Million Year Creation

The Compromise
This idea has become very popular during recent times. People have started questioning how long it really took God to create the universe. So, instead of the original six days, they’ve come up with the view that each day of creation was really a very long period of time. I call it the million year creation. It’s kind of a compromise between creation and evolution. After all, we must somehow explain the overwhelming evidence we see out there that supports evolution and millions of years, right? Wrong! Hopefully after reading my blog you will begin to understand how ridiculous the entire hypothesis of evolution is. So why is it so appealing to jam an error ridden, unproven, hypothesis like evolution, into the inerrant word of God? (To see how the Bible does on a real scientific test, go to “Labels” and click on “The Bible”). When you are better informed, it’s not.

What’s a Yom?
If you’re still not convinced, we are going to take a look at what the bible means when it says “day”. Some would argue that Hebrew, (the original language of the Old Testament) is not clear in regards to certain periods of time. Thus, what we translate to be a day could really be an hour, a week, or a million years. But the Bible makes it quite clear. The Hebrew word used in the original New Testament is the word “Yom” and it rarely means anything but a literal, 24 hour day. To clear up matters, the bible says “And there was evening, and there was morning- the 1st (2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th ) Day”. Whenever the word Yom is used with the word evening or morning, it ALWAYS means a literal, 24 hour day. So we really can’t afford to compromise. Either you must believe the bible is wrong, or that evolution is wrong.

The Historical Bible

Introduction
“The historical bible and Jesus Christ are the two cornerstones of the Christian worldview. If the bible is not history or if Jesus Christ is not “God with us” Christianity crumbles. To shatter Christian doctrine and the Christian world view, one need only shatter it’s historical underpinnings…” David A. Nobel (Understanding the Times).

A Test of Integrity
I read this great quote in a book called “Surprised by Faith” by Dr. don Bierle. In his book, Dr. Bierle lays out evidence that the bible is not only able to be trusted, but is actually the most accurate historical document of its time. How do you judge the accuracy of a document? Scientists ask three questions. First, does the document contradict it’s self? Second, does it contradict other historical documents that are known to be accurate? Third, is the document consistent with archaeological finds? In my new series “The historical Bible” we will look at each of these points in order to conduct a modern test of the Bible’s reliability. I think you’ll be surprised what we find.

The Historical Bible

Does it Contradict It’s self?
If you haven’t been told the Bible contradicts it’s self, you will. In his book, “Self-Contradictions of the Bible” Henry Burr claimed that the Bible contradicts it’s self at least 144 times. Obviously the Bible couldn’t be reliable if it’s authors were that confused! However, Henry Burr seems to be more pre occupied with his impressive number than the facts behind these supposed contradictions. Let’s look at two of the “contradictions” Henry Burr found.

Two Josephs?
In the New Testament there are two genealogies of Christ. One in Matthew chapter 1, and another in Luke chapter 3. At first glance, the two genealogies seem to contradict each other. They don’t even agree on Joseph’s father! Actually, they are two totally different genealogies. Matthew traced Joseph’s genealogy. And Luke traced Mary’s. on Mary’s genealogy Luke simply replaced the name “Mary” with her husband’s name “Joseph”. It was a culture thing. The two genealogies that seem to contradict each other end up complimenting each other, giving us both Joseph, AND Mary’s family line.

Heard, not Understood
Another supposed contradiction is found in Acts 9:7 and Acts 22:9. Saul is confronted by God while traveling to Damascus with his men to persecute Christians. Although the bible is clear enough on Saul’s experience, there seems to be some confusion over what happened to Saul’s men. Acts 9:7 says “The men who journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man.” However, Acts 22:9 says “And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me.” Once again, it appears we have a contradiction on our hands. Did Saul’s men hear a voice or not? The answer is found in the original language of the bible. For both passages the Greek word Akouo is used and translated as the English verb “to hear”. But in Acts 22:9 the word is constructed differently. Translated more correctly, Acts 22:9 should say something like “but they understood not the voice of him that spake to me.”

If you actually give the Bible half a chance, and study up on the original language and culture of the Bible you will find that supposed contradictions like these are the very simple and strait forward. despite what you might hear from Bible critics, the Bible passes this test easily. but since some people can make something out of nothing, that's not what the public is hearing.

The Historical Bible

Does it contradict other historical documents?
This next test is one of two external tests. It is the hardest test is the hardest to conduct on the Bible. The book “Explaining Creation with General Science” by Dr. Jay L. Wile gives us four reasons.

1 The Bible covers a long period of time.
2 Many parts of the Old Testament report on events that happened so long ago that they cannot be compared to any other works of history.
3 The focus of the bible is very narrow, so many contemporary historians don’t comment on Bible related events.
4 The Bible’s accounts were very controversial at the time it was written. So the opinions of both Christian historians and anti-Christian historians influenced their writings way too much.

With reasons like these it’s no wonder most historians consider archeological data the main external test for the Bible.

Disappointed?
Remember our original question? “Does it contradict other historical documents that are known to be accurate?”. So what’s the answer? It doesn’t, the only works it contradicts cannot be considered accurate since the writings were often swayed by the opinions of the authors. So no news is good news. The Bible passes this test with flying colors.

The Historical Bible

Is it confirmed by Archeology?
This is the last, (and in my opinion) the most import test. And, as you will find, the Bible scores high on this test as well. In his book “Surprised By Faith” (p 38) Dr. Don Bierly says, “Perhaps it is safe to say that because of modern archeology, more is known today about first century New Testament background than anyone has known about it since the third century. With so much Data available today, it is no longer difficult to test the New Testament’s claim to history”. Here are a few of the finds that Dr. Bierly listed in his book as positive proof for the Bible’s integrity.

Pontius Pilate
The New Testament Pontius Pilate is the governor of Judea during the time of Christ’s crucifixion. Two historians, as well as a two by three foot cornerstone found at the ancient site of Caesarea Maritima. The stone had an inscription that read “Pontius Pilate, prefect of Judea, has dedicated to the people of Caesarea a temple in honor of Tiberius.

James, Brother of Jesus
Time magazine called it “most important discovery in the history of New Testament archeology”. It was an ossuary, (bone box) found in Jerusalem in 2002. The inscription on it reads, “James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus”. This is really exciting because the New Testament identifies a man named James as the brother of Jesus (the son of Jesus’ earthly father). James was martyred in A.D. 62. Expert examinations of the writing style of the inscription, and tests on the limestone of the box confirm that it is from that time period.

Crucifixion with Nails
Critics have long questioned the accuracy of the bible relating to the crucifixion of Jesus Christ. The gospels claim that Jesus was nailed to a wooden cross (as opposed to tying him on with ropes). And that he was crucified in Palestine (there were doubts that this mode of execution was used in Palestine). Critics say that the writers of the gospels must have embellished their stories with “unhistorical details”. A recent publication says differently. It appears the bones of the only crucifixion victim ever found were unearthed near Jerusalem. The 24 to 28 year-old man still has a five inch long nail imbedded in his foot bones! Also, the calf bones of the victim were “Brutally fractured… clearly produced by a single hard blow.” This corresponds perfectly with the gospel of John. “The soldiers therefore came and broke the legs of the first man who had been crucified with Jesus, and then those of the other. But when they came to Jesus and found that he was already dead, they did not break his legs.”

Dr Bierly goes on to list several more such archeological finds. Such overwhelming evidence is not hard to interpret. Once again, the bible gets an A plus on this test.

Missing Links Part 4

Southern Ape
Australopithecus is one of the most well known and longstanding links on the familiar “ape to man” evolutionary chart. Quite a few skulls have been found and given the name Australopithecus, (which means “Southern ape”). As the name implies, these skulls are distinctly ape. One would wonder why they are included as a link between ape and man. The answer is simple, one of the Australopithecus skulls found by Dr. Louis Leakey in 1959 was found buried in close proximity to a few tiny chunks of rock. Evolutionists call them tools. If you were to look at the pictures of the “find” you would notice that the supposed tools are chips of rock about the size of an acorn. But most people don’t look far enough into the evidence behind this “link” to Question its viability.

Modern Tool Users
Even if these pitiful chips of rocks were used as tools it would not prove anything. I can think of two examples of modern animals that use tools off the top of my head. First, the little bird who drops rocks on nuts to crack them open. And also the chimps that use long strait twigs to remove and eat termites in much the same way as an ant-eater. We don’t consider these modern animals any more human than the next.

Professional Doubts
Australopithecus is obviously an extinct ape, not at all a relative of modern man. In fact, Louise’s son, Richard Leakey has removed Australopithecus from the evolutionary lineage of man in his book called “Origins”. If Louise’s own son, who is every bit as much a confirmed evolutionist as his father, doubts his father’s find, there must be something wrong with it.

Missing Links Part 3

Lucy
December 1976 National Geographic featured what they thought was a major discovery unearthed in Ethiopia. “Lucy” was a collection of bone fragments found by Donald Johanson, a young American graduate of the University of California. This discovery became very popular among the scientific community as a key “ape like” ancestor of modern man. In fact, so “apelike” that it is actually a chimpanzee. What was all the excitement about? Well, this chimp was believed to walk upright. This beliefe was based on the interpretation of a certain critical knee joint.

The Problem
After a university lecture is Kansas, Tom Willis, a well informed creationist asked Johanson publicly where he found the critical knee fragment. The answer, a mile and a half away from the other bone fragments in strata 200 feet deeper. Next Tom Willis asked why Johanson would include a fossil fragment so widely separated from the main find? Johanson thinks “anatomical similarity” is all the justification needed.

How embarrassing!
No wonder this information hasn’t been made public. And to think this is one of the most well known links out there. If only the public knew all the hidden facts evolutionists won’t let them hear. This is one of hundreds and it already proves you can’t trust scientists like Donald Johanson.