"If each of us commits to help get other people to share this, we can change the world."
Refuting Bible skeptics
1. "The Two Creations"
A non-biased (i.e. non-blind faith) reading of Genesis 1 & 2 usually results in the understanding that Genesis 2 is just Genesis 1 expressed in a different way, not a contradiction.
2. "Who created heaven and earth [Jesus or God]?"
Obviously Jesus, the son of God being born of God (not created), would consist of the same substance or essence of God just like a human child consists of the same substance as their father and mother. God is a social trinity, three in one, just like humans are a family or human trinity. Not a contradiction.
3. "When was the universe created?"
The Bible doesn't say exactly when the universe was created. But, Psalm 90:2-4 directly refers to the creation period where God "formed the earth" and, in that context, says that a day could be any amount of time to God ("a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday"). God was obviously the only observer of creation. The word "day" (Hebrew yom) can mean a period of time or epoch, and "evening and the morning" (Hebrew ereb and boqer), found in Genesis 1, can be plural (e.g. Daniel 8:14 & 26) rather than singular, enabling the creation period to be billions of evenings and mornings in six epochs. Arguments that '"yom" plus a number' are always interpreted to mean 24 hour days is a nice statistic but there is no rule preventing yom from being legitimately interpreted as an indeterminate period of time or epoch. And, as previously explained in Psalm 90:2-4, days are defined as long periods of time in the context of creation. In addition, in Genesis 2:4, yom is interpreted to mean the whole six days of creation. Thus, billions of evenings and mornings in each of 6 epochs/days is a legitimate interpretation.
4. "The Gap Theory"
A "gap" is a possible interpretation. Nowhere in the Bible does it say the earth is 6000 years old. When the Bible talks about death it usually means spiritual death. However, there's no reason to believe that God would think that animals killing other animals is "nasty" or not "good". In fact, God has destroyed humans as though they were "nasty" bugs. A God would obviously have every right to destroy his creations, just like a child could make paper dolls and then throw them into the fireplace. Our value as humans would obviously be much less compared with an infinite God, than a paper doll would be to a child. In fact, the SAB writer and other skeptics have likely gone even further than this with their own "nasty" and destructive nature by stepping on ants and murdering them or canibalizing one of their fellow animals by eating a hamburger. I'll bet most skeptics have even paid taxes to a country that has committed human genocide. Let's be realistic. God can do whatever he wants, and it would be anthropomorphic and ignorant to think that we can judge an infinite God by our own standards.
5. "The Genesis 1 account conflicts with the order of events that are known to science." The Skeptic Friends Network says "the story of Genesis, a blatantly false dichotomy." Lets check it out to see if they are right...
First, we should all be able to agree with the following premises: Stars, sun, light, and planets together make up the heavens. Earth is a planet. Obviously light came before earth. In fact, Genesis 1:1 confirms this scientific creation sequence of heavens first (i.e. light, stars, etc.) and then the earth. We have already shown that "day" (Hebrew yom) can be interpreted as billions of years or epoch. The Bible, in Genesis 1:2, provides a scientific frame of reference: "upon the face of the waters" and an observer the "Spirit of God". Genesis 1:2 also implies that night and day, stars, and moon were not originally visible at the frame of reference on the surface of the earth since "darkness was upon the face of the deep" until Genesis 1:3 where God said "Let there be light:". However, "Let there be..." implies a natural process, not a creatoin event. The Hebrew word bara is the word for a creation event. This word occurs in Genesis 1:1. Thus, it would make sense that the darkness created by dust in the early atmosphere subsided rather than God actually creating light at that particular point. Night and day became distinguishable at the frame of reference "upon the face" of the earth in Genesis 1:3. This was followed by the actual visibility of the individual sun, stars, and moon, etc., later in Genesis 1:16 after more clearing of dust from the atmosphere, a process from total darkness to translucent to clear. Darkness on the surface of the earth and then clearing is also confirmed by scientific theory, due to periods of intense asteroid/comet impacts and volcanic eruptions, etc.
The atmosphere containing water vapor was generated in verse 7 (i.e. the water cycle is described in Job 36:27). Large land masses appeared (i.e. tectonic activity) in verse 9. We'll skip several verses in order to include all of the lving things and their development in the next section.
In Genesis 1:14, there is no creation event mentioned. "Let there be lights..." seems like God is just allowing natural processes that he created to play out, like the sky continuing to clear, so that the sun, moon, and stars become visible (still using the scientific point of reference on the surface of the earth). When it says the sun, moon, and stars were "made", later in verse 16, this can be interpreted in the past tense referring back to Genesis 1:1.
Thus, the Genesis 1 sequence so far seems to be completely scientifically consistent with light, sun and stars (i.e. heaven[s]) in sequence before the earth and plants, etc., came into being.
The rest of the days (or epochs) also predict the general geological timetable consistent with modern science: God's spirit brooding, as the Hebrew word rachaph implies, over the waters, in verse 2, could imply God's enabling of simple life forms in the water at that point. In Genesis 1:11 the earth (Hebrew erets, including land and water, etc.) produced vegetation (i.e. algae, etc.). The water produced aquatic creatures. Mammals then appeared. Humans came last.
The Skeptic Friends Network presumptuously says, 'Fundamentalists love to quote the first part of Isaiah 40:22 where it reads, â€œHe sits enthroned above the circle of the earthâ€¦â€ as proof that the Bible advocates a spherical Earth.'
Now I will act as the 'skeptic's' skeptic and easily debunk all their so-called skepticism by exposing their hidden biases and blind assumptions...
What fundamentalists call Isaiah 40:22 "proof"? I'm not sure. But, Luke 17 is proof that the Bible is scientifically correct. In Luke 17 it says at the same instant "like the lightning, which flashes" people are "taken" concurrently at "night" (verse 34) and "day" (verses 30-31) proving ~2000 years ago that the Bible correctly says the earth is a globe with both dark and light sides. Isaiah 40:22 is simply accurately describing what the earth looks like from a distance. However, Wilsonâ€™s OT Word Studies translates the Hebrew word "chuwg" as a "circle, sphere," (n.d., p. 77). And Random House Dictionary gives the following definition:
cirÂ·cle: "a sphere or orb: the circle of the earth."
There is absolutely no evidence that Isaiah 40:22 should be interpreted as a flat disk. In addition, a tent in biblical times is not in the shape of a dome. In fact, when Isaiah 40:22 says God "stretches out the heavens" it more likely predicts what science now refers to as the expansion of the universe after the Big Bang.
Job 26:10 says the earth's cross section is round multidimensionally on 70% of the surface of the earth where water is found implying a spherical earth: "He has inscribed a circle on the surface of the waters," (NAS)
In Job 38:2 immediately following Job 37:18 where Elihu falsely talked about the "vault of the skies...hard as a mirror of cast metal", God correct him by saying "Who is this that darkens my counsel with words without knowledge?"
The Skeptic Friends Network thinks that the dream in Daniel 4:11 is "Danielâ€™s dream..." In fact, it is was Nebuchadnezzar's dream, a pagan King. Who cares if a pagan King's dream dream implies a flat earth and is not scientifically sound? The Bible is simply providing an accurate historical record of Nebuchadnezzar's distorted dream.
The Hebrew word "aguddah" in Amos 9:6 does not imply a hard surface nor a dome or vaulted surface. In all other uses it simply means to bind together, like gravity holding the atmosphere to the earth. This verse also seems to describe the hydrologic cycle.
The Hebrew word "avah" in Isaiah 24:1 means to "distort" like in an earthquake or to "ruin", not to turn it "upside down" as the KJV incorrectly translates.
The Friends Skeptic Friends Network says that the "Bible also advocates Geocentrism:"
However, the Hebrew word "makon" normally means dwelling place or area, not necessarily a fixed physical foundation, and the word "mot" can mean it will not "be out of course", not immovable as in a fixed location in space.
It's easy to debunk the skeptics. A little rational, open-minded thinking is all it takes.
What you can do:
These Bible Integrity ideas were created by BibleIntegrity.org and EasyWitnessing.org Copyright (C) and can be used unaltered
without permission as long as this copyright credit is properly displayed and web links to Bible DVDs and defense of Bible Integrity and Easy Witnessing System are included on websites or blogs, etc.