relative, such as a sister, disrupts the moral and social order of the family as ordained by God, but this would not have been a problem for the first generations of mankind. After the first generations it would have been possible to marry a cousin, and marriage between cousins (even first cousins) is not prohibited in Scripture. http://www.cousincouples.com/?page=facts 

Numbers used in Scripture often present problems, causing thinking people to look at a text of Scripture and note that the numbers given appear to be unrealistic or contradictory. It must be noted that the ancients often used round numbers in an approximate sense. We still do that to an extent, such as when someone says he just had a two week vacation or holiday when in fact he had been gone fifteen or sixteen days. For example, in certain contexts dealing with local government, "ten," "fifty," "hundred," and "thousand" were administrative units and not exact numbers, and in the Jewish army a regiment was called a thousand. The English rendering of a word may not always be the only possible rendering, and a closer study of the context and setting is often needed. In English we have many words with multiple definitions which depend on the context in which a word is used, and this was also true of ancient Hebrew and Greek. For example, the Hebrew word for "thousand" (eleph) also means "family" and is translated as "family" in Judges 6:15; the number of Israelites who crossed the Red Sea, and the size of the army of Israel, was possibly much less than what is often assumed.

Some apparent contradictions are due to misunderstandings of idioms. (E.g. Deuteronomy 5:3; Hosea 6:6; Matthew 9:13; 12:7) Foreigners always have trouble with idioms, and we are the foreigners where the Bible is concerned.

Many apparent contradictions are just a matter of different points of view. Different writers portraying the same things can be expected to describe them differently. Police compare the different accounts of the same event to find similarities as well as discrepancies, because if different witnesses to the same event describe or word everything exactly alike this is a good indication that they conspired together to lie.

Was Ahaziah twenty-two or forty-two when he began to reign? (II Kings 8:26; II Chronicles 22:2) Ahaziah was made king while his father was alive and was confirmed king after his father's death when he was forty-two. http://av1611.com/kjbp/faq/ahaziah.html 

How old was Jehoiachin when he began to reign? (II Kings 24:8; II Chronicles 36:9) Jehoiachin became a king with his father when he was eight but he did not take complete control until he was eighteen.

Did Christ use the term kingdom of God or kingdom of heaven? Mark, Luke, and John quote Christ as saying kingdom of God while Matthew usually quotes Christ as saying kingdom of heaven. Christ and His Disciples spoke Aramaic and the four Gospels are written in Greek. The issue was not the exact words used but how to translate those words from Aramaic into Greek.

When Christ rode into Jerusalem did the Jews cry hosanna or glory? (Matthew 21:9; Luke 19:38) The Jews probably used the Hebrew word hosanna. But Luke was writing for Greeks, and glory is what hosanna meant from a Greek point of view.

When Christ met and healed blind Bartimaeus and his unidentified companion was Christ leaving Jericho or headed for Jericho? (Matthew 20:29-30; Mark 10:46; Luke 18:35) At that time Jericho was a double city, and the old Jewish city of Jericho was about a mile from the Roman city of Jericho. Apparently Matthew and Mark refer to the Jewish city of Jericho while Luke refers to the Roman city of Jericho.

Why do the Gospel writers appear to disagree on the wording of the superscription of accusation nailed to the cross of Christ by Pontius Pilate? (Matthew 27:37; Mark 15:26; Luke 23:38; John 19:19) The superscription was written in three languages, and apparently one writer is giving an exact quote of the Greek inscription while the others are giving translations of the Hebrew inscription or the Latin inscription or possibly a mixture of the two. (John 19:20)  

Why doesn’t the New Testament contain the Hebrew name of God even in quotations of the Old Testament? If I were to talk about Mosheh many readers would not immediately recognize that I was referring to Moses, even though Moses is an inaccurate rendering of the word Mosheh. The same would be true of other Hebrew names. The Hebrew name of God, the Tetragrammaton, is a Hebrew word that most Gentiles would probably not be able to pronounce even if the correct pronunciation were known. Consider that the name Jesus is the Latin counterpart of the Hebrew Yeshua, the Hebrew word Yeshua means "Jehovah-Savior" or "Jehovah is salvation" or "salvation of Jehovah," and in the Old Testament the New World Translation often renders Yeshua as merely "salvation," such as in Job 13:16 & Psalm 13:5. The New Testament is inspired of God, and Jesus Christ recognized and verified the inspiration and authority of the New Testament by way of anticipation. (John 14:26; 16:12-13) New Testament quotes of the Old Testament are translations of a Hebrew text into Greek, and under inspiration of God the New Testament Bible writers rendered the Hebrew name of God as Lord (Gr. Kurios) in their quotations of the Old Testament. Why? Because of the changeover of the authority and power of the name of Jehovah to the name of Jesus. (John 5:23; 17:11; Acts 4:12; Philippians 2:9-11; Hebrews 1:4)

What about the apparent contradictions in the New Testament quotations of the Old Testament? This misunderstanding is due to differences between ancient and modern literary customs. Today we use quotation marks to make a distinction between a direct quotation and an indirect quotation, and we use a row of dots to signify that words were removed in order to shorten a long quotation. But punctuation was not yet invented when the New Testament was being written. In many cases the writers combined quotation and exposition in one. This was following the literary customs of their day, and their method did have the advantage of using fewer words. First century Christians were accustomed to all this and were much more familiar with Scripture than most modern Christians and needed less explanation.

From beginning to end the Bible claims to be the infallible word of God, and this claim is either true or it is not. If this claim is not true then none of the Bible is reliable, there is no basis for faith, and there is no foundation or support for Christianity. If this claim is true, then Christians are obliged to accept the entire Bible to be what it claims to be, and no compromise is logical or even possible.