Volume 14, Number 1, September-October 2010
NetNips with Mega-Bites
Some of the best of Facebook, forums and other Internet sources.
On Bible Errors:
Nearly all of the many thousands of manuscript variations have no significant effect on the meaning of the Scriptures-most are spelling differences or different ways of saying the same thing. I have books that show virtually every significant difference in Greek manuscripts-there are books available that do the same thing for the Old Testament Hebrew/Aramaic. I challenge anyone to pick out whatever combination of ancient manuscripts they like, and I can still teach my basic beliefs from those manuscripts.
The Bible teaches we are judged by what we do with what we have--we are not judged by what we don’t know (Matt 25:14-30; Luke -48; -12; John ). The lessons of these verses are clear in any manuscript or any translation! God allows imperfect men to maintain the scriptures and make minor mistakes, just like He allows us to raise children and run court systems—and make mistakes. Christianity and mankind as a whole are not suffering because of minor Bible errors causing people to make minor mistakes! We are suffering because we are not doing the big and obvious teachings of the Bible.
Those refusing to live by any of the Bible because it might contain errors need to consider the following passage. Christ judges a man not on the Bible, but only on a statement that he believes to be true:
“Then another came, saying, ‘Master, here is your mina, which I have kept put away in a handkerchief. ‘For I feared you, because you are an austere man. You collect what you did not deposit, and reap what you did not sow.’ And he said to him, ‘Out of your own mouth I will judge you, you wicked servant. You knew that I was an austere man, collecting what I did not deposit and reaping what I did not sow. Why then did you not put my money in the bank, that at my coming I might have collected it with interest?’ And he said to those who stood by, ‘Take the mina from him, and give it to him who has ten minas.’ (But they said to him, ‘Master, he has ten minas.’) For I say to you, that to everyone who has will be given; and from him who does not have, even what he has will be taken away from him. But bring here those enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, and slay them before me’ “ (Luke ).
This man said it was wrong to take what belonged to another, so the master judged him for taking from himself—for burying the masters money rather than letting it draw interest.
And as it is appointed for men to die once, but after this the judgment (Heb )
Everyone can be judged by the Golden Rule—asked why they didn’t treat others the way they wanted to be treated. Those who believe in evolution will certainly be asked: did you believe this because it makes the most sense scientifically, or did you believe it because you didn’t want to recognize that you might be responsible to a Higher Power? —NSE
On Origins of the Universe and Life:
A common atheist argument: “It is pointless to say God or an intelligent designer created the universe because we would then immediately have to ask, ‘Where did God or the intelligent designer come from?’” This argument misses the simple point that the physical universe—the matter and energy that we can measure—came from a source outside the physical universe that we cannot measure. Hence, we will not be able to scientifically answer the question of where the universe designer came from. While atheists call this a “cop out”—it best fits the facts. The available energy of the universe is decreasing and the disorder (entropy) is increasing. There is no known means of reversing these things—the universe began!
The origin of life is utterly unexplainable by known physics and mathematics. The chance of a protein molecule forming randomly is infinitesimal. The chance of an isolated protein molecule being destroyed by random forces is very high. I listened to an evolutionist admit that a single cell is more complicated than a Saturn 5 rocket. The earth has billions times billions of cells on it. If we look carefully, maybe we can find Saturn 5 rockets that have also evolved—that would save NASA a lot of money. Don’t argue that there are so many cells because they reproduce themselves—NASA would be perfectly happy to find a Saturn 5 that reproduces itself!
Even if we, like Charles Darwin, just assume that the first cell appeared about 2 billion years ago, we still have mathematically inconceivable issues to deal with. Scientists estimate there are 20 million unique, reproducing species on earth. That means, on average, a new, successful species must develop every 100 years. Yet, for a similar 100 years, scientists have been trying, with radiation, chemicals, environmental changes, and just about every other conceivable means to make a new species of fruit flies. (Fruit flies breed a new generation every 10 days, so they are good for these experiments.) Why are the best biologists unable to do in their laboratories what evolutionists say has been happening totally randomly at least every 100 years ever since life began?
Since the chance of an unsuccessful species evolving is millions of times greater than a successful one, why don’t we see thousands of unsuccessful species evolving every year? But we don’t. No other branch of science or industry believes anything this crazy. If auto designers or computer scientists cannot produce a part they need in their labs, do they go out looking in nature just in case the part they need evolved somewhere? No. They realize the parts they need will only come from an intelligent maker, not by change. Why can’t evolutionists be as wise?
When confronted with the fact that virtually every structure in living things has a function, the noted atheist Richard Dawkins said he thought it was possible that life on earth was created by superior alien beings—producing these apparently coherent life forms, but that these aliens must have evolved by natural selection. What evidence does he have for that conclusion? None. Is not that a simple admission that he will accept any origin of the universe as long as it is not a God that makes him morally responsible?. Indeed, most atheists will accept natural selection, random chance, aliens, punctuated equilibrium or any other theory that does not leave an individual responsible to God for his actions.
And as long as life is fairly good to them, they will continue in their belief. They are free to ignore any possible purpose for the creation of mankind and any individual purpose for their own lives. They are free to realize that their own injury or death means nothing in the cosmic scheme of things, and that the same is true for every one of the other billions of lives on the planet. As far as they know, we might all be replaced by superior life forms yet to evolve. Or, all life might be destroyed by some natural or man-made disaster, with mindless planetary and geologic processes continuing for trillions of years after us, with nobody to know or care what happens.
I’m glad that I understand the purpose of life, and will gladly teach it to anyone who cares to know. I believe that God will bring all of the atheists up in a later resurrection—and they will see how foolish they were to waste this life. But I think they will then be able to understand it, and able to be a part of God’s kingdom—when they finally humble themselves and repent. —NSE
And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father (Phl ). &
Download Full Issue in PDF:
Permission is granted to reproduce any article in its entirety