Wednesday, December 31, 2008

Bible Accountability

Check out this interesting answer on Yedda


Yedda – People. Sharing. Knowledge.Did Adam and Eve have belly buttons?



DC: Sim, the evidence has to do with a reliable source that you can trust and believe in. Sim: What's the reliable source? Lincoln didn't know it; Einstein didn't know it; Adams didn't know it; Twain didn't know it; and I don't know it. What is it? If it's reliable these people, including me, should have and would have known the reliable source. What is it?



Sim, the reliable source that you can trust and believe in, is the Bible. You can only come to believing this by doing the research, and starting to live it. The reason I post here, is not to get into fights, but to share the evidences I have found.



As for John Adams, our second president, he also served as chairman of the American Bible Society. John Quincy Adams, son of John Adams, was the sixth U.S. President. He was also the chairman of the American Bible Society, which he considered his highest and most important role. On July 4, 1821, President Adams said, "The highest glory of the American Revolution was this: it connected in one indissoluble bond the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity."



President Lincoln called William Holmes McGuffey, the author of the McGuffey Reader, which was used for over 100 years in our public schools with over 125 million copies sold until it was stopped in 1963. President Lincoln called him the "Schoolmaster of the Nation." Listen to these words of Mr. McGuffey: "The Christian religion is the religion of our country. From it are derived our notions on character of God, on the great moral Governor of the universe. On its doctrines are founded the peculiarities of our free institutions. From no source has the author drawn more conspicuously than from the sacred Scriptures. From all these extracts from the Bible I make no apology."



About Albert Einstein, and the rest, here is a great article by John Clayton. --dc
www.doesgodexist.org Alice in Wonderland Meets Cosmology

John 1:1-5; 1 Corinthians 2:7; and Colossians 1:16-17). Isaiah 51:6). The understandings of the initial formation of space, time, and energy fit well with the simple statement of Genesis 1:1. The fact that matter ultimately dissolves into the energy from which it came fits well with Peter's discussion that there will be an end to time and that the elements will dissolve at that point (2 Peter 3:10). The Bible also describes beautifully what modern cosmology has told us about how space is distributed and moves. Over and over the Bible talks about God "stretching out the heaven" (see Isaiah 40:22; 44:24; 45:12; 51:13; Jeremiah 10:12; 51:15; and Zechariah 12:1). In the past century science has shown clearly that the cosmos is expanding, and that it is in fact accelerating in that expansion. The expanding universe is not only a vivid proof that there was a beginning to space/time and energy, but also that its motion has been clearly defined and can be observed--even if all the mechanisms are not understood.


All of us have read the wonderful fantasy Alice in Wonderland. The characters in the story remark about strangeness and reality and engage in human parodies that in many cases are unmistakable and yet are surreal. There are also characters that perhaps many of us can relate to in a variety of ways. As new information has become available in cosmology, new theories have been advanced to attempt to explain the new data. Like Alice in Wonderland, cats show up in cosmological and quantum mechanics models. Words like "strange" and "strangeness" become commonplace descriptions. The phrase that "things are not as they appear" is a constant mantra. The problem with much of what is happening in cosmology today is that it is nearing the edge of science and has become a fringe of science instead of a valid scientific pursuit. Atheists have a major interest in this discussion, because one of the strong arguments for the existence of God is the mystery of creation itself. If there is a way to exclude God from the process, atheists will be quick to jump on that bandwagon. Understanding what is happening and seeing how powerfully the new discoveries connect to faith in God as the creator is an important area of study.



Thanks to Albert Einstein, we have a new view of reality. We now know that the nature of space and time is not that they are separate and distinct quantities, but that they are part of the same thing. Space can be curved by gravity, or more accurately, gravity is a function of the curvature of space. We can see light following the curvature of space around large masses, and we can see a planet on the other side of the Sun before it actually emerges from that location. Einstein's work did not invalidate the work of Isaac Newton, but it improves it and gives us a better understanding of the cosmos. The same equations work and the same predictions can be made, but some things Newton could not describe or explain can be explained by Einstein's work. This is strange and challenging, but it is good science. It is testable, falsifiable, practical, and useful. It also gives us a better understanding of the process of creation. If you believe that God is the creator, then you have to realize that God did not just



create an Alice in Wonderland fairyland. The creation of reality means the creation of space/time and thus the creation of space and of time. That is why the Bible speaks of God doing things before time and after time (see


Atheists are desperate to have an alternative to what has just been said. The existence of space/time cannot be denied, and the fact that matter and energy exist also cannot be rationally denied. Einstein has also allowed us to understand that mass is just a



concentrated form of energy, and all of us know about E=mc² and have had it vividly demonstrated to us in the atomic bomb. We now understand that ultimately all matter returns to the energy from which it came. Even protons are now known to decay back into energy. We also know that the old physical laws of classical physics still apply, even if in a somewhat modified form. The second law of thermodynamics, for example, still describes the fact that in a closed system energy gradually changes into entropy--a measure of the disorder of matter. Things age--from galaxies to stars to planets to people to protons. Gases diffuse, osmosis happens, refrigeration works--all in conformity to the laws of thermodynamics.


Those of us who believe in God see the wisdom in all of this. As we come to better understandings of science and how things work we realize that there is a reason why God did what He did. We also find numerous scriptures which seem to demonstrate an awareness of all of this. The concept of entropy and the second law fit well with descriptions of the cosmos wearing out like an old garment (



We not only see that the biblical description is accurate, but we also see that there are reasons for what has been done. In recent years it has been shown that where we are located in the galaxy is important to our long term survival. We exist in what science now calls a galactic habitable zone, a place in the galaxy where stability is possible over the long term. It is a small part of the galactic system--the fruit of the design of a galaxy. You do not eat the whole tree to get the value of the fruit, and the rest of the galaxy provides the stable platform in which our solar system exists. The type of star we orbit, and the existence of Jovian planets which protect us from the debris of space are also variables which show purpose, planning, and intelligence. Mechanistic explanations of the creation have to deal with the fact that our planetary position is unique, and that the uniqueness is vital for us to exist.


As atheists have attempted to deal with all of this new data and the implications of the data, some interesting approaches have been brought forth. Some atheists (like the famous philosopher Antony Flew) have essentially thrown in the towel and said that there has to be an intelligence behind it all, but it cannot be a personal God. The reasons for denying a personal God have nothing to do with science, but involve theological issues like the existence of evil, pain, and want.



Other atheists have attempted to find scientific theories that could preclude the existence of God and have some sense of scientific support. One way of doing this has been to propose that there are parallel universes. The idea is that many accidents happen in the infinity of space and the infinity of time, and ours just happens to be one with the conditions needed for carbon-based life. There are so many problems with an explanation like this, that it is hard to know where to start. If the common notion that has permeated science for the last century that space and time came into existence in a singularity is accepted, the proposing of multiple existences of space and multiple starts to time violates all of our common definitions of both. If you can somehow wrap your mind around multiple space and multiple time, it is fairly obvious that these other universes would be completely isolated from us and would have no interaction with us. You can pretend to understand how there can be two times at one place in space at the same time, but in reality that is not a concept that can be communicated adequately, and which rational people will believe. It is a faith statement--untested, untestable, and unfalsifiable.


Another approach has been to propose causal agents apart from God that cause everything we see and experience. String theory has been a popular proposal in recent years. In this theory, strings of space/time, which are eleven-dimensional entities, collide and produce lower dimensional quantities of which we are an example. This proposal makes Alice in Wonderland look like a first-grade science reader. It is true that we can conduct certain experiments that show us that there are dimensions other than the x, y, and z quantities that we are familiar with. Tachyons fit many of the descriptions of higher dimensions, and their properties and by-products are studied in nuclear chemistry and physics. Mathematical descriptions can be given of quantities that are beyond our physical world, but having a description in mathematics does not mean that the description is true or that the math applies to the dimension in which it is being used. What we have is a proposal that is outside of any scientific test, experiment, or observation. You can believe it as a religious belief if you choose, but you cannot hold it up as a scientifically factual description. The old statement from Alice in Wonderland that went something like "I have believed as many as five impossible things before breakfast" is the mantra of such a belief system.


Please understand that we are not saying that such thoughts and proposals should not be entertained or carried on. Science frequently can be understood as man coming to an understanding of how God did something, and sometimes wonderful discoveries are made while investigating something that seems very esoteric and strange. Einstein's work would never have happened if scientists were not willing to venture into new approaches to things. The fact is, however, that Einstein's initial investigation began from observed data. The Michelson/Morely experiment in which light was observed to have a speed that was independent of the motion of the observer, was the beginning clue that started Einstein on his intellectual journey. Good science begins with observations and experimental data, not a desire to disprove someone's religious belief. The lesson of history is that as new scientific discoveries are made, they enlarge and enhance our understandings of God and his power, wisdom, and intelligence in all He has done. "The heavens declare the glory of God and the firmament showeth His handiwork" has a whole new significance, meaning, and wonder with what man has discovered in the twenty-first century.









--John N. Clayton


Back to Contents
Does God Exist?, MarApr07.

Topics: , ,

Answered by DonColeCartoons on December 31, 2008

View the entire discussion on YeddaYedda – People. Sharing. Knowledge.




The Trinity

Check out this interesting answer on Yedda

Do'>http://yedda.com/questions/believe_Jesus_said_Religion_Bible_8629373931619/answer5041628711641">Do you believe everything that Jesus said?

Sim, Yes Christ's church believes in the "Trinity." The word 'trinity' is never used in the Bible, but that is what the teachings show, that God is three in ONE. --dc

Topics: , , ,

Answered by DonColeCartoons on December 31, 2008

View the entire discussion on Yedda

Monday, December 29, 2008

The Holy Spirit

Check out this interesting answer on Yedda


Yedda – People. Sharing. Knowledge.Bush and Religion

Yes...now we are in agreement. The Holy Spirit certainly helps us in our understanding of what is written and I believe from my own experience that the holy spirit has much to do with our inspiration. And of course, God's Word is energy that bears fruit, not ink on paper. We do not live by bread alone, but by the Word of God. We are the fruit of the vine. For example, we cannot see love, but for words on paper; --but we can know love by the evidences. People don't realize how deep the scriptures really are, but easy to understand, if one has the eyes and ears. --dc

Topics: , ,

Answered by DonColeCartoons on December 29, 2008

View the entire discussion on YeddaYedda – People. Sharing. Knowledge.


The church of Christ

Check out this interesting answer on Yedda

Do'>http://yedda.com/questions/believe_Jesus_said_Religion_Bible_8629373931619/answer5180141112872">Do you believe everything that Jesus said?

..."sect or denomination." Therein lies the problem. I identify only with the church of Christ, started on Pentacost, in Jerusalem, 33 AD. See the book of Acts. This excludes the Catholic Church, started over 300 years later, patterned after the Roman Empire, and all denominational and protestant Churches. There is only ONE church that is the body and bride of Christ. Jesus Christ has all authoirity in heaven and on earth, and no one else. If a so-called 'Church' did not begin in 33 AD, than it cannot be the true church of Christ.

Topics: , , ,

Answered by DonColeCartoons on December 29, 2008

View the entire discussion on Yedda

Faith is not blind

Check out this interesting answer on Yedda


Yedda – People. Sharing. Knowledge.Did Adam and Eve have belly buttons?

Sim, the evidence has to do with a reliable source that you can trust and believe in. Like it says in Romans 1, "We can know of the things that are invisible by the things that are visible," --this principle is used in science all the time. Faith without any reason or substance about the source behind it, is just acceptance and wishful thinking, not faith. Because of all the checkabilities of the Bible, which show truth beyond the capabilities or knowledge of men, we can trust that the rest of it is true also. If we see otherwise, such as something which seems to disagree scientifically, than we can study further to see if we are dealing with bad science, or bad theology. I have never seen anything in the Bible that has been proven wrong. You cannot say that about other religious holy books, such as the Qu'ran. It is scientists vs preachers, not science vs the Bible. --dc

Topics: , ,

Answered by DonColeCartoons on December 29, 2008

View the entire discussion on YeddaYedda – People. Sharing. Knowledge.


Made in God's image...

Check out this http://www.blogger.com/%3Ca">interesting answer on Yedda

Did'>http://yedda.com/questions/religion_christianity_bible_8628652131719/answer4954323176381">Did Adam and Eve have belly buttons?

To Patricia: ...about the nature of God. Closely associated with the concept of a physical god is the concept of creating a human god. This time the way in which the god is created is with human limitations and needs. Questions about the race, sex, culture, language, and appearance of God are all rooted in the misconception that God possesses human properties and limitations. God does not have a sexual identity, and in the Bible God has both masculine and feminine properties. There is no neuter gender in Hebrew, and that means that if a sexual identity is to be given it has to be given by the context in which it is written. Even in the New Testament there are many times when a feminine description of God is given (see Luke'>http://yedda.com/cgi/bible.pl.cgi?psg=lu13:34">Luke 13:34).

Man's creation in the image of God is also not a human concept. We do not look like God physically or in any human way physically. The way we are in God's image is in our capacity to love sacrificially, our creative abilities in art and music, our capacity to engage in spiritual things, our ability to feel guilt and sympathy and compassion. Even the purpose of man's existence is linked to this concept. If you try to explain why God created man on a physical human plane, you are going to end up making God a limited finite being. Humans were not created because God was lonely. The purpose of our creation is rooted in nonhuman struggles that we can only vaguely comprehend, but which emphasize things that are independent of any physical human objective (see Ephesians'>http://yedda.com/cgi/bible.pl.cgi?psg=eph3:9-11">Ephesians 3:9-11; 6:12; Job'>http://yedda.com/cgi/bible.pl.cgi?psg=job1:1-2:13">Job 1,2).

(Ref: from an article by John Clayton, http://www.doesgodexist.org/ ).

Topics: , ,

Answered by DonColeCartoons on December 29, 2008

View the entire discussion on Yedda

Sunday, December 28, 2008

John Clayton invisible?

Check out this interesting answer on Yedda


Yedda – People. Sharing. Knowledge.Do you believe everything that Jesus said?

TBC, Okay...I can see that this is going to be a great debate! In the end, TRUTH will prevail. May the world be watching (and participate would be nice). John Clayton is hardly invisible. He has written extensive articles and books, won awards for his expertise in his field, travels the country lecturing at colleges and churches everywhere. He has been doing this for about 40 years now. Find out about John Clayton at http://www.doesgodexist.org/ --dc


Later...


p.s.: I forward a lot of these over to my blog at: http://www.worldfortruth.blogspot.com/

Topics: , , ,

Answered by DonColeCartoons on December 29, 2008

View the entire discussion on YeddaYedda – People. Sharing. Knowledge.


Let the debate begin...

Check out this interesting answer on Yedda

Do'>http://yedda.com/questions/believe_Jesus_said_Religion_Bible_8629373931619/answer9511706618691">Do you believe everything that Jesus said?

Clayton: Someone may logically object at this point and say that if God expected us to believe the Bible is inspired, he should protect the accuracy of the documents.

SIM: Well, even better, he should appear, instead of staying silent and invisible. He should be able to step up to a podium and let the world know who and what he is. But there is a game of "faith" which leaves his followers in a Catch 22, wanting to know but unable to know, for sure, because of the invisibility, the assertions, and the unwillingness to simply appear. Like Zeus before him, and all other asserted god types, he's never front and center. Why is that? The answer is, most likely, really most likely, that like Zeus et al, God is imaginary.


Clayton: There are academic ways that can be used by God to do just this,


SIM: Like what?


Clayton: but God can not protect the Bible without making the Bible a golden calf--an idol.

Sim: If people already believe the Bible to be inspired, it's an idol...it's the HOLY BOOK.


Clayton: Suppose every time someone translated or copied the Bible they were struck dead if they made an error.

Sim: This sounds exactly what the Christian God would do, if he wasn't imaginary. Recall the poor fellow trying to save the Ark from smashing?


Clayton: Not only would no one attempt to print or translate the Bible,


Sim: But if a good, kind, meciful God was hands-on, he could come up with an infinite number of ways to control the veracity of printing without his usual killing. But, according to the Bible, the one that God has inspired, that isn't the S.O.P he engages in. He just kills.

Clayton: ...but people would worship the object as sacred instead of revering its contents.

SIM: No, since people already believe the Bible to be inspired and inerrant, it would be the same.


TBC

Topics: , , ,

Answered by Sim on December 29, 2008

View the entire discussion on Yedda

Understanding the Bible

Check out this interesting answer on Yedda


Yedda – People. Sharing. Knowledge.Do you believe everything that Jesus said?

Sim, I realize that the following article here, by John Clayton, renown scientist, and ex-atheist, ( www.doesgodexist.org ) does not address all of the issues that you have brought up here, but I think it should interest you, in that it does show a lot of rational evidences for determining and understanding the things we are talking about in general, as to whether the Bible is really the word of God. It might help in working our way through all the baggage, towards your issues at hand. --dc


What About All Those Mistakes in the Bible


Being involved in a ministry that states that its goal is to convince people that God is, that Jesus is His Son, and that the Bible is His Word brings a lot of interesting mail. Much of it is fairly easy to answer, especially those questions that deal with scientific support for the existence of God. What is not as easy is the challenge that comes from a wide variety of people concerning the inspiration of the Bible. There are a lot of reasons for this challenge being difficult. One problem is that the original manuscripts were not in English; and translation then becomes an issue. Another problem is that the Bible does not address itself just to one area of concern. The scientific accuracy of the Bible is one of the easier areas to deal with, because the Bible is not a scientific work and makes relatively few scientific statements. What about the historical statements in the Bible? How does the psychology, sociology, anthropology, literature, and archeology stack up. No one is an expert in all of these areas, so the question of errors and accuracy becomes much more difficult.


It is not the purpose of this article to take every claimed contradiction in the Bible and explain it. What I would like to do is to attempt to give some practical suggestions which hopefully help analyze the questions involved in a more organized and open way. Before starting this it will be useful to explain the author's experience in this area of work. When I was a part of organized atheism, I was totally convinced that the Bible was one of the biggest frauds ever foisted on mankind. Since I believed there was no God I logically had to believe that the Bible was the work of humans. If humans wrote it, they had to be from a culture older than my own, and that meant that their ignorance and superstition would be a part of it.


Because I was trained in science and had a keen interest in geology, astronomy, and physics I decided to verify what I already believed about the Bible by analyzing its contents from those fields. What better place could there be to do this than Genesis 1. I learned enough Hebrew to determine the meanings of the words in Genesis, and then set out to show how wrong it was. Over seven years were involved in this project, and at the end of that time I could find no verifiable scientific error in the Genesis account. There were lots of errors in what humans thought and what Christian denominations taught, but not in the actual wording. My respect for the Bible and my contempt for human religions both began at this point. In the thirty years since that time, both of these feelings have grown through experience and study--and both are part of my suggestions to others who may wish to ask if there are logical answers to apparent contradictions in the Bible.


Deal with translation problems. Many claimed contradictions in the Bible turn out to be translation difficulties and do not exist in the original manuscripts. The word "giant" in the King James translation of Genesis 6:1-3 is a good example. Is the Bible maintaining in these verses that there were giant humans on the earth in this account? When I look the key word up I find the word is "nephilem" in the original language, and the word is used in reference to one who opposes God. So how did the word become "giant" in the King James? It took me a lot of digging to find that the King James translators took this section of Scripture from the Vulgate translation and translated the word nephilim as gigantus. The King James translators took gigantus and called it "giant" which is not even close to what the word means.


Someone may react to this discussion in frustration saying that they are not an expert in linguistics and cannot answer all of these kinds of questions. The problem does not require the kind of analysis we have done here. The problem requires one to look up one word--the word in question. This is an especially important issue when numbers come up. Many times a number differs from another number by one letter in the original language. A transcription error, a contextual error which caused someone to change the number, or even a failure to read the manuscript carefully would cause this.


I recently had a man call me to task on my position on the integrity of the Bible by calling attention to a census figure that was given in round numbers. How could you have 3,200 in a population? Would it not be 3,211 or 3,196, but not a whole number? Other numberings in the Bible do come up with seemingly accurate figures to the exact person. (See Numbers 3:42 and Nehemiah 7:66-67.) There is a question of procedure here as well as accuracy. If I have a turnstile that people have to go through to get into a place I can get an accurate count. Suppose I have an auditorium with 1,000 seats. If I have a turnstile people go through to get into the auditorium I could maintain that 983 people were in the auditorium. A newspaper reporter reporting on how many people were in attendance might notice that virtually no empty seats exist and thus report the attendance as 1,000. Both figures are accurate but arrived at in different ways. In ancient times a census might be of all people, of men, of men capable of fighting in combat, or of households. It is not always clear what kind of count the writer is using.


Someone may logically object at this point and say that if God expected us to believe the Bible is inspired, he should protect the accuracy of the documents. There are academic ways that can be used by God to do just this, but God can not protect the Bible without making the Bible a golden calf--an idol. Suppose every time someone translated or copied the Bible they were struck dead if they made an error. Not only would no one attempt to print or translate the Bible, but people would worship the object as sacred instead of revering its contents. It is the Word which has the power to change lives, not the paper and cardboard that makes up the physical book. I could sit down and re-write the Bible inserting my own beliefs and understandings and God would not physically stop me. This has in fact been done by Taylor in "The Living Bible." We are warned in Revelation 22:19 about doing anything like this, but it would be irrational for God to treat this issue in that way.


Deal with cultural influences. The Bible was not written by Americans for an American audience. Every culture has its own traditions which affect the meanings of phrases and even individual words. Many claimed contradictions in the Bible turn out to be cases where American values and understandings are forced on Hebrew or Greek phrases.


One of the places where this shows up is in the incompleteness many see in the Genesis account. When people ask questions about where Cain got his wife, where the people mentioned as building cities came from, or why numerical differences occur in various Biblical accounts of the same event they are usually not comprehending the way in which the ancient Hebrew writers developed histories. If children are born that are not a factor in a historical event being described, they will frequently not be mentioned. If emphasis is being given to relationships, intermediate steps will be left out. When Jesus' genealogy is given in Matthew 1:1, for example, the statement made is "Jesus Christ the son of David, the son of Abraham." An American unfamiliar with the culture might assume that Abraham was Jesus' grandfather.


If there were children born in the Garden of Eden, we would not expect them to be mentioned unless they played a major role in the point being made by the narrative. It is not necessary to propose multiple creations to understand where Cain got his wife or who populated the city he built. The fact that women might not be included in a census is not a problem when the purpose of the census was to establish military prowess. Even questions about the age of the earth, the antiquity of man, and how many visited Jesus' tomb and when, or how many types of Sabbaths the people of Jesus' day celebrated are rooted in this area of concern.


Be aware that new data may change the picture. Over the past hundred years, skeptics of the Bible have posed all kinds of challenges to the biblical narrative only to have a discovery show that the Bible was correct. Prior to 1947 it was common for skeptics to maintain that the Bible was written long after the events described in it had taken place. Because of the shortage of documents, it was easy to build a case for a charlatan origin for manuscripts like the messianic prophecies of Isaiah. When the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered in 1947, with the messianic prophecies in tact scholars now had documents much older than the claims of the skeptics. The Hitite nation described in the Old Testament was claimed by some scholars to have never existed, and was used to ridicule those who claimed that the Biblical manuscripts were accurate and true. Today archeological evidence has totally vindicated the bible on this issue. Recently evidence has been found verifying the Biblical records of King David's rule, and many new digs and examinations of documents like the remainder of the Dead Sea Scrolls will offer new data. Many scholars question the story of the Exodus. The role of the Essenes is suggested as a major player in Christianity's development by others. In spite of the fact that many investigators are skeptical and even atheistic in their approach, new data continues to flow--much of it supportive of the academic integrity of the Bible. Anyone can suggest that something in the Bible might be erroneous, but the lesson of history is that new discoveries support the biblical narrative and help us understand the first two suggestions more fully.


Be careful that a claimed contradiction is not based upon a modern human assumption. This is probably the most common source of error in looking at skeptic attacks on the Bible. The classic example is the question of the age of the events described in the first chapter of Genesis. There is a mountain of evidence that the earth is more than 6,000 years old. It is a travesty to maintain that humans and dinosaurs existed at the same time, and an insult to the integrity of God to maintain that somehow God faked the whole creation so that the events we see recorded in the rocks and in the sky never really happened. Nevertheless, 60 of the anticreationist groups and the denominational creationists themselves maintain that this is what the Bible teaches.


This journal has devoted enormous numbers of pages over the years to pointing out the evidential and logical problems in these beliefs, and these articles are available in a packet for $1.00 (which pays part of the postage.) Our point here is not to resurrect this area of discussion but to simply point out this is the belief of a group of humans, not a statement in the Bible. No where in the Bible is a date given. Only by a dubious set of assumptions can one use the Bible to set dates on events of Genesis 1.


Similar problems arise when one attempts to prove when Jesus was born. The time and process of the flood has a flood of assumptions which nearly rivals the event. The proper understanding of the book of Revelation is buried in a cloud of human attempts to apply its message to the political and national leaders of today. Even claimed historical errors frequently turn out to be rooted in a belief or factual error held by a present day scholar or group.


The most common illustration of personal bias as the cause of perceived errors in the Bible is seen in "The Jesus Seminar" and its several spinoff groups. Like many skeptics, we see these groups starting out their attack on the Bible by believing that biblical inspiration is too hard for a modern learned person to believe. If I begin my study of the Bible by saying "I know it can't possibly be right" then we are going to find errors whether they are there or not. Over the years I have had a number of exchanges with people over the issues I have attempted to address in this article. One common thread that was present in my antagonists was their approach to understanding of a biblical passage. If the Bible stated something that had three explanations and if one of the explanations was totally ridiculous, that was the interpretation they would take. In all fairness, my antagonists would charge that I would take a positive interpretation of the passage no matter what. I have to plead guilty to that charge. I have seen so much good done, so many shattered lives put back together, and so many people blessed by principles based upon the Bible that I find myself jaded in trying to look fairly at a possible error. Even with that admitted bias, there are some apparent errors in the Bible I cannot explain. They are few in number, inconsequential in influence, and likely to be explained in the future by someone more educated and intelligent than I. To throw the baby out with the wash because we cannot explain every challenge the skeptic offers is a highly destructive myopia. "All scripture is given by God...." (2 Timothy 3:16).


--John N. Clayton



Back to Contents Does God Exist?, JulAug98. </html

Topics: , , ,

Answered by DonColeCartoons on December 28, 2008

View the entire discussion on YeddaYedda – People. Sharing. Knowledge.


Is the Bible God's word?

Check out this interesting answer on Yedda


Yedda – People. Sharing. Knowledge.Did Adam and Eve have belly buttons?

Sim, This is what you assume.  It is either just because you want to, or you haven't done enough research.  I will assume that you just haven't done enough research.  There are a mountain of evidences that the Bible is God's word.  Here are some examples:


Let’s look at the Bible. Is it inspired by God? Is it accurate?


First, I will post a fact as stated in the Bible, followed by the Biblical reference. And then, I will show the common belief of the day in which the author lived:


Fact: Blood is essential to life. (Lev. 17:11-14) Belief: Disease and spirits reside in blood. To cure disease, bleed patient.


Fact: Both male and female possess “seed of life.” (Gen. 3:15; 22:18) Belief: Male has baby in him. Woman = incubator.


Fact: Eating blood of animals forbidden. (Lev 17:12, 14) Belief: Raw blood used as beverage.


Fact: Do not eat animal that died naturally. (Lev. 17:15) Belief: No restrictions on manner of death.


Fact: Quarantine of certain diseases. (Lev. 13-15) Belief: No isolation of diseased.


Fact: Do not eat pork, scavengers (in Moses’ day). (Lev. 11) Belief: No food restrictions.


Fact: Principles of avoiding bacterial contamination -- one person to another. (Lev. 15:19-33) Belief: No rules of hygiene or isolation.


Fact: Human waste products to be buried. (Deut. 23:12-14) Belief: Human waste left on ground.


Fact: Human body can be opened for surgery. (Gen. 2:21) Belief: First operations done secretly because populace threatened doctors.


Fact: Burning clothes, washing self after contact with deceased man or animal. (Num. 19:5-22) Belief: No recognition of contagion problems.


Fact: Earth is round, day and night taking place simultaneously. (Isa. 40:22; Prov. 8:27; Luke 17:34) Belief: Earth is flat.


Fact: Earth is not physically supported. (None mentioned and Job 26:7) Belief: Earth is held up by four elephants or Atlas (a man), etc.


Fact: The North is empty (Our North Pole points out of our galaxy). (Job 26:7) Belief: Seeing a few stars to the North refuted this idea until 1932.


Fact: Space and stars are too large to be measured or counted. (Gen. 15:5; Jer. 33:22) Belief: Attempts to number the astronomical bodies went on until 1932.


Fact: The creation sequence -- plants, water creatures, birds, mammals, man, in that order. (Gen. 1:11-28) Belief: Most had man first. All varied from the correct concept.


Fact: The age of everything in the creation is the same. (Gen. !:1) Belief: Different times for dif. objects.


 


 

Topics:  , ,

Answered by DonColeCartoons on December 28, 2008

View the entire discussion on YeddaYedda – People. Sharing. Knowledge.


Bible incest

Check out this interesting answer on Yedda

Did'>http://yedda.com/questions/religion_christianity_bible_8628652131719/answer8623873691713">Did Adam and Eve have belly buttons?

Patricia and Sim, I haven't been following your dialogs, but this item just caught my eye. Yes. Sim is correct about there had to be/was incest at the beginning. These are all interesting subjects when researched out. If the Bible were merely a religion made up by men, --they would have left out a lot of the things that appear in the Bible. --dc

Topics: , ,

Answered by DonColeCartoons on December 28, 2008

View the entire discussion on Yedda

Truth or fables?

Check out this interesting answer on Yedda


Yedda – People. Sharing. Knowledge.Do you believe everything that Jesus said?

Sim, Possibly, the real question here; is not so much the story of just Cain and Abel, but how can you/we know these aren't just fables merely handed down. Certainly that is a valid question and concern, and I went through all that myself, way back when. I respect an inquiring mind; certainly over someone who just believes anything some preacher or authorities says to believe, or that it somehow shows 'a lack of faith' to ask questions or challenge the answers. Having faith should not mean refusal to THINK. Would you like to discuss the question of validity? How can we know these things, or the Bible, are truely the word of God? --dc


Topics: , , ,

Answered by DonColeCartoons on December 28, 2008

View the entire discussion on YeddaYedda – People. Sharing. Knowledge.


Cain and Abel

Check out this interesting answer on Yedda

Do'>http://yedda.com/questions/believe_Jesus_said_Religion_Bible_8629373931619/answer4959203174161">Do you believe everything that Jesus said?

Sim; you are rambling all over the place, through the eyes you choose to perceive. It would be easier to answer, if you would focus on a specific issue you have. I have a feeling here that you have no intention of considering anything I might have to offer on this. In order to do this you would have to be at least a little receptive, have eyes and ears that are able to see and hear, and heaven knows, you would have to be willing to THINK!

However; this said, --the beginning of your reply is exactly the issue I made, in the first place. The mistake that Cain made is that he made a substitution to what God had commanded of him. Even though Cain's substitution might have seemed like an appropriate offering, he did not do what God commanded. The fact that Cain killed his brother, Abel, out of jealousey, is another big mistake Cain made, right on toip of his first mistake. Cain most likely could have repented of his sin, and farred better. There are other examples in the Bible, about man making sustitutions to what God had/has commanded, and this same practice of substitutions to what God has commanded goes on today throughout the Catholic Church and protestant denominations.

Topics: , , ,

Answered by DonColeCartoons on December 28, 2008

View the entire discussion on Yedda

Holy Spirit

Check out this interesting answer on Yedda


Yedda – People. Sharing. Knowledge.Whats the "rapture"?



Rocmike3,

I have received the gift of the Holy Ghost at my baptism into Christ, (as per Acts 2:38). However:

I have to take to task your statement: “The Rapture is a valid extension of Christian thought. We who have the Holy Ghost understand things much more clearly than one could understand by human intellect. Hence, Christians still receive sound reveallation daily. Just because we have the Scriptures does not discount divinely-given priceless insight.”


Not only are these statements not what the Bible teaches, they are highly dangerous. For example; often good people have been led to murder someone, feeling that the Holy Spirit was telling them to do so. More examples: just look at the horrific stories and history of the Jim Jones, and David Karesh ministries. People in modern times who claim to be prophets of God, revealing new revelations personally from God daily, are false prophets. People who follow them have been deceived by this same kind of false doctrine. Heed and hear what the Bible does teach. Following are just a few scriptures about this. which I think should cause you to adjust your thinking. If this still does not convince you that God does not continue to spew out new revelations to the modern world, through the Holy Spirit, I can lead you into an even deeper Bible study, concerning ‘authority,’ apostleship, early apostles, the Holy Spirit, miracles, the laying on of hands, speaking in tongues, and other misconstrued teachings going on in some denominational churches today. Remember, Jesus Christ is the Word (See John 1). Jesus Christ has all authority in heaven and on earth (See the great commission, at the end of the book of Matthew). The Holy Spirit has many functions, but the Holy Spirit does not add to, or change the Word of God. We will be judged by the Word of Jesus, and God’s word does not need updating. God’s Word is forever. We can stake our lives on this, --God’s unchanging Word!

All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.”

According as his divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue” (2 Peter 1:3).

So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.” (Romans 10:17).

Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.” (John 16:13). (Talking here to the early Apostles of Christ. See the end of Luke, following into the book of Acts where you can learn the truth about this. They did not have the Bible, the New Testament, God’s inspired word written down, as we have today.)

But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.” (John 14:26).

Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.” (Jude 3).


“ Holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine
both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers.” (Titus 1:9).

These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.” (Acts 17:11).

And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe.” (Acts 15:7).


“: I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:

Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.

As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed
.” (Gal. 1:6-9).



“He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day.

For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak.


And I know that his commandment is life everlasting: whatsoever I speak therefore, even as the Father said unto me, so I speak.
(John 12: 48-50).

“ For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:

And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are
written in this book." (Rev.22:18-19).

But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed. But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but it came to me through the revelation of Jesaus Christ." (Gal.1:8-10).



Topics: , , ,

Answered by DonColeCartoons on December 28, 2008

View the entire discussion on YeddaYedda – People. Sharing. Knowledge.


Saturday, December 27, 2008

Christian Holidays

Check out this interesting answer on Yedda


Yedda – People. Sharing. Knowledge.Do you believe everything that Jesus said?

Sim, Good observations. Christmas, Easter holidays and such are not Biblical. The name Easter was taken from a pagan idol. The Lord's church has no reason to celebrate Easter once every year, because we do this every week, every Sunday, on the 'Lord's day. That is what the 'Lord's Table,' or 'Communion' is all about. This is what Jesus told his disciples to do. Christmas is not a Biblical holiday either. Good worship is to obey Christ, not to offer up substitutes. God hates substitutions. i.e.: Cain and Abel. Cain offered up what God had not commanded.


However; although we do not have special worship services in Christ's church, we don't frown on people for honoring Jesus Christ, and at least thinking about Him, --at least once a year. We are not to be a stumbling block to others who are finding their way, and loving and worshipping God in their own way. People who are seeking will find their way.


About the touching Mary or not touching Mary, I'm not sure where you are. However, it is a good question. I have found that when I do the research, I always find good answers. It is hard to find people with good answers to some questions, but I have been around now for 71 years, and I can usually (always?) find a rational answer for thinking people. -dc


Topics: , , ,

Answered by DonColeCartoons on December 27, 2008

View the entire discussion on YeddaYedda – People. Sharing. Knowledge.


Friday, December 26, 2008

God's Truth

Check out this interesting answer on Yedda

Whats'>http://yedda.com/questions/Whats_rapture_god_religion_8623875401414/answer1494138196387">Whats the "rapture"?

meghahame,

Here is a little more: It is hard to follow your thinking: Okay, we both agree who God talked/talks through. Now, you expect us to believe that God lies, or that God does not recognize his own creation and handi-work? Why does it say in Romans 1, that we can know God, that is, to know God, of the things invisible, --by the things that are visible? And because of such, there is no excuse not to know or see God? We can see God through His handiwork, in the creation. Why did God tell us about creation in Genisus, for example, if it weren't true? Were we not meant to read it? The beauty is that God's Word and science do agree. The problem is, there is often bad science, or bad theology. Where there is a disagreement, the error needs to be found. It has always turned out to be either bad science or bad theology, the errors of men, not God. God's Word and science are 'checkable.' Science is God's handiwork; why would God's handiwork and God be enemies? Is God a deceiver? How do you know that you even exist? Do you believe that you exist? Yes; God talks to us through Jesus Christ, written down by the inspired words of Jesus's Apostles, guided by the Holy Spirit. And we can know that the things Jesus taught are true, by checking them out. We can know that Jesus is who he said He was. That is why Jesus did signs and miracles, and passed some of these signs on to his Apostles, so that people could believe, see the power, and than trust. After all these years, the Bible and science AGREE! Only God could have accomplished this, not any man or men. Now tell me, why are you so afraid to study scripture? What about Acts 17: 10-11, where believers studied the scriptures daily to see if the things that the Apostles were telling them was true? How can you tell which 'holy' book is really true? Is it the Bible, which agrees with what can be seen, that is science, --or is the Qu'ran which does not stand up to the same miraculous standards that only God would have the power to accomplish. Any prophet whose prophesies do not pan out, is not a true prophet of God. Is not God perfect? Does God make mistakes? Discerning what is from God, and what is from man is no difficult task. God gave us human intelligence, made in His own image. Is it not rational thinking to expect that God would have us to THINK?

Topics: , , ,

Answered by DonColeCartoons on December 27, 2008

View the entire discussion on Yedda

God speaks

Check out this interesting answer on Yedda

meghahome,

With all respect, I can see why you are copping out here. Your statements are so out of it. It is obvious you are not interested in any rational answers that do not line up with your own thinking. You are even contradicting your own statements. i.e.: "Many books in the Bible are written by ordinary people like shepherds, fishermen etc. almost uneducated. God speaks through His Prophets and Apostles." Are you a student of the Qu'ran or what? Who do you think the Apostles were? See Hebrew 1, for a clear understanding how God communicates to us today. That is; the Apostles, who God spoke through, were indeed through ordinary people. Besides fishermen, there was a doctor and a tax collector, and a tent maker.

Topics: , , ,

Answered by DonColeCartoons on December 27, 2008

View the entire discussion on Yedda

Believe, and you are saved?

Check out this interesting answer on Yedda


Yedda – People. Sharing. Knowledge.Whats the "rapture"?

One must do more than JUST believe. Even SATAN believes. That is not to deny the need to believe; but be careful in taking one scripture out of context and contend that it explains the whole picture. SATAN also quoted scripture, in order to tempt Jesus. Consider who is being spoken to, and why, etc. Jesus often said, "It is ALSO written." How about "Obey my commandments"?

Topics: , , ,

Answered by DonColeCartoons on December 27, 2008

View the entire discussion on YeddaYedda – People. Sharing. Knowledge.


The Rapture

Check out this interesting answer on Yedda


Yedda – People. Sharing. Knowledge.Whats the "rapture"?

meghahome, You make many profound statements here. Are you a cult leader or what? Following, is more information about this common controversial topic. It is part of an article written by John Clayton, renown scientist, ex-atheist. www.doesgodexist.org. Mr. Clayton has spent his life researching many of these topics:

It is an unfortunate fact that churches and individuals that teach dispensational millennialism control the home school and much of the Bible school literature market. Ronald L. Numbers has documented this fact well in his book The Creationist (ISBN 067 4023380, Harvard University Press). These folks promote the notion that all of biblical history is broken down into roughly 1,000-year periods which end with the "rapture," the "seven-year tribulation," and the 1,000 year physical rule of Jesus Christ as a political leader in political Israel. All of science and history is distilled through this view and it has been supported by the Left Behind materials in video games, TV programs, and books. There are massive biblical problems with this denominational teaching which we will not get into here, but in an attempt to support this religious position, scientific material is promoted which is in reality very bad science. This is not only seen in homeschool and Bible school material, but has been a major part of the elaborate "Creationist Museum" in Kentucky. Sadly, it has also been brought into the teaching program of many preacher training schools and thus is projected from the pulpit in churches that are not a part of the dispensational millennial denominational tradition.

In this periodical over the years we have attempted to point out the errors that this tradition propagates. We also have a booklet titled God's Revelation Through His Rocks and His Word that explains some of this. It is not the purpose of this article to explore this area of study, but these articles are available on our Web site (doesgodexist.org). When young people are told something that they know is wrong by a teacher or preacher who is claiming to speak for the Church, what alternatives are available to them? For many young minds the road to atheism and rejection of the Bible as God's word has begun here. A disproportionate number of our e-mails come from young people who have left the Church or are close to doing so because what they have been told is a biblical position is clearly false.

This situation is complicated by the hostility that some religious people have toward science. It is important that kids see science promoted as a friend of faith, not an enemy. The beneficial contributions of science to each of us personally is obvious. The machines that make our lives easier and that enrich our lives--from computers to automobiles come from science. The medical advances that allow us relief from physical ailments and prolong our lives come from science. The entertainment that kids enjoy--television, video games, Disney, etc.--come from science. To say that all of these positive things are opposed to our church experience is false and is a grave error. Vilifying science is not the way to build faith in young people, and it is logically wrong. If God created the cosmos and if that same God gave us the Bible in which He tells us about what He did, there cannot possibly be a conflict. If there is an apparent conflict it is caused by humans.

Adults need to look again at why they believe what they believe. How do we know God exists? How do we know the Bible is true? What does the Bible really say about history, morality, and personal choices. Everything from masturbation to dinosaurs needs to be looked at again to see if we are teaching what the Bible teaches, or if we are repeating something we have heard or that has been proclaimed by an expert who in reality has no training or knowledge of what he is stating. Beware of people talking about things that are out of their field. Be sure to identify denominational and humanist ministries. Investigate for yourself and in the words of Peter, "Be ready to give an answer to every man ... of the hope that is within you" (1 Peter 3:15).

It is vital that we make children a priority--increase our instruction time with young people. and invest in whatever tools it takes to get them involved and learning. Remember it is not a sin to say, "I don't know" as long as you say, "I will find out." What kids seem to be hearing now is, "I don't care," and that is the worst possible answer.


--John N. Clayton



Back to Contents Does God Exist?, MayJun08.
6/11/2008

Topics: , , ,

Answered by DonColeCartoons on December 26, 2008

View the entire discussion on YeddaYedda – People. Sharing. Knowledge.


Thursday, December 25, 2008

The Belly Button Debate

This is from John Clayton's website: www.doesgodexist.org
Editor's Note: One of the more thoughtful writers around today is Al Maxey. He has an online site for a periodical called Reflections (http://www.zianet.com/maxey/Reflect2.htm). The following article is a good treatment of the subject we have commented on a number of times. We feel it will profit many of our readers (Reflections, Issue #233--February 3, 2006).

During the past week I've been doing a bit of reflective "navel gazing" on the subject of...well...navel gazing. Hardly novel this pondering of the navel, especially for one who spent six years with our nation's naval forces. Whew!...did I really just write all that? Seriously, one might be somewhat surprised, if not stunned, to learn that the human navel, perhaps better known to most as the "belly button," has been the cause of tremendous theological debate for centuries. Specifically, the question that has led to such scholarly reflection as: Did Adam and Eve have belly buttons? I know, I know, it sounds crazy, doesn't it? It is almost as bad as the theologians of the Middle Ages arguing over how many angels could dance on the head of a pin. And, yes, they did debate that point (pun intended). Although such debates sound frivolous at best, nevertheless there is some merit to several of these questions. The great belly button debate, in particular, is very much worthy of our attention and further reflection, as it raises some very serious questions that challenge a few of the very foundations of our faith. I assure you, it is far from frivolous. Indeed, how a person responds to this question ("Did God create Adam and Eve with navels?) will have tremendous bearing on one's conclusions as to the nature of God Himself and this marvelous universe He has created for us to enjoy.

Before we get into the particulars of this debate, it behooves us to take note of the purpose of this mark on the human anatomy. The umbilicus (aka: belly button or navel) is the indention (often called an "innie") or protrusion (an "outie") that eventually forms as the result of the removal of the umbilical cord from a newborn child. As a fetus develops within the mother's womb, it is suspended in amniotic fluid and connected to the mother via a lifeline known as the umbilical cord. This is a flexible tube that carries oxygen and nutrients to the growing fetus from the mother, and carries waste products away from the baby so that the mother's body might eliminate them. At birth, when the baby now assumes these functions for itself, the tube is removed. The belly button marks the spot where one was previously attached to one's mother, and is a visible testimony to the fact that one was a product of a natural birth. This is information with which we are all very familiar. The above is not a new revelation for anyone. However, before stating the nature of the debate before us, it was essential to restate the obvious.

Consider carefully the following: Were Adam and Eve the products of natural childbirth? Were either of them conceived in the normal way? Were either of them carried for nine months in the womb of a woman, being nurtured during that time through an umbilical cord? Now, for the question--Did either Adam or Eve have a belly button? Well, how were they both created? This will help answer the question. "Then the Lord God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being (soul)" (Genesis 2:7). Woman had not even been created at this point in time, so it is obvious that Adam did not come from the womb of one. "For man does not originate from woman" (1 Corinthians 11:8). This being true, then how could Adam have had an umbilicus? The even greater question, of course, is this: would not the presence of an umbilicus be a visible testimony to a falsehood? Such a physical mark would be a visible sign that Adam came through natural childbirth from a woman, when in fact he did NOT. Thus, if God had chosen to place such a distinguishing mark on Adam, it would have been a false witness, a testimony to a LIE. The apostle Paul wrote, "If Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that He raised Christ from the dead" (1 Corinthians 15:14-15). If testimony is made about something that did not occur, then that is false witness. If testimony is made that Adam and Eve experienced a natural childbirth (evidenced by the presence of an umbilicus), and this couple did not originate via natural means, but rather supernatural means, then the testimony of the umbilicus is "false testimony," and the one proclaiming such (in this case God) would be a liar.

The same problem exists for Eve. "So the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and he slept; then He took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh at that place. And the rib which the Lord God had taken from man, made He a Woman. And the man said, `This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man'" (Genesis 2:21-23). Eve also did not experience a natural birth, but rather a supernatural creation! Thus, for her to have been given an umbilicus would likewise be a false testimony. It would, by its presence upon her body, declare she was formed by natural generation, rather than by supernatural creation, and would forever be a visible statement of contradiction to the reality of her creation by the Creator.

Lest one think this is all rather frivolous and trivial, and that nobody really ever gave this matter much serious thought, and that Al Maxey is getting desperate for topics for his Reflections articles, it should be noted that the question as to whether Adam and Eve ever possessed such a distinguishing mark has not only generated debate in the religious world for centuries, but has even reached into our own United States Congress! In 1944, a subcommittee of the United States House of Representatives Military Committee (chaired by Congressman Durham of the state of North Carolina) refused to authorize a little 30-page booklet titled Races of Man that was to be handed out to our soldiers, sailors, and airmen fighting in World War II, because this little booklet had a drawing that depicted Adam and Eve with belly buttons! The members of this subcommittee ruled that showing Adam and Eve with navels "would be misleading to gullible American soldiers."

Some of the world's great artists also wrestled with this problem, as did the Roman Catholic Church. In 1646, Sir Thomas Browne, a doctor and philosopher from Norwich, published a work titled, Pseudodoxia Epidemica in which he sought to expose some of the "vulgar errors" then present in society. He devoted an entire chapter to "Pictures of Adam and Eve with Navels." He points out that even such notables as Raphael and Michelangelo were guilty of such "vulgar errors." He declared that to paint Adam and Eve with belly buttons would be to suggest that "the Creator affected superfluities, or ordained parts without use or office." The Catholic Church, as a rule, seemed to be against artists depicting Adam and Eve with navels in their paintings, so this posed quite a problem for a number of these artists who did not want to antagonize the church. A good many of them, therefore, chose to take the "safe path" and simply painted the couple with strategically placed foliage, long hair, or forearms blocking the abdomen. And yet Michelangelo dared to paint Adam with a navel, and to place it right there on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel, for which he was accused of heresy by some theologians of his day.

At the other end of the theological spectrum, there were some who maintained that God did create Adam and Eve with navels, although there was considerable debate as to exactly when this mark was placed upon them. This is known as The Omphalos Argument, and it is subdivided into three basic theories: Pre-, Post-, and Mid-Umbilicism. The word Omphalos is a Greek word meaning "knob," and was the word they typically employed to describe the navel. The Greeks had placed a "holy stone" in the Temple of Apollo at Delphi on the slope of Mt. Parnassus (near the Gulf of Corinth), and they called this rounded stone the Omphalos (the navel), since they believed this site marked the exact center of the universe, just as the navel is supposed to mark the center of the human body.

The man who is most often credited with being the primary promoter of this theory was the British naturalist and experimental zoologist, Philip Henry Gosse (1810-1888). He was a strict biblical fundamentalist, but also an avid student of nature and a huge fan of Charles Darwin. Needless to say, he had some difficulty reconciling the two. How does one make the vast testimony of nature (the geological and biological evidence) compatible with the testimony of Scripture (which he took very, very literally)? He formulated what has come to be known as The Omphalus Argument in which he advocated the view that God created the universe, including man (Adam and Eve), with the appearance of prior history. In other words, God created trees with rings already inside the trunks that testified to years of growth, including dry and wet climate periods, all of which never actually happened. Adam and Eve were given navels to present the appearance of natural childbirth, even though such never happened. This was all advocated in 1857 in his book: Omphalos: An Attempt to Untie the Geological Knot.

Thus, the earth, and the entire universe, only had the appearance of an advanced age. In actuality, he declared, it was only a few thousand years old (following a very literal interpretation of the "days" of creation--see my study of this in Reflections #56: The "Days" of Creation--Literal or Figurative?) In essence, Gosse theorized, and many young earth creationists have taken the same view today, that God created the illusion of advanced age for the purpose of making a very young earth and universe appear to be billions of years old. It was all a fabrication. Yes, the universe does indeed appear to be of ancient age, and the testimony of nature seems to uphold this, but it was simply created by God to look that way. Brethren, I completely reject this theory, as it portrays our God as the Grand Deceiver of mankind. And for what purpose? Why would He create the appearance of natural generation by giving Adam and Eve an umbilicus? Why would He lead mankind to think the universe was billions of years old (creating the illusion that this was so) when in fact it was just the opposite? Why did God fabricate fossil remains of nonexistent creatures and place them into rocks simply to leave the impression of advanced geological age? Why the great deception? It is totally out of character with the revealed nature of our God.

David Wise, in a work titled The Omphalos Argument, made the following observation: "Of course, the Omphalos Argument fell into disrepute with everybody almost immediately. Many just laughed at it, but others were deeply offended by the idea of God being a lying and deceitful prankster who had written an enormous and superfluous lie in the rocks. But even worse for many believers was the thought that the events of the Bible, most importantly the Resurrection, might have also never happened, and so their faith might be based solely on a Divine Hoax." David Wise then says: "So why bring it up again? Because it is still being used." That is right! The Omphalos Argument has never gone away, and there are those in the religious world today still employing it, to their eternal shame! In fact, in a very well-known textbook often used by young earth creationists (Scientific Creationism by Henry M. Morris), the author comes right out and declares that the universe was created with the appearance of advanced age, but the reality is that it is quite young. Yes, this nonsense is still being promoted today, and gullible disciples are still embracing it, never bothering to seriously contemplate what such a theory is declaring about their God.

It was Philip Henry Gosse himself, ironically, who carried this theory to its logical and ultimate conclusion, suggesting that if God could create the illusion, or appearance, of historical reality, then what would prevent Him from having created the entire universe last week with the appearance of age and history, and with the inhabitants of this world having had all of their memories of past experiences implanted? If indeed God can, and did, create such a universe just a few thousand years ago, He could just as easily have done the same last week--or yesterday--or five minutes ago! And who would be the wiser? Again, although few would deny God certainly could have done such a thing had He so desired (He is all powerful, after all), the far greater question is: Would He have done such a thing? And if so, why? To what purpose? The whole theory, in the opinion of most scholars, collapses under the weight of its own absurdities.

Nevertheless, as previously noted, there are disciples of Christ who genuinely believe that Adam and Eve did possess navels, although there is some disagreement as to exactly when these were placed upon their bodies and why. The three primary theories regarding this are as follows:


Pre-Umbilicism. This is the view that has already been presented above; the view that Adam and Eve were given navels at the moment of their creation by God. Some of these theorists get pretty bizarre in their speculations. Since man is created in the image of God (I would refer the reader to Reflections #51--Imago Dei: Created in the Image of God), and since they regard this to in some way refer to physical characteristics, they actually suggest Adam and Eve were in some manner connected to the Creator with a cosmic umbilical cord. They also suggest that since Adam and Eve had a navel, and since they are "in the image of God," that God Himself must have a navel, which leads to some absolutely heretical conjectures. They perceive our God, prior to the creation of the universe, as being some giant fetus floating out there in nothingness, attached to some massive placenta-like blob. The "point of severing" (an important term for them) was when this blob exploded (the "Big Bang") and cut God loose. At some point He awoke, complete with a navel, to realize He was God, and then set out to create a universe out of the remnants of the mass that exploded. This is all so incredibly absurd that one wonders how a person could advocate it with a straight face!


Mid-Umbilicism. This particular view suggests that Adam's navel was created when the Lord God took the rib from him and created the woman Eve. God chose to pull the rib from the center of Adam's blank abdomen, thus forming a puncture wound. Therefore, the navel of Adam, unlike all future navels, was not a visible sign that he had come from a woman, but actually a visible sign that woman had come from him. Eve, according to these Mid-Umbilicists, never did have a navel, as there was no need for her to have one. There are even more bizarre theories connected with this--for example, a few who embrace this theory believe the woman to have been an inferior creation, one not even blessed with the hope of everlasting life. They were created solely for service to man, and when they die and return to dust, they are just blown away with the wind. This is referred to as the "Great Dusting Away." Only man was created in the image of God, and only man was destined to immortality. Woman was just his temporary slave.


Post-Umbilicism. This last theory places the umbilicus on both Adam and Eve after their sin, and at the point of being driven from the garden. When Cain was later driven out because he had murdered his brother, we are told God "set a mark on him" (Genesis 4:15). The Mormons, of course, used to believe this mark was that God turned his skin black. After much protest lodged against them, the Presi-dent of the church conveniently had a new revelation and reversed this racist position. Anyway, the Post-Umbilicists similarly assume that a distinguishing mark was placed on Adam and Eve when they were driven from the garden (although Scripture never mentions any such mark being placed on them), and that this mark was the belly button. This "scar" in their midsection would forever be a reminder to this couple, and to all mankind, that they had, by their sin, been "severed from" their God, just as a baby is severed from its mother when the umbilical cord is cut, with the navel being a constant visible reminder of that previous connection now forever severed.


Conclusion. Although there are indeed a few people who embrace these views, they are not too vocal about their beliefs (as one can well imagine--these views being extremely bizarre). These theorists rank right up there with those in the "Flat Earth Society," and other such unenlightened groups. It is my firm conviction that to suggest God created Adam and Eve with navels is to suggest He is the creator of a grand deception, and I simply am unwilling to make such an assertion about my God. The Scriptures inform us that the created universe declares the glory and majesty of our God; it is a powerful witness to who and what He is. But, if the testimony of most every aspect of our universe is a lie, then what does that say about the One who created it? An atheist in England wrote the following to a Christian who was advocating the "Appearance of History/Age" theory. "Would you really have us believe in an alleged divine being that behaves that way?" This person has a very good point. Do we really want to proclaim such a God to unbelievers? If He has intentionally deceived us in some areas, then why not in others?

It is my conviction He has not deceived us at all. Did Adam and Eve have a navel? No, they did not. I can say this confidently not because I have special knowledge of the nature of Adam and Eve, but because I have special knowledge of the One who created Adam and Eve. The inspired Scriptures have revealed our Creator to us, and He is not a God who sets out to create a deception, an illusion, and appearance which is completely contrary to the truth. One could never trust such a God.

The absence of navels on this first human couple would be a powerful, long-lasting witness to the creation itself, and to the power of our Creator God. Dr. Gary Parker, quoting from a study by Ken Ham, phrased it this way, and I would completely agree with this analysis: "Lack of a belly button on Adam and Eve would be one of the biggest tourist attractions in the pre-flood world, as the grandchildren and the great-grandchildren would come up and say, `Why don't you have a belly button?' And they could then recount again and again, to generation after generation, how God had created them special by completed supernatural acts" (Creation Magazine, June 1996). The absence of a navel would testify to Truth, and our God would be glorified; the presence of a navel would testify to a Lie, and our God's glory would thereby be diminished.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Back to Contents Does God Exist?, SepOct06.