CNN Developing Story, the 'Bible Debunker'

CNN Developing Story, the 'Bible Debunker'
Posted 5/15/2009 5:53 PM EDT on dailyrecord.com
http://www.cnn.com/LIVING/
About the 'Bible Debunker' --
CNN Developing Story: In all fairness, CNN should let it be shown that renowned scientist and author --former atheist-- John Clayton can 'debunk' the debunker, Bart Ehrman, --former fundamentalist. Clayton's Web-site: http://www.doesgodexist.org/
John Clayton has been there, done that! --setting out to debunk the Bible.But, who will get all the media attention?
I would be happy to debate and 'debunk' Bart Ehrman, issue by issue, over the internet, over sufficient time. How about it CNN? --Donald Cole, Dover NJ

Suggestion to Larry King

Why not sometimes take a leap, and venture beyond usual high profile celebrities, to true experts and scientists in their particular fields who know what they are talking about, and who can back up and show the evidences to their claims. Larry often asks rational questions, such as "Why should I believe?," --only to receive empty answers from his famous celebrity guest. There is so much to be said, but so little is. Why not start with long-standing renowned scientist, and author, ex-athiest, John Clayton: http://www.doesgodexist.org/ ? "It's scientists vs. preachers, not science vs. the Bible." --dc

Does God Exist? Is the Bible His Word?

Donald Cole I'd love to see John Clayton on the Larry King Show...

Yes! Attention all TV and Movie Producers! --I'm serious! www.doesgodexist.org Clayton's life story is very special, and God knows the entire world needs to hear this humble man, the evidences that he has researched, his honest and sacrificial dedication, over all these years.

Write a comment...

Bible Accountability

Check out this interesting answer on Yedda

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: religion, christianity, bible

Answered by DonColeCartoons on December 31, 2008

View the entire discussion on Yedda

John Clayton invisible?

Check out this interesting answer on Yedda

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: religion, bible, jesus, judgement

Answered by DonColeCartoons on December 29, 2008

View the entire discussion on Yedda

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: religion, bible, jesus, judgement

Answered by Sim on December 29, 2008

View the entire discussion on Yedda

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.

About 'The Rapture'

Check out this interesting answer on Yedda

Whats the "rapture"?

About the “Rapture.”
We need to do our homework on this one.
We also have to look at the different ways people interpret the book of Revelation. There are tests that can be used to rationally see which method holds credability. That is another study in itself, but the truth is there for those who care to persue. As mentioned here by some of the other respondents; the Bible does not teach this doctrine, nor does it fit the other pieces in the puzzle. God's Word is truth, and if an individual interpretation fails to fit in, or harmonize with the rest of scripture (and also good science), than one needs to think again, and do some intensive study on the subject. Realize, that just because someone writes a book, does not necessarily dictate that it is true. There may well be books written with opposing views. Research the history of where this doctrine came from, and is it really true? I believe that you will find that it is not, and causes much harm when it comes to trying to share God's truth with others. Athiests have a field day with such false teachings by many preachers. It's scientists vs. preachers, not science vs. the Bible.

Following, is part of an article, mentioning this subject, written by Mr. John Clayton, renown scientist, and ex athiest, his website: www.doesgodexist.org . This might add a little light to this discussion.

"One of the tragedies of denominational creationism is that it continues to produce a constant stream of radical creationists who turn science into the enemy and then attack it to support their denominational traditions. Because most of these denominational creationists are dispensational creationists, the age of the earth is a major issue to them. Ronald Number's exhaustive study of creationism, reported in his book The Creationists, has shown this clearly, and in much of creationist materials we see references to the "Rapture," the "Great Tribulation," and of course to the whole "Left Behind" scenario. If you believe the earth's history to consist of six identified roughly 1,000 year ages, ending in the rapture, the seven year tribulation, the 1,000 year physical reign of Jesus from Jerusalem, then you cannot accept anything that would suggest the earth could possibly be significantly over 10,000 years old. Because of the abundance of materials, many amillenialists have blindly copied these materials and promoted as biblical the notions that denominational creationism teaches. It is not our intention to promote any particular age to the earth, but simply to point out that the age of the earth has nothing to do with the Gospel of Christ and is a human enterprise with denominational connections. The earth could be trillions of years old and the Gospel of Christ would not be changed. The problem is that, in promoting their denominational traditions, millennialists have frequently promoted scientifically inaccurate materials and, when children find out the errors in these materials, the results can be very destructive."

Don Cole

Topics: religion, christianity, god, church

Answered by DonColeCartoons on December 24, 2008

View the entire discussion on Yedda

Looking Up...

Hi Brother,

I don't believe that what we know scientifically, (and there is a lot these days), that your theory, or actual possibility, could be valid. I admire and appreciate you for the fact that you are thinking and reaching out with an open and inquisitive mind. Yes, the heavens are truly awesome! Who can not but look up and be awed on a clear and starry night. Or to just look around at all of God's creation. Some call it all nature, or Mother Nature, --I call it God! Even things I do not see with my eyes, but with my heart.

What is amazing, as we search out, is that after all these years, everything keeps pointing to the Genesis account. The Bible is amazing, and miraculous, --to this very day. Even more so! How can we explain it?

Some people seem to be afraid to think out of the box; I suppose afraid that their faith will be proved not to be justified by the facts of science. They have a false notion, that to think and question is to show lack of faith. Some preachers (not from the church of Christ, I hope), actually teach that, in order to further their own agendas. However, God and science are one in truth. God is truth --and our faith, if it is really based on truth can only be strengthened, not weakened by our thinking and searching. It would be sad, if we just loved our faith so much that we don't care that it is truth or not!

Again, John Clayton is really the one to contact for an intelligent and informed and thoughtful discussion on such subjects. http://www.doesgodexist.org/

It hurts; that so few in this country, or even the world, have yet to receive and think about so much of what John Clayton has to offer, ...over a lifetime of dealing with and considering, and researching, with an open mind and heart, as a scientist, these difficult issues. From a devout and actively pursuing atheist, to an awestruck, totally convinced, and absolutely knowing Christian, not only about the existence of God, but also that the Bible is truly God's word! John Clayton can help us all to THINK! It really is exciting to listen to his debates, take in his lectureships, and to read his materials. http://www.doesgodexist.org/

Don Cole

God Exists!--Scientific Proof!

THINK...If I could talk to 25 million people...I would say: Check out John Clayton! Website: Home Page: http://www.doesgodexist.org