The age of the earth, Part III
Radiometric dating
I) Many dating methods
1) There have and are many dating techniques that have been tried in order to give the
age of the Earth.
2) In fact, at latest count, there are over 70 different techniques that have been proposed
at one time or another.
3) Over half of the techniques show an age for the earth of less than 1 million years.
4) Yet, we never hear of these in the classroom or in debates.
5) There are only 7 which give ages in the billions of years. These are the accepted
techniques since they defend the idea of evolution.
6) They are as follows
A) Samarium - Neodymium. (Sm-Nd)
B) Rhenium - Osmium (Re-Os)
C) Uranium / Thorium - Lead. (U/Th-Pb)
D) Rubidium - Strontium (Rb-Sr)
E) Potassium - Argon dating (K-Ar)
F) Argon - Argon (Ar-Ar)
G) Lutetium - Hafnium (Lu-Hf)
7) It is the radioactive decay of uranium and similar elements that yield an age for the
Earth in billions of years and it is the one method that has been enthusiastically
promoted by Darwinists and uniformitarian geologists, while all other methods
have been neglected.
II) All methods of measuring the age of the earth are subject to defects
1) All methods of measuring time, whether for domestic or scientific purposes, rely on
the same basic principle; monitoring the rate of some constant natural process.
2) Today, our most sophisticated chronometric methods involve the rate at which a
quartz crystal vibrates when an electric potential is applied to it, and the rate at which
radioactive elements decay (said to be the most constant of all).
3) But having some readily available process to measure is not enough by itself. To
measure elapsed time accurately we MUST;
A) Be sure that the process does in fact remain constant, even when we are not
watching.
B) We MUST know the starting value of the clock.
C) We MUST be sure that some external factor cannot interfere with the process
while it is in operation.
4) All these conditions apply to measuring time today. When it comes to the science of
geochronometry, the process we choose will have started in prehistoric times, which
we have no method of directly observing and verifying. This means we MUST make
sure as far as possible that our three conditions (listed above) were met in the past
as well as in the present. This is where the problems begin.
5) On such example would be the increasing salinity of the oceans as proposed by the
Irish geologists John Joly in 1898. On the face of it this is a promising method, since
it can be assumed that initially the oceans consisted of fresh water, and the present-day
accumulation of salt is due to erosion of land masses by rain fall and the subsequent
transport of dissolved salt into the seas by way of the world’s rivers. Even more
encouraging is the fact that the rate of erosion of the land by rainfall is surprisingly
constant each year (about 540 millions tons of salt a year). All that would be
necessary is to measure the present-day concentration of salt is the sea (32 grams
per liter); calculate from this the total amount in all the oceans (about 5x10 to the 16th
power tons); and divide this total by the annual amount of salt deposited to get the age
of the earth.
6) Using this method, Joly came up with an age of 100 million years. Unfortunately,
when we apply the 3 conditions mentioned above to this method, its shortcomings
quickly become obvious.
A) We cannot be sure that the annual runoff of dissolved salt has always been
constant. There is good reason to suppose that climatic conditions have been
very different in the past (with ice ages and major droughts) which might
have had an effect that is not calculable.
B) We cannot be quite sure that there was 0 salt in the sea to begin with. Initially,
salt might have been present, though no one can say how much.
C) It turns out that an apparently constant process is interfered with by external
factors. Large amount of salt are recirculated into the atmosphere, and recent
evidence suggests that the salt in the sea might actually be in a steady state.
7) All methods of measuring the age of the earth are subject, to some extent, to the same
defects, quite simply, no one was there at the time to check up on our 3 criteria.
III) Radioactive methods used
1) The technique covers a family of methods involving the radioactive decay of a number
of different metallic elements with very long half-lives.
2) These include uranium and its sister element thorium, which both decay in helium
and lead; rubidium, which decays into strontium, and potassium, which decays into
argon and calcium.
3) Uranium and thorium methods
A) The basic principle is this; over very long periods of time uranium
spontaneously decays into lead and helium gas. The rate of decay is
remarkably constant. The atoms of the uranium are unstable and
periodically throw off an alpha particle, which is the nucleus of an
atom of helium.
B) The important part of the theory is that the kind of lead into which uranium
eventually decays is chemically distinctive from common lead already
present in the rocks, and is referred to as radiogenic lead, a daughter
product of the decay process. Common lead is an isotope called lead 204,
while the decay product of uranium 238 is lead 206. In order to date a
rock deposit, a sample is taken and the amount of radioactive uranium,
together with the amount of radiogenic lead it contains, is measured in the
laboratory. Since the rate of decay is known from modern measurements,
it is possible to calculate directly how long the uranium has been decaying,
or how old the deposit is.
C) The half-life of uranium 238 has been calculated to be 4,500 million years.
To take a simplistic example, if the assay showed that a deposit was composed
of half uranium 238 and half its daughter product lead 206, then one would
draw the conclusion that the deposit was 4,500 million years old.
D) It would seem on the face of it that the uranium method seems to be the ideal
method and above scientific suspicion. Yet research in recent decades has
begun to cast serious doubts on its reliability.
E) The first criterion of any dating method is that we must know the starting
value of the process we are measuring; we must have a starting point or
reference point from which to make our calculations.
1) Uranium decay seems to fill this requirement since the type of lead
which results from the decay process is said to be uniquely formed as
a by-product of the process.
2) If radiogenic lead (lead 206 and lead 207 from uranium, and lead 208
from thorium) really is uniquely formed as the end product of decay,
then it is perfectly reasonable to suppose that there was no radiogenic
lead in the rocks when they first formed. So, it would seem that we
have a reliable starting point.
F) However, some have suggested that there is another way in which lead 206,
207, and 208 could be formed separate from the decay process.
1) This process is sometimes called “trammutation”
2) Transmutation can occur through the capture of free neutrons (atomic
particles with enough energy to transmute common lead into so-called
radiogenic lead.
3) The source of these free neutrons is in the radioactive ore deposit such
as uranium, where they occur through spontaneous fission.
4) As well as decaying into radiogenic lead, it is also making available a
supply of particles which are spontaneously converting common lead
into another isotope which, on being assayed, will be indistinguishable
from a radiogenic product of alpha decay.
5) This mechanism would tip the measurement in favor of an old earth.
To much radiogenic lead would lead us to imagine that the process
has been going on for much longer that it actually has.
6) In the neutron capture process, the isotopic values of lead would be
systematically changed; lead 206 would be converted into lead 207,
lead 207 would be converted into lead 208 which constituted more than
half the lead present in any given deposit. This is normally interpreted
as meaning that thorium, the parent element of lead 208, was very
common in the deposit in question, yet it also can be interpreted as
resulting from the free neutron capture process.
7) This process has been documented. In two of the world’s largest
uranium ore deposits, one in Zaire and the other in Canada, the
measurements that were taken have shown that while there was
practically no thorium 232 in the ore, they do contain a significant
amount of lead 208. This could only be derived from lead 207 by
neutron capture which turned it into lead 208.
G) But the method also fails the second criterion-that we must be reasonably
sure no outside agency can interfere with the smooth running process.
1) Uranium does not naturally occur in metallic form but as uranium
oxide.
2) This material is highly soluble in water and is known to be moved
away from its original deposit in large quantities by ground waters.
3) The type of effect this has on dating is unpredictable since some parts
of a mineral deposit can be unnaturally enriched while others are
unnaturally depleted.
H) There is one further discovery relating to the uranium dating method. It has
to do with the other daughter product of the decay process. Helium.
1) If the uranium to lead dating technique is reliable, then the amount
of radiogenic helium in the atmosphere would yield a date for the
earth’s age consonant with that yielded by measuring the amount
of radiogenic lead in the crust. Yet, the dates are so different as to be
irreconcilable.
2) If the earth were 4,600 million years old, then there would be roughly
10,000 billion tons of radiogenic helium 4 in the atmosphere. Actually,
there are only around 3.5 billion tons present.
3) Uniformitarian geologists have attempted to explain this by assuming
that the other 99.96 percent has escaped from the earth’s gravitational
field into space, yet this process has never been observed.
4) In fact, more recent studies have suggested that fat from losing helium,
the atmosphere may actually be gaining quantities of this gas.
5) As the earth orbits the sun, it does not move through empty space but
through a thin solar atmosphere, which consists principally of
hydrogen and helium resulting from the nuclear processes within the
sun.
6) Measurements in the upper atmosphere have suggested that the earth is
gaining helium by this means.
7) If we take the measured amount of helium 4 in the atmosphere and
apply the radioactive dating technique to it, we find that the calculation
yields an age for the earth of around 175,000 years.
8) This method fails our criteria of reliability in that the possible
acquisition of helium 4 from outside upsets the process.
4) Potassium and rubidium methods
A) Potassium minerals are commonly found in many rocks. Potassium 40
decays by capturing an electron and turning it into the gas argon 40, with
a half-life of 1.3 billion years.
B) Advocate of this method claim that the argon gas that results remains trapped
in the crystal structures of the mineral in which it forms and accumulates
through the ages, thus acting as a clock when the stored daughter isotope
is released and measured.
C) This method is suspect because argon 40 is a very common isotope in the
atmosphere and the rocks of the earth’s crust. In fact it is the 12th most
abundant chemical element on earth and more than 99% of it is argon 40.
D) There is no way to tell whether any given sample of argon 40 is the residue
of radioactive decay or was present in the rocks when they were formed.
E) Moreover, as argon is an inert gas that will not react with any other element,
its atoms will always be trapped in the crystal structures of minerals no matter
if it is the radiogenic kind or naturally occurring.
F) It has been calculated that even if the earth were 5 billion years old, no more
than 1% of the argon 40 currently present on the earth could be a radiogenic
daughter product and it is thus highly probable that some of the argon 40 in all
potassium minerals has been derived directly rather than as a result of decay.
G) The possibility of anomalous inclusion of argon is not merely conjecture but
is borne out by numerous studies of volcanic rocks that have resulted in false
dates.
1) The radiogenic argon and helium contents of three basalts erupted
into the deep ocean from an active volcano (Kilauea) have been
measured. Ages calculated from these measurements increase with
sample depth up to 22 million years for lavas deduced to be present.
(Hawaiian Institute of Geophysics)
2) Hawaiian basaltic lave actually dating from an eruption in 2801, near
Hualalei, came up with potassium-argon dates ranging from 160
million years to 3 billion years.
3) In 1969, McDougall of the Australian National University measured the
ages of lave in New Zealand and got as age of 465,000 years whereas
the carbon dating of wood included in the lave showed it to be less
than 1,000 years old.
H) Dating advocates accept that the potassium-argon methods can be flawed but
claim that they know the occasions on which the results are correct and when
they are not. Like all radiometric methods, the potassium-argon method does
not work on all rocks and minerals under all geologic conditions. By many
experiments over the past 3 decades, geologists have learned which rocks
and minerals act as closed systems and under what geological conditions
they do so.
1) The problem with this belief is that there is no truly independent
means of verifying the age of any given sample.
2) The experiments consist solely of rejecting dates that seem wrong
while accepting those that seem right. “Seem” in this context means
in line with uniformitarian expectations, thus compiling a database
of self-fulfilling predictions.
I) Radiogenic strontium-strontium 87- occurs in rocks as a result of the decay of
radioactive rubidium. However, this method is complicated by the fact that
strontium 87 also occurs both as a daughter product and as a commonly
Occurring element. Typically, rocks contain 10 times more common
strontium 87 than radiogenic strontium 87. It is also suspect because it is
subject to exactly the same neutron capture as uranium- lead. This time
strontium 86 can be turned into strontium 87.
IV) Why discordant ages are accepted
1) Most disconcerting of all is the fact that these various methods of dating commonly
produce discordant ages for the same rock deposit.
2) Where this occurs, a “harmonization” is carried out, in other words, the figures are
adjusted until the seem right.
3) The chief tool employed to harmonize discordant dates is the simple device of labeling
unexpected ages as anomalous and, in the future, discarding those rock samples that
will lead to the anomalous dates. This practice is the explanation of why many
dating results seem to support each other, because all samples that give ages other
than expected values are rejected as being unsuitable for dating.
4) If radioactive dating is seriously flawed why is it so enthusiastically embraced. There
are 4 ways in which scientists could mislead themselves, ways that may be
transparent to them, and which could lead them to obtain comparable results
apparently independently.
A) The untestable error.
1) When errors in radiometric dates are pointed out by critics,
advocates of the method usually dismiss such criticisms on the grounds
that errors are very rare in comparison with the thousands of dates
that are not found to be incorrect.
2) This is a misleading argument because the overwhelming majority
of dates can never be challenged or found to be flawed since there
is no genuinely independent evidence that can contradict the dates.
3) The reason why known anomalies are very rare is simply because
independent evidence is very rare.
B) The phenomenon of “ballpark thinking”
1) This is exemplified by the error that was made in the curvature of the
mirror of the Hubble space telescope. The error was not discovered
by normal inspection processes, even in one of the world’s best-
equipped labs, because it was so big, more that a centimeter out, that
it was outside the range that6 anyone was mentally prepared to check
on. Had it been a millionth of a meter out, it would have been spotted
at once.
2) Ever since Lyell estimated that the end of the Cretaceous was 80
million years ago, the accepted value has been in this ballpark.
Any dating scientist who suggested looking outside the ballpark, at 20
or 10 or 5 million years, would be looked on as a crackpot.
C) The phenomenon of “intellectual phase-locking”
1) It is not widely realized that the published value of physical constants
often varies. Before is was settled internationally by definition, the
Measured value for the velocity of light varied considerably.
2) One reason for such variation is that all scientists make experimental
errors that they have to correct.
3) They naturally prefer to correct them in the direction of the currently
accepted value thus giving an unconscious trend to measured values.
4) This group thinking has been given the name
“Intellectual phase- locking”.
D) Powerful pressures to conform to the consensus.
1) Dating geologists are offended by the suggestion that their belief can or
would influence the dates obtained. Yet nothing could be easier or
more natural.
2) Take for example a rock sample from the Cretaceous period, which is
universally accepted to date from some 65 million years ago. Any
dating scientist who obtained a date from the sample of 10 million
or 150 million years ago would not publish such a result because
they will, quite sincerely, assume it was in error.
3) On the other hand, any dating scientist who did obtain a date of 65
million years age would hasten to publish it as widely possible.
4) Thus the published dating figures always conform to preconceived
dates and never contradict those dates.
5) If all the rejected dates were retrieved from the waste basket and added
to the published dates, the combined results would show that the
dates produced are the scatter that one would expect by chance alone.
Tuesday, May 31, 2011
Monday, May 23, 2011
Age of the Earth Part 2
The age of the earth, Part II
Radiocarbon dating
I) Things needed to have an accurate clock
1) The clock must be readable in units
A) Any clock which we use to time something must be rendered in readable
units. They also need to be understandable.
B) To say that I will be there in 15 quarks makes no sense at all to anyone
C) Yet to say I will be there in 15 minutes makes perfect sense since the unit
that is being used is readable and understandable.
2) It must be sufficiently accurate to measure the time interval in question.
A) An egg timer would not be a suitable device to time a marathon with any
accuracy.
B) An hour glass would not be a suitable device to establish the accuracy of
the atomic clock.
3) We have to know when the timer was started to get the final time.
A) If you are timing the 100 yard dash, yet you start the clock half way
through the race, you will not get an accurate time. You will get a
deceptive reading that would make all others think the individual
was superhuman.
B) If, while timing the 100 yard dash, you start the clock 5 minutes before
the start of the race, you will not get an accurate time. The deceptive
reading will indicate to others that the participants are not very good.
4) We have to know what the reading on the timer was when it was started.
A) If the reading on the timer was 10 years at the beginning, then the actual
time is increased by 10 years, rendering a false reading to others.
B) If the reading was -10 years at the beginning, then the actual time is
decreased by 10 years. Again this would render a false reading to others.
5) The timer has to run at a uniform rate.
A) If the timer were to speed up during the timing, the event would have appeared
to have taken longer than it actually did. If the timer were to be increased
at the rate, in seconds, by 3 to 1, then the time on the clock would be 30
seconds when only 10 have actually elapsed.
B) If the timer were to be slowed down during the event, the event would have
appeared to have not taken as long as it actually did. If the timer were to be
decreased at the rate, in second, of 1 to 3, then the time on the clock would be
10 seconds when, in reality, 30 seconds have passed.
6) The timer must not be disturbed or reset in any way while the event is being timed.
A) If, while timing the 100 yard dash, you turn the timer off one second after the
gun and restart it at the finish line, the clock will render an inaccurate time.
B) If, while timing the 100 yard dash, you press the reset button half way through
the event, the clock will render an inaccurate time.
7) All these must be accounted for in timing anything. We usually take these things for
granted. The problem is that in the science of determining the age of the earth, the
majority of these issues are assumed.
II) Radiocarbon dating
1)How the method works
A) Radiocarbon (radiative carbon 14 or C14) is a form of carbon created in the
upper atmosphere by the bombardment of cosmic particles from space.
B) As radioactive carbon dioxide it permeates the atmosphere and passes into
the bodies of plants and animals through the food chain. To any plant or
animal, C14 is indistinguishable from the common carbon (C12) which
occurs naturally on earth.
C) C14 is relatively rare, so of the total amount of carbon in the body of a plant
or animal, only a minute fraction is C14.
D) What makes this tiny fraction useful for dating is that the proportion of C14
is the same for all living animals and plants the world over, and something
that can readily be measured.
E) C14 begins to decay as soon as it is formed. When a quantity of C14 is
produced in the atmosphere, half of that amount will decay away (becoming
nitrogen gas) in about 5,700 years. Half the remainder will decay in a further
5,700 years, and so on, until an immeasurably small residue remains.
F) Once a plant or animal dies, it ceases to take in C14 from the outside world,
so the amount of C14 in its body begins to dwindle through decay while the
ordinary C12 remains unchanged.
G) So, 5,700 years after a tree dies, it contains only half the proportion of C14 to
C12 that exists in a living tree, and in the living world in general. After 11,400
years, or two half-lives, it will contain only one quarter the proportion in the
outside world, and so on.
H) After about 5 half-lives, or about 30,000 years, only an immeasurably small
residue remains and so the C14 test is only good for dating remains younger’
than this natural “ceiling”.
I) In essence, to date an organic find (the test only works on the remains of
once-living things, such as bones in a Neolithic burial, or Roman fence
post) it is only necessary to measure the amount of remnant C14 with a
suitable counter and hence deduce when a specimen ceased to take in C14 or
when it died.
J) The great value of the test is that only a tiny fragment is needed because it is
the proportion of C14 to ordinary C12 that is measured and compared with
the proportions that exist in the living world today.
K) In the end the whole technique rests on knowing with some precision the ratio
of C14 to C12 in the living world today, and it was for making these
measurements as well as developing the dating technique that Willard Libby
was awarded the Nobel prize.
L) One other factor for the test to work properly is needed; the standard mix of
C14 in the terrestrial reservoir must always have been the same throughout
the lifetime of the test subject and in the years since its death. An example
of this would be the case of some archeologists setting out to determine the
age of a Neolithic woman whose burial chamber they had discovered. If there
had been a lot more C14 around during the life of this woman, the reading will
be falsely inflated-she will appear a much more recent burial than she really
was. Had there been a lot less, then the reading will appear falsely diminished
and she will appear much older.
2) Problems with the C14 method
A) In the 1940's, as Libby and his co-workers were developing this new dating
system, they had every reason to believe that the amount of C14 in the world
could not possibly have varied during the time that humankind had been on
the earth simply because the earth was believed to be of immense age, some
4,600 million years old.
B) This great age stamps the C14 technique with the seal of respectability
because of what Libby called the “equilibrium value” for the C14 reservoir.
C) It was thought that after the earth was formed and acquired an atmosphere,
there would be a 30,000 year transition period during which C14 would be
building up. At the end of this period, the amount of C14 created by cosmic
radiation will be balanced by the amount of C14 decaying away to zero. To
use Libby’s terminology, at the end of 30,000 years, the terrestrial C14
reservoir will have reached a steady state.
D) To test this part of the theory, Libby made measurement of both the rate of
formation and the rate of decay of C14. He found a considerable discrepancy
in his measurements indicating that C14 was being created in the atmosphere
somewhere around 25% faster than it was becoming extinct. Since this
result was inexplicable by any conventional means, Libby put the discrepancy
down to experimental error.
E) During the 1960's Libby’s experiments were repeated by chemists who were
able to refine the techniques. The new experiments revealed that the
discrepancy was not experimental error- it did exist. There is strong indication
that the present natural production rate exceeds the natural decay rate by as
25 % as reported by Richard Lingenfelter. Other researchers have confirmed
this finding, including Hans Suess from USC, and V.R. Switzer. Others have
reviewed the data and suggest that it may be as high as 38%
F) The meaning of these results has two alternate implications.
1) Either the atmosphere is for one reason or another in a transient build
up stage in regard to C14.
2) Something is wrong in one or another of the basic postulates of the C14
method.
G) One researcher has gone one step further. Melvin Cook of Utah University has
taken the latest measurements on C14 formation and decay and calculated
from them back to the point at which there would have been 0 C14. In doing
so, he is in effect using the C14 technique to date the earth’s atmosphere.
And the resulting calculation shows that the age of the atmosphere is around
10,000 years old.
H) It is true that C14 dating has been tried on objects whose age is independently
known and scored some impressive results. Yet anomalous dates have been
produced from assays that showed that some living things may interact with
parts of the reservoir that have been anomalously depleted of C14 and thus
appear to be much older than they really are.
I) Examples of such happening
1) In 1991, some rock paintings were found in the South African bush
and were analyzed by Oxford University’s radiocarbon accelerator
unit which dated them as being around 1,200 years old. However,
publicity of the find attracted the attention of Joan Ahrens, a Capetown
resident, who recognized the paintings as being produced by her in art
class and later stolen from her garden by vandals.
2) Consider that in recent years “readily detectable amounts of carbon-14”in materials evolutionists suppose are millions of years old “have been the rule rather than the exception” (DeYoung, 2005, p. 49). When geophysicist John Baumgardner and colleagues obtained 10 coal samples from the U.S. Department of Energy Coal Sample Bank, one of the leading radiocarbon laboratories in the world tested the samples for traces of carbon. The coal samples were analyzed using the modern accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS) method. If the coal were really many millions of years old (as evolutionists suggest), no traces of carbon-14 should have been found. “[A]ny carbon-containing materials that are truly older than 100,000 years should be ‘carbon-14 dead’ with C-14 levels below detection limits” (DeYoung, p. 49). But, in fact, traces of carbon-14 were found. “[A] residue of carbon-14 atoms was found in all ten samples.... The amounts of C-14 in coal are found to average 0.25 percent of that in the atmosphere today” (DeYoung, p. 53). Diamonds assumed to be hundreds of millions of years old were also tested—12 in all. Once again, traces of C-14 were found in every sample (see DeYoung, pp. 45-62).
3) In June of 1990, Hugh Miller submitted two dinosaur bone fragments to
the Department of Geosciences at the University in Tucson, Arizona for carbon-14 analysis. One fragment was from an unidentified dinosaur. The other was from an Allosaurus excavated by James Hall near Grand Junction, Colorado in 1989. Miller submitted the samples without disclosing the identity of the bones. (Had the scientists known the samples actually were from dinosaurs, they would not have bothered dating them, since it is assumed dinosaurs lived millions of years ago—outside the limits of radiocarbon dating.) Interestingly, the C-14 analysis indicated that the bones were from 10,000-16,000 years old—a far cry from their alleged 60-million-year-old age (see Dahmer, et al., 1990, pp. 371-374).
4) What is C-14 doing in coal, diamonds, and dinosaur fossils, if these
objects are really many millions of years old? Richard Dawkins declared that C-14 dating “is useful for dating organic material on the archaeological/historical timescale where we are dealing in hundreds or a few thousands of years,” not millions of years (1986, p. 226, emp. added). Yet, “readily detectable amounts of carbon-14,” even in coal, diamonds, and various fossils, “have been the rule rather than the exception” in recent years (DeYoung, 2005, p. 49). Why? Evolutionists assert that the specimens in every case must have been contaminated by outside carbon. After all, everyone “knows” coal is millions of years old, right? Using C-14 dating on specimens already believed to be only hundreds or a few thousands of years old is considered acceptable. Scientists expect to find carbon in samples they perceive as young. But, if specimens believed to be millions of years old are tested (e.g., coal), and found to have carbon traces, then they “must” have been contaminated. Or so we are told.
J) Example #1 has much significance in this debate since it is one of those rare
occasions when chance grants us some external method of checking the
dating technique. Where no such external verification exists, we have to
simply accept the verdict of carbon dating.
K) Examples 2-4 show that the assumption of millions of years is flawed since
these example show C14 in items which should not be present.
3) Tree rings
A) For a number of years it was thought that the possible errors were relatively
minor, but more recent intensive research into C14 dates compared with
calendar dates, shows that the natural concentration of C14 in the atmosphere
has varied sufficiently to affect the dates significantly for certain periods.
Because scientists have not been able to predict the amount of variation
theoretically, it has been necessary to find a parallel dating method of absolute
accuracy to assess the correlation between C14 dates and the calendar.
B) The parallel dating method turned to in order to assess C14 dating involves
the Bristlecone pine tree which grows at high altitudes in the mountains of
California and Nevada. They are the oldest living things on earth, some are
said to be 5,000 years old.
C) The tree is useful because it lives to a great age and certain signature sequences
of tree rings are said to be characteristic of specific years before the present,
enabling a younger tree to be correlated with older trees to stretch the tree-ring
chronology further and further back.
D) Cross-dating from one core to another by means of signatures enabled
scientists to construct a master chronology that spans a total of 8,200 years
before the present. This has been used to check up on C14 dating variations.
E) Hans Suess of the University of California in San Diego has C14 dated the
bristlecone pine samples of the master chronology and from this a table of
deviation has been drawn up which, in theory, allows for the inaccuracies
of the C14 method to be corrected for up to around 10,000 years ago.
F) Suess was able to show precisely how variations in the amount of cosmic
radiation changed the amount of C14 in the atmosphere and his table
indicates that by about 5,000 B.C., C14 derived dates are around 1,000
years to young.
G) Problems with this system
1) Before the amendments, the dates given by C14 had confirmed the
widely held belief that culture had spread from Egypt and the Middle
East via Mycenae and Crete westward into Europe and the Britain.
However, the new chronology indicate that, for instance, the island
of Malta was carving spiral decorations and erecting megalithic
structures BEFORE the supposed cradle of civilizations further east.
2) A further difficulty has more recently been introduced in to the
controversy because the fundamental principle on which this system
is based-that a tree ring forms each year- has been questioned. Certain
pitfalls have been discovered in tree-ring analysis. Sometimes, as is a
very severe season, a growth ring may not form. In certain latitudes, the
tree ring’s growth correlates with moisture, but in others it may be
correlated with temperature.
3) It is also possible for 2 tree rings to grow in a single year, when growth
begins in spring but is later arrested by a period of unseasonable frost
and later starts up again.
H) These climactic variation presumably mean that a fresh set of correction
tables will be needed to modify the bristlecone pine dates, although no one
has yet devised a method of calibration for such tables.
4) The key question for chemistry is how to explain the observed discrepancy
between the rate of production of C14 and its rate of decay in the atmosphere.
One possible explanation is that the atmosphere is still in nonequilibrium
because the required 30,000 years have not elapsed since it was first formed.
Radiocarbon dating
I) Things needed to have an accurate clock
1) The clock must be readable in units
A) Any clock which we use to time something must be rendered in readable
units. They also need to be understandable.
B) To say that I will be there in 15 quarks makes no sense at all to anyone
C) Yet to say I will be there in 15 minutes makes perfect sense since the unit
that is being used is readable and understandable.
2) It must be sufficiently accurate to measure the time interval in question.
A) An egg timer would not be a suitable device to time a marathon with any
accuracy.
B) An hour glass would not be a suitable device to establish the accuracy of
the atomic clock.
3) We have to know when the timer was started to get the final time.
A) If you are timing the 100 yard dash, yet you start the clock half way
through the race, you will not get an accurate time. You will get a
deceptive reading that would make all others think the individual
was superhuman.
B) If, while timing the 100 yard dash, you start the clock 5 minutes before
the start of the race, you will not get an accurate time. The deceptive
reading will indicate to others that the participants are not very good.
4) We have to know what the reading on the timer was when it was started.
A) If the reading on the timer was 10 years at the beginning, then the actual
time is increased by 10 years, rendering a false reading to others.
B) If the reading was -10 years at the beginning, then the actual time is
decreased by 10 years. Again this would render a false reading to others.
5) The timer has to run at a uniform rate.
A) If the timer were to speed up during the timing, the event would have appeared
to have taken longer than it actually did. If the timer were to be increased
at the rate, in seconds, by 3 to 1, then the time on the clock would be 30
seconds when only 10 have actually elapsed.
B) If the timer were to be slowed down during the event, the event would have
appeared to have not taken as long as it actually did. If the timer were to be
decreased at the rate, in second, of 1 to 3, then the time on the clock would be
10 seconds when, in reality, 30 seconds have passed.
6) The timer must not be disturbed or reset in any way while the event is being timed.
A) If, while timing the 100 yard dash, you turn the timer off one second after the
gun and restart it at the finish line, the clock will render an inaccurate time.
B) If, while timing the 100 yard dash, you press the reset button half way through
the event, the clock will render an inaccurate time.
7) All these must be accounted for in timing anything. We usually take these things for
granted. The problem is that in the science of determining the age of the earth, the
majority of these issues are assumed.
II) Radiocarbon dating
1)How the method works
A) Radiocarbon (radiative carbon 14 or C14) is a form of carbon created in the
upper atmosphere by the bombardment of cosmic particles from space.
B) As radioactive carbon dioxide it permeates the atmosphere and passes into
the bodies of plants and animals through the food chain. To any plant or
animal, C14 is indistinguishable from the common carbon (C12) which
occurs naturally on earth.
C) C14 is relatively rare, so of the total amount of carbon in the body of a plant
or animal, only a minute fraction is C14.
D) What makes this tiny fraction useful for dating is that the proportion of C14
is the same for all living animals and plants the world over, and something
that can readily be measured.
E) C14 begins to decay as soon as it is formed. When a quantity of C14 is
produced in the atmosphere, half of that amount will decay away (becoming
nitrogen gas) in about 5,700 years. Half the remainder will decay in a further
5,700 years, and so on, until an immeasurably small residue remains.
F) Once a plant or animal dies, it ceases to take in C14 from the outside world,
so the amount of C14 in its body begins to dwindle through decay while the
ordinary C12 remains unchanged.
G) So, 5,700 years after a tree dies, it contains only half the proportion of C14 to
C12 that exists in a living tree, and in the living world in general. After 11,400
years, or two half-lives, it will contain only one quarter the proportion in the
outside world, and so on.
H) After about 5 half-lives, or about 30,000 years, only an immeasurably small
residue remains and so the C14 test is only good for dating remains younger’
than this natural “ceiling”.
I) In essence, to date an organic find (the test only works on the remains of
once-living things, such as bones in a Neolithic burial, or Roman fence
post) it is only necessary to measure the amount of remnant C14 with a
suitable counter and hence deduce when a specimen ceased to take in C14 or
when it died.
J) The great value of the test is that only a tiny fragment is needed because it is
the proportion of C14 to ordinary C12 that is measured and compared with
the proportions that exist in the living world today.
K) In the end the whole technique rests on knowing with some precision the ratio
of C14 to C12 in the living world today, and it was for making these
measurements as well as developing the dating technique that Willard Libby
was awarded the Nobel prize.
L) One other factor for the test to work properly is needed; the standard mix of
C14 in the terrestrial reservoir must always have been the same throughout
the lifetime of the test subject and in the years since its death. An example
of this would be the case of some archeologists setting out to determine the
age of a Neolithic woman whose burial chamber they had discovered. If there
had been a lot more C14 around during the life of this woman, the reading will
be falsely inflated-she will appear a much more recent burial than she really
was. Had there been a lot less, then the reading will appear falsely diminished
and she will appear much older.
2) Problems with the C14 method
A) In the 1940's, as Libby and his co-workers were developing this new dating
system, they had every reason to believe that the amount of C14 in the world
could not possibly have varied during the time that humankind had been on
the earth simply because the earth was believed to be of immense age, some
4,600 million years old.
B) This great age stamps the C14 technique with the seal of respectability
because of what Libby called the “equilibrium value” for the C14 reservoir.
C) It was thought that after the earth was formed and acquired an atmosphere,
there would be a 30,000 year transition period during which C14 would be
building up. At the end of this period, the amount of C14 created by cosmic
radiation will be balanced by the amount of C14 decaying away to zero. To
use Libby’s terminology, at the end of 30,000 years, the terrestrial C14
reservoir will have reached a steady state.
D) To test this part of the theory, Libby made measurement of both the rate of
formation and the rate of decay of C14. He found a considerable discrepancy
in his measurements indicating that C14 was being created in the atmosphere
somewhere around 25% faster than it was becoming extinct. Since this
result was inexplicable by any conventional means, Libby put the discrepancy
down to experimental error.
E) During the 1960's Libby’s experiments were repeated by chemists who were
able to refine the techniques. The new experiments revealed that the
discrepancy was not experimental error- it did exist. There is strong indication
that the present natural production rate exceeds the natural decay rate by as
25 % as reported by Richard Lingenfelter. Other researchers have confirmed
this finding, including Hans Suess from USC, and V.R. Switzer. Others have
reviewed the data and suggest that it may be as high as 38%
F) The meaning of these results has two alternate implications.
1) Either the atmosphere is for one reason or another in a transient build
up stage in regard to C14.
2) Something is wrong in one or another of the basic postulates of the C14
method.
G) One researcher has gone one step further. Melvin Cook of Utah University has
taken the latest measurements on C14 formation and decay and calculated
from them back to the point at which there would have been 0 C14. In doing
so, he is in effect using the C14 technique to date the earth’s atmosphere.
And the resulting calculation shows that the age of the atmosphere is around
10,000 years old.
H) It is true that C14 dating has been tried on objects whose age is independently
known and scored some impressive results. Yet anomalous dates have been
produced from assays that showed that some living things may interact with
parts of the reservoir that have been anomalously depleted of C14 and thus
appear to be much older than they really are.
I) Examples of such happening
1) In 1991, some rock paintings were found in the South African bush
and were analyzed by Oxford University’s radiocarbon accelerator
unit which dated them as being around 1,200 years old. However,
publicity of the find attracted the attention of Joan Ahrens, a Capetown
resident, who recognized the paintings as being produced by her in art
class and later stolen from her garden by vandals.
2) Consider that in recent years “readily detectable amounts of carbon-14”in materials evolutionists suppose are millions of years old “have been the rule rather than the exception” (DeYoung, 2005, p. 49). When geophysicist John Baumgardner and colleagues obtained 10 coal samples from the U.S. Department of Energy Coal Sample Bank, one of the leading radiocarbon laboratories in the world tested the samples for traces of carbon. The coal samples were analyzed using the modern accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS) method. If the coal were really many millions of years old (as evolutionists suggest), no traces of carbon-14 should have been found. “[A]ny carbon-containing materials that are truly older than 100,000 years should be ‘carbon-14 dead’ with C-14 levels below detection limits” (DeYoung, p. 49). But, in fact, traces of carbon-14 were found. “[A] residue of carbon-14 atoms was found in all ten samples.... The amounts of C-14 in coal are found to average 0.25 percent of that in the atmosphere today” (DeYoung, p. 53). Diamonds assumed to be hundreds of millions of years old were also tested—12 in all. Once again, traces of C-14 were found in every sample (see DeYoung, pp. 45-62).
3) In June of 1990, Hugh Miller submitted two dinosaur bone fragments to
the Department of Geosciences at the University in Tucson, Arizona for carbon-14 analysis. One fragment was from an unidentified dinosaur. The other was from an Allosaurus excavated by James Hall near Grand Junction, Colorado in 1989. Miller submitted the samples without disclosing the identity of the bones. (Had the scientists known the samples actually were from dinosaurs, they would not have bothered dating them, since it is assumed dinosaurs lived millions of years ago—outside the limits of radiocarbon dating.) Interestingly, the C-14 analysis indicated that the bones were from 10,000-16,000 years old—a far cry from their alleged 60-million-year-old age (see Dahmer, et al., 1990, pp. 371-374).
4) What is C-14 doing in coal, diamonds, and dinosaur fossils, if these
objects are really many millions of years old? Richard Dawkins declared that C-14 dating “is useful for dating organic material on the archaeological/historical timescale where we are dealing in hundreds or a few thousands of years,” not millions of years (1986, p. 226, emp. added). Yet, “readily detectable amounts of carbon-14,” even in coal, diamonds, and various fossils, “have been the rule rather than the exception” in recent years (DeYoung, 2005, p. 49). Why? Evolutionists assert that the specimens in every case must have been contaminated by outside carbon. After all, everyone “knows” coal is millions of years old, right? Using C-14 dating on specimens already believed to be only hundreds or a few thousands of years old is considered acceptable. Scientists expect to find carbon in samples they perceive as young. But, if specimens believed to be millions of years old are tested (e.g., coal), and found to have carbon traces, then they “must” have been contaminated. Or so we are told.
J) Example #1 has much significance in this debate since it is one of those rare
occasions when chance grants us some external method of checking the
dating technique. Where no such external verification exists, we have to
simply accept the verdict of carbon dating.
K) Examples 2-4 show that the assumption of millions of years is flawed since
these example show C14 in items which should not be present.
3) Tree rings
A) For a number of years it was thought that the possible errors were relatively
minor, but more recent intensive research into C14 dates compared with
calendar dates, shows that the natural concentration of C14 in the atmosphere
has varied sufficiently to affect the dates significantly for certain periods.
Because scientists have not been able to predict the amount of variation
theoretically, it has been necessary to find a parallel dating method of absolute
accuracy to assess the correlation between C14 dates and the calendar.
B) The parallel dating method turned to in order to assess C14 dating involves
the Bristlecone pine tree which grows at high altitudes in the mountains of
California and Nevada. They are the oldest living things on earth, some are
said to be 5,000 years old.
C) The tree is useful because it lives to a great age and certain signature sequences
of tree rings are said to be characteristic of specific years before the present,
enabling a younger tree to be correlated with older trees to stretch the tree-ring
chronology further and further back.
D) Cross-dating from one core to another by means of signatures enabled
scientists to construct a master chronology that spans a total of 8,200 years
before the present. This has been used to check up on C14 dating variations.
E) Hans Suess of the University of California in San Diego has C14 dated the
bristlecone pine samples of the master chronology and from this a table of
deviation has been drawn up which, in theory, allows for the inaccuracies
of the C14 method to be corrected for up to around 10,000 years ago.
F) Suess was able to show precisely how variations in the amount of cosmic
radiation changed the amount of C14 in the atmosphere and his table
indicates that by about 5,000 B.C., C14 derived dates are around 1,000
years to young.
G) Problems with this system
1) Before the amendments, the dates given by C14 had confirmed the
widely held belief that culture had spread from Egypt and the Middle
East via Mycenae and Crete westward into Europe and the Britain.
However, the new chronology indicate that, for instance, the island
of Malta was carving spiral decorations and erecting megalithic
structures BEFORE the supposed cradle of civilizations further east.
2) A further difficulty has more recently been introduced in to the
controversy because the fundamental principle on which this system
is based-that a tree ring forms each year- has been questioned. Certain
pitfalls have been discovered in tree-ring analysis. Sometimes, as is a
very severe season, a growth ring may not form. In certain latitudes, the
tree ring’s growth correlates with moisture, but in others it may be
correlated with temperature.
3) It is also possible for 2 tree rings to grow in a single year, when growth
begins in spring but is later arrested by a period of unseasonable frost
and later starts up again.
H) These climactic variation presumably mean that a fresh set of correction
tables will be needed to modify the bristlecone pine dates, although no one
has yet devised a method of calibration for such tables.
4) The key question for chemistry is how to explain the observed discrepancy
between the rate of production of C14 and its rate of decay in the atmosphere.
One possible explanation is that the atmosphere is still in nonequilibrium
because the required 30,000 years have not elapsed since it was first formed.
Tuesday, May 17, 2011
Age of the earth part 1
I present this information for your consideration. I pray that it will help you in your walk.
The age of the earth
I) The need for great ages
1) The modern synthesis of evolution requires vast amounts of time for the process
to occur.
2) Without it the idea of gradualism to explain how large changes evolve as a result
of the accumulation of micro changes could not be even considered.
3) Time, to the evolutionists, becomes the hero of the plot. Given enough time anything
becomes possible.
4) The age of the earth is a central issue in the debate. Many evolutionists will deny this
simple fact. They say it is a separate issue. They are not. They are forever linked.
A) Darwin and his supporters realized this at an early stage. They realized that
their theory demanded vast reaches of geological time to support it.
B) Equally, evolutionists needed a geological basis for this great age. They
needed a mechanism that worked slowly and gradually rather than one that
worked suddenly and all at once.
1) This reasoning is clear. The theory had no observational proof.
2) There were no examples of this process that could be observed in the
present. It was all linked to the past.
C) They rejected catastrophism and instead found the mechanism they sought in
an idea taking shape among a new generation of secular geologists who
asserted that sedimentary rocks (fossil bearing rocks) were formed slowly by
the same processes that they observed on the oceans bottom; the deposition
of silt and sand that became cemented and compacted supposedly over
millions of years to form successive strata of rock.
D) These ideas later became known as uniformitarianism.
1) The uniformitarian doctrine can be summed up by the phrase
“The present is the key to the past.”
2)Within scientific philosophy, uniformitarianism refers
to the principle that the same processes that shape the universe occurred in the past as they do now, and that the same laws of physics apply in all parts of the knowable universe. This axiomatic principle, not often referred to as an "-ism" in modern discussions, is particularly relevant to geology and other sciences on a long timescale such as astronomy and paleontology. The leading geologist of Darwin’s era, a Scot named Charles Lyell (1797 – 1875), incorporated James Hutton’s gradualism into a theory known as uniformitarianism. The term refers to Lyell’s idea that geological processes have not changed throughout Earth’s history. Thus, for example, the forces that build mountains and erode mountains and the rates at which these forces operate are the same today as in the past.
E) Darwinists needed time, and lots of it; uniformitatians had the geological
theory that demonstrated great antiquity. Geologists needed a firm
foundation for the relative dating and correlation of the many sediments
piled one on another in the past-the many strata of the geological column.
F) Darwinists were able to supply the key to the strati graphical succession
of the rocks by comparative anatomy of the fossils contained in the strata,
interpreted along evolutionist lines.
G) Thus an unusual academic interdependence sprang up between the two
sciences that continues today. A geologist wishing to date a rock stratum
would ask an evolutionist’s opinion on the fossils it contained. An evolutionist
having difficulty dating a fossil would turn to the geologists for help. Fossils
were used to date rocks, and rocks were used to date fossils.
II) The Geological Time Scale
1) History and Development
A) Was developed by James Hutton (1726-1797) Who was a Scottish geologist.
B) He set the stage to the development of the geological time scale with the
publication of his Theory of the Earth (1785).
C) Hutton advanced the term “uniformitatianism”, a geological doctrine which
basically assumes that current geological processes, occurring at the same rates
observed today, in the same manner, account for all of Earth’s geological
features.
D) This principle was later championed by British geologists Sir Charles Lyell
(1797-1875).
E) Next, British civil engineer, surveyor and amateur geologist William Smith
(1769-1839) made the discovery that fossils are found buried in a definite
order.
F) The geological time scale was developed shortly thereafter.
2) What is it?
A) The Earth’s crust consists of many layers of sedimentary rock (called strata).
B) Geologists assume that each layer represents a long period of time, typically
millions of years. This is actually a secondary assumption based upon the
primary assumption of Uniformitatianism.
C) These layers of sedimentary rock contain billions of fossil remains and some’
of these fossils are unique to certain layers. The layers are catalogued and
arbitrarily arranged into specific order (not necessarily the order in which they
were found). This order reflects the assumption of macro-evolution.
D) The creatures thought to have evolved first are considered to be the oldest and
and are thus placed at the bottom of the column of layers. The creatures
thought to have evolved later are higher up and so on.
E) A variety of fossils from each layer of strata have been chosen to be what are
called “index fossils”
F) “Index fossils” are a set of fossils that are used to date sedimentary rock layers.
Paleontologists assume the age of an index fossil by the stage of evolutionary
history the fossil is assumed to be in. They guess how long it would take for
one kind of life to evolve into another kind of life and then date the fossils
and the rocks accordingly.
G) But why use this method?
1) This arises because radioactive dating techniques can be applied only to
volcanic rocks that contain some radioactive minerals- the primary
rocks of the earth’s crust.
2) But the geological time scale (or column) consists of sedimentary rocks-
rocks formed from the sediments laid down on the beds of seas and
composed of particles of those primary rocks.
3) Any age determination made using these particles will be the same as
that of the primary rocks from which they are derived. In short, the
particles were already formed before the sediment was laid down.
This would give an inaccurate age of the sediment since the particles
were not formed when the sediment was laid down.
4) Also, in some sedimentary rocks, such as chalk or limestone, there are
not even particles of the primary rocks present and so radioactive dating
cannot be used at all.
3) Circular reasoning
A) Evolution is the basis for the geological conclusions in the geological time
scale, yet the geological time scale is used as a basic evidence for evolution.
B) Index fossils are used to date the rocks in which they are found, yet, the fossil
record is then used to show the pattern of evolutionary change through time.
C) The age of the rock is determined by the assumed age of the index fossils it
contains. Then, to determine the age of all the other fossils in the same rock
layer, we look to the age of the layer of rock in which they are found.
D) Geologists are arguing in a circle. The succession of organisms has been
determined by a study of their remains embedded in the rocks, and the relative
ages of the rocks are determined by the remains of organisms that they contain.
4) The column does not exist anywhere in the world
A) Uniformatarian theology
1) According to uniformatarian time scale the deposition’s have been
happening for 600 million years.
2) The rate of deposition has been estimated at about .2 mm/year.
3) At this rate we should see a depository 75 miles thick.
4) Due to erosion and other factors, the thickness is said to be around
100 miles to 200 miles thick.
5) This would mean that somewhere on the earth we should be able
to observe this thickness.
6) It is composed of 10 primary layers
7) Somewhere on earth we should be able to see the 10 primary
layers and their thicknesses that come to about 100 miles thick.
B) What we actually do see
1) The only place we see the complete geological column is in the
textbook. It is a myth that it is actually visible on the earth.
2)There are places on the earth in which one can view all 10 layers
(or called lithologies). Some include North Dakota, Cuba, Indonesia,
The Himalayas.
3) The problem is in the fact that the average thickness of each local
geological column is about 1 mile (in some places, the column has
essentially zero thickness, in a few places it may be up to 16 or so
miles, but the worldwide average is about 1 mile).
4) Nowhere on earth is the geological column complete in the sense of
having the maximum thickness of sedimentary rock attribute to it
by uniformatarian theory.
5) Common sense tell us that 16 miles (at most) which exists, out of a
total of 100 or 200 miles, is a very incomplete column. It remains
primarily an invention of the uniformitarian imagination, and a
textbook orthodoxy.
C) Out of place fossils
1) According to uniformitarian theory, fossils should line up in the
column. Oldest toward the bottom and the youngest toward the
top.
2) Also, we should see the extinction of life forms in one era and
something else taking its place.
3) What we actually find is fossils that are out of place (not where they
should be according to the column).
4) We also see living fossils (those that were thought to be extinct, yet
now have been found alive). Some are the Coelacanth — Dates back
400 million years. Coelacanth fossils pre-date the dinosaurs by millions of years, and were thought to have gone extinct with them 65 million years ago until one was discovered alive in 1938. Ginkgo tree belongs to the family Ginkgoaceae which dates back 270 million years. They were unknown to Europeans until discovered in 1691 in temple gardens in Japan.
E) Paraconformity
1) A paraconformity occurs when two parallel layers from different
parts of the column lie one above the other, lacking the rock layers
that theoretically should lie between them.
2) A paraconformity exists when part of the geological column is
missing in the layers.
3) An example is the Ordovician and Silurian periods are missing in
the Grand Canyon but are found in sequence between the Cambrian
and Devonian in Wales.
4) Paraconformities challenge the geological timescale. The lack of time
at the surface of the underlying layer of a paraconformity, especially
the lack of erosion, suggest that the long ages never accurred.
(Ariel A. Roth; Implication of Paraconformities).
The Geologic Column seems to be only a mental abstraction. There are sufficient assumptions made in classifying fossils and rocks to justify questioning its legitimacy. There are also sufficient anomalies to show that the timescale is wrong and that the fossil order depicted in the Geologic Column is at best a local phenomenon. In short, the Geologic Column is found only in books and web-sites and does not really exist.
What is needed is a statistical study of fossil locations that does not involve the geologic column classification system, but is based only on the actual three dimensional location of fossils, latitude, longitude, and depth relative to sea level. Surface altitude above sea level should be included as well, as this would give a true picture of both local and global fossil distribution, not one based on a theoretical classification system.
In closing as Sean D. Pitman, M.D. said,
“ It seems then that the popular theories of geology and the formation of the geologic column may in fact have significant flaws that might be better explained by a relatively sudden global catastrophe or closely spaced series of very large catastrophes.”
The age of the earth
I) The need for great ages
1) The modern synthesis of evolution requires vast amounts of time for the process
to occur.
2) Without it the idea of gradualism to explain how large changes evolve as a result
of the accumulation of micro changes could not be even considered.
3) Time, to the evolutionists, becomes the hero of the plot. Given enough time anything
becomes possible.
4) The age of the earth is a central issue in the debate. Many evolutionists will deny this
simple fact. They say it is a separate issue. They are not. They are forever linked.
A) Darwin and his supporters realized this at an early stage. They realized that
their theory demanded vast reaches of geological time to support it.
B) Equally, evolutionists needed a geological basis for this great age. They
needed a mechanism that worked slowly and gradually rather than one that
worked suddenly and all at once.
1) This reasoning is clear. The theory had no observational proof.
2) There were no examples of this process that could be observed in the
present. It was all linked to the past.
C) They rejected catastrophism and instead found the mechanism they sought in
an idea taking shape among a new generation of secular geologists who
asserted that sedimentary rocks (fossil bearing rocks) were formed slowly by
the same processes that they observed on the oceans bottom; the deposition
of silt and sand that became cemented and compacted supposedly over
millions of years to form successive strata of rock.
D) These ideas later became known as uniformitarianism.
1) The uniformitarian doctrine can be summed up by the phrase
“The present is the key to the past.”
2)Within scientific philosophy, uniformitarianism refers
to the principle that the same processes that shape the universe occurred in the past as they do now, and that the same laws of physics apply in all parts of the knowable universe. This axiomatic principle, not often referred to as an "-ism" in modern discussions, is particularly relevant to geology and other sciences on a long timescale such as astronomy and paleontology. The leading geologist of Darwin’s era, a Scot named Charles Lyell (1797 – 1875), incorporated James Hutton’s gradualism into a theory known as uniformitarianism. The term refers to Lyell’s idea that geological processes have not changed throughout Earth’s history. Thus, for example, the forces that build mountains and erode mountains and the rates at which these forces operate are the same today as in the past.
E) Darwinists needed time, and lots of it; uniformitatians had the geological
theory that demonstrated great antiquity. Geologists needed a firm
foundation for the relative dating and correlation of the many sediments
piled one on another in the past-the many strata of the geological column.
F) Darwinists were able to supply the key to the strati graphical succession
of the rocks by comparative anatomy of the fossils contained in the strata,
interpreted along evolutionist lines.
G) Thus an unusual academic interdependence sprang up between the two
sciences that continues today. A geologist wishing to date a rock stratum
would ask an evolutionist’s opinion on the fossils it contained. An evolutionist
having difficulty dating a fossil would turn to the geologists for help. Fossils
were used to date rocks, and rocks were used to date fossils.
II) The Geological Time Scale
1) History and Development
A) Was developed by James Hutton (1726-1797) Who was a Scottish geologist.
B) He set the stage to the development of the geological time scale with the
publication of his Theory of the Earth (1785).
C) Hutton advanced the term “uniformitatianism”, a geological doctrine which
basically assumes that current geological processes, occurring at the same rates
observed today, in the same manner, account for all of Earth’s geological
features.
D) This principle was later championed by British geologists Sir Charles Lyell
(1797-1875).
E) Next, British civil engineer, surveyor and amateur geologist William Smith
(1769-1839) made the discovery that fossils are found buried in a definite
order.
F) The geological time scale was developed shortly thereafter.
2) What is it?
A) The Earth’s crust consists of many layers of sedimentary rock (called strata).
B) Geologists assume that each layer represents a long period of time, typically
millions of years. This is actually a secondary assumption based upon the
primary assumption of Uniformitatianism.
C) These layers of sedimentary rock contain billions of fossil remains and some’
of these fossils are unique to certain layers. The layers are catalogued and
arbitrarily arranged into specific order (not necessarily the order in which they
were found). This order reflects the assumption of macro-evolution.
D) The creatures thought to have evolved first are considered to be the oldest and
and are thus placed at the bottom of the column of layers. The creatures
thought to have evolved later are higher up and so on.
E) A variety of fossils from each layer of strata have been chosen to be what are
called “index fossils”
F) “Index fossils” are a set of fossils that are used to date sedimentary rock layers.
Paleontologists assume the age of an index fossil by the stage of evolutionary
history the fossil is assumed to be in. They guess how long it would take for
one kind of life to evolve into another kind of life and then date the fossils
and the rocks accordingly.
G) But why use this method?
1) This arises because radioactive dating techniques can be applied only to
volcanic rocks that contain some radioactive minerals- the primary
rocks of the earth’s crust.
2) But the geological time scale (or column) consists of sedimentary rocks-
rocks formed from the sediments laid down on the beds of seas and
composed of particles of those primary rocks.
3) Any age determination made using these particles will be the same as
that of the primary rocks from which they are derived. In short, the
particles were already formed before the sediment was laid down.
This would give an inaccurate age of the sediment since the particles
were not formed when the sediment was laid down.
4) Also, in some sedimentary rocks, such as chalk or limestone, there are
not even particles of the primary rocks present and so radioactive dating
cannot be used at all.
3) Circular reasoning
A) Evolution is the basis for the geological conclusions in the geological time
scale, yet the geological time scale is used as a basic evidence for evolution.
B) Index fossils are used to date the rocks in which they are found, yet, the fossil
record is then used to show the pattern of evolutionary change through time.
C) The age of the rock is determined by the assumed age of the index fossils it
contains. Then, to determine the age of all the other fossils in the same rock
layer, we look to the age of the layer of rock in which they are found.
D) Geologists are arguing in a circle. The succession of organisms has been
determined by a study of their remains embedded in the rocks, and the relative
ages of the rocks are determined by the remains of organisms that they contain.
4) The column does not exist anywhere in the world
A) Uniformatarian theology
1) According to uniformatarian time scale the deposition’s have been
happening for 600 million years.
2) The rate of deposition has been estimated at about .2 mm/year.
3) At this rate we should see a depository 75 miles thick.
4) Due to erosion and other factors, the thickness is said to be around
100 miles to 200 miles thick.
5) This would mean that somewhere on the earth we should be able
to observe this thickness.
6) It is composed of 10 primary layers
7) Somewhere on earth we should be able to see the 10 primary
layers and their thicknesses that come to about 100 miles thick.
B) What we actually do see
1) The only place we see the complete geological column is in the
textbook. It is a myth that it is actually visible on the earth.
2)There are places on the earth in which one can view all 10 layers
(or called lithologies). Some include North Dakota, Cuba, Indonesia,
The Himalayas.
3) The problem is in the fact that the average thickness of each local
geological column is about 1 mile (in some places, the column has
essentially zero thickness, in a few places it may be up to 16 or so
miles, but the worldwide average is about 1 mile).
4) Nowhere on earth is the geological column complete in the sense of
having the maximum thickness of sedimentary rock attribute to it
by uniformatarian theory.
5) Common sense tell us that 16 miles (at most) which exists, out of a
total of 100 or 200 miles, is a very incomplete column. It remains
primarily an invention of the uniformitarian imagination, and a
textbook orthodoxy.
C) Out of place fossils
1) According to uniformitarian theory, fossils should line up in the
column. Oldest toward the bottom and the youngest toward the
top.
2) Also, we should see the extinction of life forms in one era and
something else taking its place.
3) What we actually find is fossils that are out of place (not where they
should be according to the column).
4) We also see living fossils (those that were thought to be extinct, yet
now have been found alive). Some are the Coelacanth — Dates back
400 million years. Coelacanth fossils pre-date the dinosaurs by millions of years, and were thought to have gone extinct with them 65 million years ago until one was discovered alive in 1938. Ginkgo tree belongs to the family Ginkgoaceae which dates back 270 million years. They were unknown to Europeans until discovered in 1691 in temple gardens in Japan.
E) Paraconformity
1) A paraconformity occurs when two parallel layers from different
parts of the column lie one above the other, lacking the rock layers
that theoretically should lie between them.
2) A paraconformity exists when part of the geological column is
missing in the layers.
3) An example is the Ordovician and Silurian periods are missing in
the Grand Canyon but are found in sequence between the Cambrian
and Devonian in Wales.
4) Paraconformities challenge the geological timescale. The lack of time
at the surface of the underlying layer of a paraconformity, especially
the lack of erosion, suggest that the long ages never accurred.
(Ariel A. Roth; Implication of Paraconformities).
The Geologic Column seems to be only a mental abstraction. There are sufficient assumptions made in classifying fossils and rocks to justify questioning its legitimacy. There are also sufficient anomalies to show that the timescale is wrong and that the fossil order depicted in the Geologic Column is at best a local phenomenon. In short, the Geologic Column is found only in books and web-sites and does not really exist.
What is needed is a statistical study of fossil locations that does not involve the geologic column classification system, but is based only on the actual three dimensional location of fossils, latitude, longitude, and depth relative to sea level. Surface altitude above sea level should be included as well, as this would give a true picture of both local and global fossil distribution, not one based on a theoretical classification system.
In closing as Sean D. Pitman, M.D. said,
“ It seems then that the popular theories of geology and the formation of the geologic column may in fact have significant flaws that might be better explained by a relatively sudden global catastrophe or closely spaced series of very large catastrophes.”
Wednesday, May 11, 2011
A Moral Dilemma
A MORAL DILEMMA
You and five friends are on a hike in the mountains. One of your friends has an infant child with them. The child is only about 5 months old. You are busy taking in the sites and beauty when you realize that you are being tracked by a platoon of Al-Quada terrorists. You know for a fact that if they discover you and your party that they will kill each and every one of you without question.
Your friends begin to panic. You remain composed and led them to a cave on the side of the pathway you are trekking. You go deep into the cave in an attempt to avoid the group of terrorists. You know for a fact that the only way that you can remain alive is if everyone remains silent. You instruct everyone to do such.
As you lay in hiding, hoping that the terrorists will not discover you, The five month old infant begins to cry. The mother attempts to silence the infant but is unable to do so. As the infant increases in loudness you realize that this sound will, for a fact, lead the terrorists to your location and certain death.
WHAT DO YOU DO?
This was a dilemma that was asked of me several months ago. The person asking the question was an atheist. It was an attempt by them to trap me in this dilemma. They gave the following stipulations.
1) It is impossible to silence the infant.
2) If you are discovered, your friends and you will be killed.
3) You have only two choices that you can make.
A) You must kill the infant in order to save your friends lives and yours.
B) You do not kill the infant, it continues to cry, you are found and killed.
4) Which choice would you make.
I present this situation to you, just as I was. Remember, you can only make one of the two choices given you and you must decide. So, what would you do? Please give your reasons why you would do such.
Thank you
You and five friends are on a hike in the mountains. One of your friends has an infant child with them. The child is only about 5 months old. You are busy taking in the sites and beauty when you realize that you are being tracked by a platoon of Al-Quada terrorists. You know for a fact that if they discover you and your party that they will kill each and every one of you without question.
Your friends begin to panic. You remain composed and led them to a cave on the side of the pathway you are trekking. You go deep into the cave in an attempt to avoid the group of terrorists. You know for a fact that the only way that you can remain alive is if everyone remains silent. You instruct everyone to do such.
As you lay in hiding, hoping that the terrorists will not discover you, The five month old infant begins to cry. The mother attempts to silence the infant but is unable to do so. As the infant increases in loudness you realize that this sound will, for a fact, lead the terrorists to your location and certain death.
WHAT DO YOU DO?
This was a dilemma that was asked of me several months ago. The person asking the question was an atheist. It was an attempt by them to trap me in this dilemma. They gave the following stipulations.
1) It is impossible to silence the infant.
2) If you are discovered, your friends and you will be killed.
3) You have only two choices that you can make.
A) You must kill the infant in order to save your friends lives and yours.
B) You do not kill the infant, it continues to cry, you are found and killed.
4) Which choice would you make.
I present this situation to you, just as I was. Remember, you can only make one of the two choices given you and you must decide. So, what would you do? Please give your reasons why you would do such.
Thank you
Thursday, May 5, 2011
Something to consider
While browsing, I ran across this site. It seems to be written by an evolutionist. They are challenging the idea of design. As you can see from the article, Bad design indicates evolution, yet I have some questions.
Please read
http://library.thinkquest.org/C004367/article.shtml
The first question I wish to pose to this writer is in the claim about the human eye. Is it really poor design. Whenever I have been asked about the eye I simply ask them "Where do I sign up?". My eyes are going down the tubes since I have to now wear reading glasses, I would like a new perfect pair. It is obvious that those who question the design of the eye seem to think that they know what the perfect design for a replicating biological system, such as the eye, is. Since they know this I would be sure that they have demonstrated the perfect design and can produce it as with all other items that mankind has designed. It seems to me to be extremely arregant on the part of those who question the design of the eye. No one has ever been able to even design a self-replicating biological system in the lab. How do they know that the design of the eye is flawed?
The issue with vestigial organs shows that the writer has not done their homework. The appendix has been shown to be a vital part in human development. Here is a link that shows the value of the appendix
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v3/i1/appendix.asp
Look under functions of the human appendix.
As far as the homology of organisms, it can only be true if you arbitrarily define homology as relational meaning that they are of common decent. This is question begging at its best.
Please read
http://library.thinkquest.org/C004367/article.shtml
The first question I wish to pose to this writer is in the claim about the human eye. Is it really poor design. Whenever I have been asked about the eye I simply ask them "Where do I sign up?". My eyes are going down the tubes since I have to now wear reading glasses, I would like a new perfect pair. It is obvious that those who question the design of the eye seem to think that they know what the perfect design for a replicating biological system, such as the eye, is. Since they know this I would be sure that they have demonstrated the perfect design and can produce it as with all other items that mankind has designed. It seems to me to be extremely arregant on the part of those who question the design of the eye. No one has ever been able to even design a self-replicating biological system in the lab. How do they know that the design of the eye is flawed?
The issue with vestigial organs shows that the writer has not done their homework. The appendix has been shown to be a vital part in human development. Here is a link that shows the value of the appendix
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v3/i1/appendix.asp
Look under functions of the human appendix.
As far as the homology of organisms, it can only be true if you arbitrarily define homology as relational meaning that they are of common decent. This is question begging at its best.
Guidelines for supposed contradictions
Types of inspiration and guidelines for supposed contradictions
Introduction
1) Scriptures which indicate that the Bible is from God
A) II Samuel 23:2; Spirit spoke by men and His word was on there tongue
B) Acts 1:16; Spirit spoke by the mouth of men
C) I Cor. 2:12-13; The things spoken were in words taught by the Spirit
D) II Peter 1:20-21; Holy men spake as they were moved by the Spirit
E) II Timothy 3:16-17; All scripture given by the inspiration of God
2) We are not told exactly how this was accomplished
A) We can search in vain to identify a passage that explicitly tells us how
this process worked.
B) God simply has not spelled out the details on how His Spirit entered into the
Minds of the writers and how He worked with their hands as they wrote.
C) We must be content with these and other similar statements.
D) The point is that the work produced was God’s word, not man’s.
3) Many different ideas concerning inspiration
A) There are several different ideas concerning the inspiration of the Bible.
B) Different men believe in different levels of inspiration.
4) On the subject of contradictions that are claimed.
A) If the Bible is from God we would expect there to be no contradictions.
B) There are those who claim that the Bible does in fact have contradictions.
C) Therefore the Bible is the work of man and not God.
D) Can the Bible be defended in this regard? Yes it can, if we remember a few
Items that must be considered.
I) Inspiration
1) There are several ideas about inspiration
A) Universal (Naturalistic) Inspiration
1) This theory holds that the Bible is inspired only in the sense that the
writers and artists are “inspired” when they produce great works of
literature, music, or art.
2) This is the theory that men are inspired in the sense that they are
exceptionally talented, such as Shakespeare, Milton, Beethoven, etc..
3) This theory holds that the Bible is just like any book.
4) It holds that God just gave the authors an unusual ability to convey their
thoughts and that the Bible is a human book without any divine
guidance.
5) This is not really inspiration at all. It may be rightly called “natural
genius”, but not inspiration.
B) Reasons to reject
1) It makes liars of the writers who claimed that the source of their
writings were from God. If they were natural geniuses, then their
claims would, of necessity, be false. This would call into question
the whole theory. We do not attribute the characteristic of genius to
liars, coning, crafty, indignant, low, etc... but never as genius.
2) The biblical documents are vastly superior to the ablest productions of
men. This is conceded by all. The Bible Displays superior knowledge
in all aspects such as history, morality, objectivism, etc... then any other
book we have access to.
3) It leaves the unity of the Bible as an inexplicable mystery.
4) If the Bible was the result of natural genius, modern genius would
have made it obsolete, instead, the Bible still remains.
C) Thought (Dynamic of Concept) Inspiration
1) This view asserts that the “thoughts” of men are inspired, but not the
words.
2) In this view the important thing is that great spiritual truths be conveyed
to the reader, it really does not matter what words are used, or even
whether the words described events that actually occurred.
D) Reasons to reject this theory
1) The human authors may have understood only partially what God was
revealing to them, and in restating it in their own words they may have
interjected considerable error.
2) It is possible to convey precise thought and ideas only by using precise
words. If words are unimportant, then the thoughts, which come from
the words, are entirely subjective.
3) What good are infallible thoughts if they are channeled through fallible
words. One can no more have ideas without words that he can have a
tune without notes or a sum without figures.
4) Question, why do Biblical scholars do word studies yet deny that the
words are inspired? If the words are not inspired, then it really matters
not what there meaning.
5) There are volumes of books written to identify the true meaning of the
text. Yet we have non on Shakespear.
E) Neo-Orthodox Inspiration
1) While not necessarily denying that divine elements exist in the writing
of Scripture, this view holds that there are errors in the Bible and thus
the Bible cannot be taken literally as true.
2) This theory holds that God speaks through the Scriptures and uses them
as a means by which to communicate truth to us.
3) The Bible becomes a channel of divine revelation much as a beautiful
flower communicate the concept that God is the Creator.
4) The Bible under this theory becomes true only as it is comprehended
and truth is realized by the reader.
5) The history of this view demonstrates that no two advocates exactly
agree as to what the Bible actually teaches. This view leaves the
individual as the final authority concerning what is true and what is
false.
F) Reasons to reject
1) This theory is basically the same as partial inspiration in the fact that
it leaves the individual in charge.
2) With this view, we have no authority in spiritual matters.
3) This claim goes against what the Bible claims for itself and also puts
Christ in the hot seat (John 12:48).
G) Encounter Inspiration (Pietism)
1) This theory holds that the Bible is a vehicle of revelation but is not
itself a divine revelation. It becomes inspired when it inspires the
reader.
2) It may well be the medium through which a person encounters God
in an act of faith, but it is a human document, and as such it is subject
to human error throughout.
3) It is based upon the theory that individual feeling or experience is of the primary importance.
4) This seems to be an attempt at avoiding the cold orthodoxy of
Protestant Scholasticism (adherence to the Scriptures through study)
H) Reasons to reject
1) This theory opened the door to the dangerous enemy of subjective
experientialism (belief based upon experience and not on objective
truth).
2) One must have as much faith in the encounter as the Christian has in
the scriptures.
3) One generation will recall upon their individual experience to stablish
their faith and evangelize others. The next generation will stress the
need for individual experience without any Biblical authority to backup
their belief. The next generation in turn will question individual
experience since they have forsaken any doctrinal standard.
4) In turn, unanswered questions would demand some kind of authority.
5) When Scripture is neglected, human reason or subjective experience
fills the need as the required standard.
6) Scripture has now lost all of its authoritative power.
I) Dictation (Mechanical) Inspiration
1) This is the view that God used the authors as mechanical stenographers.
2) God dictated every word, every punctuation mark, every letter, etc...
3) The authors simply were tools that God used to put His words down on
paper.
J) Reasons to reject
1) If this theory is correct, then the style of the writings would be the same
throughout. Yet this is not what we find. A simple reading of the texts
shows the personality and style of each of the authors. This is fact. A
perfect example of this in the controversy over Mark 16:9-20 which
is questioned because it seems that the style is different from the rest of
the book.
2) In many instances the authors express their own fears and feelings, they
express their private prayers for God’s help, or in a host of other ways
interject their own personalities into the Divine record.
K) Verbal, Plenary Inspiration
1) This is the correct view. It holds that what men wrote was exactly
what God wanted them to write, without errors or mistakes, yet with
their own personalities in evidence in their writings.
2) “Verbal” means that every word in the Bible is there because God
permitted it by the direction of the Spirit.
3) “Plenary” means each and every part of the Bible is inspired, with
nothing having been omitted.
4) By employing this terminology, God ensured that the writings were
correct and consistent with His will.
5) This view holds that men wrote exactly what God wanted them to write,
without errors or mistakes, yet with their own individual characteristics
in evidence. While the books of the Bible reflect the writer’s
personalities as expressed in the human element that often is fo evident,
it was only by this process of inspiration that God could convey,
objectively and accurately, His word for mankind.
L) Reason to accept
1) Matt. 4:4, we are to leave by every word that proceeds out of the mouth
of God. In reciting these OT passages, Jesus employed the Greek
perfect tense of “It is written” which denotes completed action with
abiding results. Thus He declared that God’s words were written and
remain so.
2) Matt. 5:17-18; Jesus affirmed this view. A “jot” was the smallest Heb.
letter, and the “tittle” was the tiny projection on certain Heb. letters.
When He employed these specific terms as examples, He affirmed the
the minutest accuracy for the whole of the OT.
3) Matt. 22:23-33; Jesus in His discussion with the Sadducees about their
denial of the resurrection of the dead, He referred to Ex. 3:6 wherein
God sais to Moses: “I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac,
and the God of Jacob.” When God spoke these words, Abraham had
been dead for almost 400 years, yet He still said, “I am the God of
Abraham.” As Jesus correctly pointed out, “God is not the God of the
dead, but of the living” (Matt. 22:32). Thus, Abraham, Isaac, and
Jacob must have been living. The only way they could be living was if
their spirits continued to survive the death of their bodies. That kind
of conscious existence implies a future resurrection of the body, the
very point Jesus was making. Of interest is the fact that His entire
argument rested on the tense of a single verb.
4) The same kind of reliance upon a single word is expressed by Paul
in Gal. 3:16. The force of his argument rests upon the number of
the noun (singular, as opposed to plural).
5) In John 8:58, Jesus, in attempting to impress upon the Jews His
eternal nature, He once again based His argument on the tense of
a single verb.
II) Supposed Contradictions Guidelines
1) If the Bible is from God then it cannot be in error
A) God cannot error; Heb. 6:18, Titus 1:2, God cannot lie
B) God is truth; John 14:6
C) God is faithful; II Timothy 2:13
2) If the Bible is from God and it is inspired verbally and plenary inspired, yet has errors
then something is amiss. Either God is not what He says He is, or the Bible is not
what it claims to be.
3) The Bible is without mistake, but the critics are not. All their allegations of errors in
the Bible are based on some error of their own. Their errors fall into one of the
following categories.
4)Mistake # 1: Assuming that the unexplained is not explainable
A) No informed person can make the claim to be able to fully explain all of
the supposed contradictions in the Bible.
B) Yet, it is a mistake for the critic to assume that what has not been explained
will never be explained.
C) A perfect example of this is the work of the scientist. When they come across
an anomaly in nature, they do not throw up their hands and give up on further
investigation. The unexplained is their motivation in investigating the
matter further.
5) Mistake #2: Presuming the Bible guilty until proven innocent
A) Many critics assume the Bible to be in error until something proves it right,
B) Like any American citizen charged with an offence, The Bible should be
presumed innocent until proven guilty. This is how we approach all human
communications. If we did not, life would not be possible.
1) If we assume traffic signs to be in error, we would probably be dead
before we proved them right.
2) If we assume food labels to be in error until proven right, we would
have to open every can and package before buying them.
3) We base our acceptance of the truth of traffic signs and food labels
faith. Faith is simply the belief in the veracity of the testimony
given. We believe, in faith, that traffic signs are correct because
others have done the leg work. We believe, in faith, that the food
labels are correct because the manufacturer has given their
testimony as to the truthfulness of the label.
4) The same is true with the Bible.
C) The Bible, like any other book, should be presumed to be telling us what
the authors said and heard. Negative critics of the Bible begin with just the
opposite presumption.
6) Mistake #3: Confusing our fallible interpretation with God’s infallible revelation
A) Humans are fallible beings and therefore make mistakes. This is why there
are such things as pencil erasers, correction fluid, and a delete key.
B) God is infallible, therefore it is without mistake (mistake #2)
C) As long as fallible humans exist, there will be misinterpretation of the Bible.
D) In view of this, we should not be hasty in assuming that a currently held
dominant view in science is the final word on the topic. Prevailing views
of science in the past are considered errors by the scientists of today.
E) This is self evident.
7) Mistake #4: Failing to understand the context of the passage
A) This is the most common mistake that happens. A person takes a text out
of context. A text out of context is pretext. The idea is to not find the
truth, but to try to assert the preconceived idea that the Bible is mistaken.
They have come to the Bible with the dogmatic notion that it is false.
Therefore, they make this common mistake.
B) This type of mistake also happens to those who believe in the Bible. They
to have a preconceived idea and try to interpret the scriptures based upon
their preconceived idea.
C) Example: Matt. 5:20-26 and Matt. 23:13-36
1) In Matt. 5 we have stating that one who calls his brother a fool shall
be in danger of hell (Gehenna) fire.
2) In chapter 23 we have Jesus himself calling those scribes fools.
3) Seems to be a contradiction. Those who are critical of the Bible state
that this is a clear contradiction since those in the eternal Gehenna
are those who have sinned and suffered the judgement of God. As
we know from Heb. 4:15 that Jesus did no sin, therefore He is not in
danger of the eternal Gehenna.
4) Some state that Matt. 5 indicates that we can never call someone a
fool. If we do then we are also in danger of the eternal Gehenna.
The answer to Matt. 23 that is given is that Jesus, being God, could
call people fools and not be in danger. Yet there is no scriptural
support for this claim.
5) The answer is in the context of the two passages. In Matt. 5 the context
is in calling someone a fool from the emotion of anger without cause
(Matt. 5:22), this would be an unrighteous use of the word. In Matt. 23,
Jesus is condemning those that sit in the seat of Moses and that they
abuse this power for their own glory (Matt. 23:1-12). Jesus had a cause
that cause was the fact that they did not the things that they required
of the people.
D) The teaching is in the fact that if we call someone a fool out of anger without
a cause, we are in danger and need to repent and ask for God’s forgiveness. Yet
we are at liberty to call someone a fool if we have just cause (PS. 14:1).
8) Mistake #5: Neglecting to interpret difficult passages in the light of clearer ones
A) Some passages are hard to understand. Sometimes the difficulty is due to
obscurity. At other times, it is because passages appear to be teaching
something contrary to what some other passage is clearly teaching.
B) Example
1) I John 1:8; “If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves,
and the truth is not in us.
2) I John 3:9; “Whosoever is born of God doth not sin; for his seed
remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.”
C) This would seem to be contradictory in nature.
D) Explanation
1) John is writing to Christians I John 1:1-3
2) John states that Christians have sin in verse #8
3) Yet in verse 9, he declares that the Christian doth not sin.
4) Verse 9 seems to be the difficult one. Yet if we remember context
we can come to an answer.
5) To help we have to look at verse #7, “But if we walk in the light as He
is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of
Jesus Christ his son cleanseth us from all sin.”
6) The meaning is that the child of God does not continually practice
sin. This is what is meant by walking in the light. The child of God
continually works their life to follow Christ. The sinner does no
such thing.
7) If a pig and a lamb fall into the mud, the pig wants to stay there, but
the lamb wants to get out. Both a Christian and a nonchristian can
fall into sin, but the Christian cannot stay in it and feel comfortable.
9) Mistake #6: Basing a teaching on an obscure passage.
A) Some passages are difficult because their meanings are obscure. This is
usually because a key word is used only once or very rarely so that it is
difficult to know what the author is saying, unless it can be inferred from
the context.
B) Matt. 6:11; “Give us this day our daily bread.”
1) The word in question is the one translated “daily”
2) Experts in Greek still have not come to any agreement either on
its origin, or on its precise meaning.
3) Some of the suggestions are as follows
a) Give us this day our continuos bread
b) Give us this day our supersubstantial bread (indicating
supernatural).
c) Give us this day bread for our sustenance.
d) Give us this day our daily (what we need for today) bread.
4) Each has its defenders, and each one is a possibility based on the
limited information available.
5) There does not seem to be any compelling reason to depart from
what has become the generally accepted translation, but this
example does serve to illustrate the point.
C) When we are unsure, several things must be kept in mind.
1) We should never build a doctrine on an obscure passage. The old
saying goes ‘ The main things are the plain things’. If something
is important, it will be clearly taught in scripture, and in more than
one place.
2) When a passage is not clear, we should never conclude that it means
something that is opposed to another plain teaching.
10) Mistake #7; Forgetting that the Bible is a human book with human characteristics
A) Remember that scripture is not dictation.
B) The writers had their own unique styles.
C) It manifests human perspectives
1) David wrote from a shepherd’s. Psalm 23
2) Kings wrote from a prophetic vantage.
3) Chronicles from a priestly standpoint
D) It contains human interests
1) Hosea possessed a rural interest
2) Luke a medical interest
3) James a love of nature
E) Forgetting the humanity of scripture can lead to falsely impugning its integrity
by expecting a level of expression higher than that which is customary to a
human document.
11) Mistake #8; Assuming that a partial report is a false report
A) Critics often jump to the conclusion that a partial report is false.
B) However, this is not so. If it were, most of what has ever been written
would be false, since seldom does time or space allow a complete
report.
C) On occasions, the Bible expresses the same thing in different ways, or
at least from different viewpoints, at different times.
D) Hence, inspiration does not exclude a diversity of expression. The four
gospels relate the same story in different ways to different people, and
sometimes even quote the same saying with different words.
1) Matt. 16:16; “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.”
2) Mark 8:29; “Thou art the Christ”
3) Like 9:20; “The Christ of God”
E) The 10 commandments that were written with the finger of God are
stated with variation. (Ex. 20:8-11; Deut. 5:12-15)
12) Mistake #9; Demanding that NT citations of the OT always be exact
A) Critics often point to variation in the NT’s use of the OT passages
as a proof of error.
B) Variations in the NT citation of the OT fall into different categories
1) Change of speaker
a) Zech. 12:10; “and they shall look upon ME whom they
have pierced,”
b) John 19:37; “They shall look on HIM whom the pierced.”
c) The difference is simple. In Zech. It is the Lord who is
speaking. This can be determined by the use of the word
I which is used in the preceding verses describing what
God will do. In John it is john who is talking.
2) Other times writers only cite part of the OT text.
a) Jesus quotes Isa. 61:1-2 in Luke 4:18-19 yet He stopped
in the middle of the sentence.
b) Had He gone any further, He could not have said what He
said in verse 21 of Luke “This day is this scripture fulfilled
in your ears.” For the very next phrase from Isaiah “the day
of vengeance of our God,” which refers to His second coming.
3) Sometimes the NT paraphrases of summarizes the OT
a) Matt. 2:6; Micah 5:2
b) Matt. Said Jesus moved to Nazareth “that it might be fulfilled
which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a
Nazarene.” Notice, Matt. Quotes no given prophet, but rather
“prophets” in general. It is futile to insist on a specific OT text
where this could be found.
13) Mistake #10; Assuming that divergent accounts are false ones
A) Just because two or more accounts of the same event differ, it does not
mean that they are in error.
1) Matt. 28:5;”And the angel answered and said unto the women,”
2) John 20:12; “And seeth two angels in white sitting,”
B) These are not contradictory reports. In fact, where there is two there is
always one.
C) Matt. did not say there was ONLY one angel. One has to add the word
“only” to Matt.’s account to make it contradict John’s.
14) Mistake #11; Presuming that the Bible approves of all it records
A) It is a mistake to assume that everything contained in the Bible is
commanded by the Bible.
B) The whole Bible is true (John 17:17)
C) It records some lies (Gen 3:4; John 8:44)
D) Inspiration encompasses the Bible fully and completely in the sense
that it records accurately and truthfully even the lies and errors of sinful
beings.
E) The truth of scripture is found in what the Bible REVEALS, not in everything
it records.
F) Unless this distinction is held, it may be incorrectly concluded that the Bible
teaches immorality because it narrates David’s sin (II Sam. 11:4), that it
promotes polygamy because it records Solomon’s (I Kings 11:3), or that it
affirms atheism because it quotes the fool saying “there is no God” (Ps. 14:1)
15) Mistake #12; Assuming that round numbers are false
A) Another mistake made by the critics is claiming that round numbers as
false.
B) This is not so, round numbers are just that, round numbers.
C) We should not expect for a prescientific age people to use today’s precise
measurements. In fact, this is never put forth of any other ancient work.
16) Mistake #13; Neglecting to note that the Bible uses different literary devices.
A) The bible reveals a number of literary devices.
1) Several books are written in poetic form (Job, Psalms, Proverbs)
2) The Gospels are filled with parables
3) In Gal. 4, Paul utilizes an allegory
4) The NT abounds with metaphors (II Cor. 3:2-3; James 3:6)
5) It uses similes (Matt. 20:1; James 1:6)
6) It uses hyperboles (Col. 1:23; John 21:25)
7) Satire (Matt. 19:24 with 23:24)
B) It is not a mistake for the Bible to use a figure of speech, but it is a
mistake for a reader to take a figure of speech literally.
17) Mistake #14; Forgetting that only the original text, not every copy is without error
A) When critics do come upon a genuine mistake in a manuscript copy,
make another fatal error, they assume it was in the original inspired text.
B) They often forget that God only uttered the original text of the Bible and not
the copies.
C) Example
1) II Kings 8:26; “Two and twenty two years old was Ahaziah,”
2) II Chron. 22:2; “Rory and two years old was Ahazial,”
3) The later number cannot be correct, or he would have been older than
his father. This is obviously a copyist error.
D) Several things need to be observed about copyist errors
1) They are errors in the copies, not the originals
2) They are minor errors which do not effect any doctrine of the faith.
3) The errors are relatively few in number.
4) Usually by the context, or by another scripture, we know which one
is in error.
18) Mistake # 15; Confusing general statements with universal ones
A) Critics often jump to the conclusion that unqualified statements admit of
no exceptions. They seize upon verses that offer general truths and then point
with glee to obvious exceptions. In doing so, they forget that such statements
are only intended to be generalizations.
B) Proverbs 16:7; “When a man’s ways please the Lord, he maketh even his
enemies to be at peace with him.” It affirms that when a man’s ways please
the Lord, He makes even his enemies to be at peace with him. This
obviously was not intended to be a universal truth. Paul was pleasing to
the Lord and his enemies stoned him (Acts 14:19). Jesus was pleasing to
the Lord yet His enemies crucified Him. Nonetheless, it is a general truth
that one who acts in a way pleasing to God can minimize his enemies’
antagonism.
III) Conclusion
1) Many people for many years have studied this aspect of the Bible. One can only
conclude that those who think they have discovered a mistake in the Bible do not
know too much about the Bible, they know too little.
2) This does not mean that we understand all the difficulties in the Bible
3) Will we ever, maybe, yet to date every difficulty that has been addressed by the
critic has been dealt with in a satisfactory manner. The Bible has come out on
top.
A) This, of course, does not mean that the critic will accept the conclusion that
given.
B) Remember that they are searching for something, anything, to show the Bible
to be false.
4) One other thing to remember. When confronted by someone that states that there are
contradictions in the Bible, simply ask them to show you one. 9 times out of 10, they
will not be able to because they personally have not seen one. They have only heard
that there are.
Introduction
1) Scriptures which indicate that the Bible is from God
A) II Samuel 23:2; Spirit spoke by men and His word was on there tongue
B) Acts 1:16; Spirit spoke by the mouth of men
C) I Cor. 2:12-13; The things spoken were in words taught by the Spirit
D) II Peter 1:20-21; Holy men spake as they were moved by the Spirit
E) II Timothy 3:16-17; All scripture given by the inspiration of God
2) We are not told exactly how this was accomplished
A) We can search in vain to identify a passage that explicitly tells us how
this process worked.
B) God simply has not spelled out the details on how His Spirit entered into the
Minds of the writers and how He worked with their hands as they wrote.
C) We must be content with these and other similar statements.
D) The point is that the work produced was God’s word, not man’s.
3) Many different ideas concerning inspiration
A) There are several different ideas concerning the inspiration of the Bible.
B) Different men believe in different levels of inspiration.
4) On the subject of contradictions that are claimed.
A) If the Bible is from God we would expect there to be no contradictions.
B) There are those who claim that the Bible does in fact have contradictions.
C) Therefore the Bible is the work of man and not God.
D) Can the Bible be defended in this regard? Yes it can, if we remember a few
Items that must be considered.
I) Inspiration
1) There are several ideas about inspiration
A) Universal (Naturalistic) Inspiration
1) This theory holds that the Bible is inspired only in the sense that the
writers and artists are “inspired” when they produce great works of
literature, music, or art.
2) This is the theory that men are inspired in the sense that they are
exceptionally talented, such as Shakespeare, Milton, Beethoven, etc..
3) This theory holds that the Bible is just like any book.
4) It holds that God just gave the authors an unusual ability to convey their
thoughts and that the Bible is a human book without any divine
guidance.
5) This is not really inspiration at all. It may be rightly called “natural
genius”, but not inspiration.
B) Reasons to reject
1) It makes liars of the writers who claimed that the source of their
writings were from God. If they were natural geniuses, then their
claims would, of necessity, be false. This would call into question
the whole theory. We do not attribute the characteristic of genius to
liars, coning, crafty, indignant, low, etc... but never as genius.
2) The biblical documents are vastly superior to the ablest productions of
men. This is conceded by all. The Bible Displays superior knowledge
in all aspects such as history, morality, objectivism, etc... then any other
book we have access to.
3) It leaves the unity of the Bible as an inexplicable mystery.
4) If the Bible was the result of natural genius, modern genius would
have made it obsolete, instead, the Bible still remains.
C) Thought (Dynamic of Concept) Inspiration
1) This view asserts that the “thoughts” of men are inspired, but not the
words.
2) In this view the important thing is that great spiritual truths be conveyed
to the reader, it really does not matter what words are used, or even
whether the words described events that actually occurred.
D) Reasons to reject this theory
1) The human authors may have understood only partially what God was
revealing to them, and in restating it in their own words they may have
interjected considerable error.
2) It is possible to convey precise thought and ideas only by using precise
words. If words are unimportant, then the thoughts, which come from
the words, are entirely subjective.
3) What good are infallible thoughts if they are channeled through fallible
words. One can no more have ideas without words that he can have a
tune without notes or a sum without figures.
4) Question, why do Biblical scholars do word studies yet deny that the
words are inspired? If the words are not inspired, then it really matters
not what there meaning.
5) There are volumes of books written to identify the true meaning of the
text. Yet we have non on Shakespear.
E) Neo-Orthodox Inspiration
1) While not necessarily denying that divine elements exist in the writing
of Scripture, this view holds that there are errors in the Bible and thus
the Bible cannot be taken literally as true.
2) This theory holds that God speaks through the Scriptures and uses them
as a means by which to communicate truth to us.
3) The Bible becomes a channel of divine revelation much as a beautiful
flower communicate the concept that God is the Creator.
4) The Bible under this theory becomes true only as it is comprehended
and truth is realized by the reader.
5) The history of this view demonstrates that no two advocates exactly
agree as to what the Bible actually teaches. This view leaves the
individual as the final authority concerning what is true and what is
false.
F) Reasons to reject
1) This theory is basically the same as partial inspiration in the fact that
it leaves the individual in charge.
2) With this view, we have no authority in spiritual matters.
3) This claim goes against what the Bible claims for itself and also puts
Christ in the hot seat (John 12:48).
G) Encounter Inspiration (Pietism)
1) This theory holds that the Bible is a vehicle of revelation but is not
itself a divine revelation. It becomes inspired when it inspires the
reader.
2) It may well be the medium through which a person encounters God
in an act of faith, but it is a human document, and as such it is subject
to human error throughout.
3) It is based upon the theory that individual feeling or experience is of the primary importance.
4) This seems to be an attempt at avoiding the cold orthodoxy of
Protestant Scholasticism (adherence to the Scriptures through study)
H) Reasons to reject
1) This theory opened the door to the dangerous enemy of subjective
experientialism (belief based upon experience and not on objective
truth).
2) One must have as much faith in the encounter as the Christian has in
the scriptures.
3) One generation will recall upon their individual experience to stablish
their faith and evangelize others. The next generation will stress the
need for individual experience without any Biblical authority to backup
their belief. The next generation in turn will question individual
experience since they have forsaken any doctrinal standard.
4) In turn, unanswered questions would demand some kind of authority.
5) When Scripture is neglected, human reason or subjective experience
fills the need as the required standard.
6) Scripture has now lost all of its authoritative power.
I) Dictation (Mechanical) Inspiration
1) This is the view that God used the authors as mechanical stenographers.
2) God dictated every word, every punctuation mark, every letter, etc...
3) The authors simply were tools that God used to put His words down on
paper.
J) Reasons to reject
1) If this theory is correct, then the style of the writings would be the same
throughout. Yet this is not what we find. A simple reading of the texts
shows the personality and style of each of the authors. This is fact. A
perfect example of this in the controversy over Mark 16:9-20 which
is questioned because it seems that the style is different from the rest of
the book.
2) In many instances the authors express their own fears and feelings, they
express their private prayers for God’s help, or in a host of other ways
interject their own personalities into the Divine record.
K) Verbal, Plenary Inspiration
1) This is the correct view. It holds that what men wrote was exactly
what God wanted them to write, without errors or mistakes, yet with
their own personalities in evidence in their writings.
2) “Verbal” means that every word in the Bible is there because God
permitted it by the direction of the Spirit.
3) “Plenary” means each and every part of the Bible is inspired, with
nothing having been omitted.
4) By employing this terminology, God ensured that the writings were
correct and consistent with His will.
5) This view holds that men wrote exactly what God wanted them to write,
without errors or mistakes, yet with their own individual characteristics
in evidence. While the books of the Bible reflect the writer’s
personalities as expressed in the human element that often is fo evident,
it was only by this process of inspiration that God could convey,
objectively and accurately, His word for mankind.
L) Reason to accept
1) Matt. 4:4, we are to leave by every word that proceeds out of the mouth
of God. In reciting these OT passages, Jesus employed the Greek
perfect tense of “It is written” which denotes completed action with
abiding results. Thus He declared that God’s words were written and
remain so.
2) Matt. 5:17-18; Jesus affirmed this view. A “jot” was the smallest Heb.
letter, and the “tittle” was the tiny projection on certain Heb. letters.
When He employed these specific terms as examples, He affirmed the
the minutest accuracy for the whole of the OT.
3) Matt. 22:23-33; Jesus in His discussion with the Sadducees about their
denial of the resurrection of the dead, He referred to Ex. 3:6 wherein
God sais to Moses: “I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac,
and the God of Jacob.” When God spoke these words, Abraham had
been dead for almost 400 years, yet He still said, “I am the God of
Abraham.” As Jesus correctly pointed out, “God is not the God of the
dead, but of the living” (Matt. 22:32). Thus, Abraham, Isaac, and
Jacob must have been living. The only way they could be living was if
their spirits continued to survive the death of their bodies. That kind
of conscious existence implies a future resurrection of the body, the
very point Jesus was making. Of interest is the fact that His entire
argument rested on the tense of a single verb.
4) The same kind of reliance upon a single word is expressed by Paul
in Gal. 3:16. The force of his argument rests upon the number of
the noun (singular, as opposed to plural).
5) In John 8:58, Jesus, in attempting to impress upon the Jews His
eternal nature, He once again based His argument on the tense of
a single verb.
II) Supposed Contradictions Guidelines
1) If the Bible is from God then it cannot be in error
A) God cannot error; Heb. 6:18, Titus 1:2, God cannot lie
B) God is truth; John 14:6
C) God is faithful; II Timothy 2:13
2) If the Bible is from God and it is inspired verbally and plenary inspired, yet has errors
then something is amiss. Either God is not what He says He is, or the Bible is not
what it claims to be.
3) The Bible is without mistake, but the critics are not. All their allegations of errors in
the Bible are based on some error of their own. Their errors fall into one of the
following categories.
4)Mistake # 1: Assuming that the unexplained is not explainable
A) No informed person can make the claim to be able to fully explain all of
the supposed contradictions in the Bible.
B) Yet, it is a mistake for the critic to assume that what has not been explained
will never be explained.
C) A perfect example of this is the work of the scientist. When they come across
an anomaly in nature, they do not throw up their hands and give up on further
investigation. The unexplained is their motivation in investigating the
matter further.
5) Mistake #2: Presuming the Bible guilty until proven innocent
A) Many critics assume the Bible to be in error until something proves it right,
B) Like any American citizen charged with an offence, The Bible should be
presumed innocent until proven guilty. This is how we approach all human
communications. If we did not, life would not be possible.
1) If we assume traffic signs to be in error, we would probably be dead
before we proved them right.
2) If we assume food labels to be in error until proven right, we would
have to open every can and package before buying them.
3) We base our acceptance of the truth of traffic signs and food labels
faith. Faith is simply the belief in the veracity of the testimony
given. We believe, in faith, that traffic signs are correct because
others have done the leg work. We believe, in faith, that the food
labels are correct because the manufacturer has given their
testimony as to the truthfulness of the label.
4) The same is true with the Bible.
C) The Bible, like any other book, should be presumed to be telling us what
the authors said and heard. Negative critics of the Bible begin with just the
opposite presumption.
6) Mistake #3: Confusing our fallible interpretation with God’s infallible revelation
A) Humans are fallible beings and therefore make mistakes. This is why there
are such things as pencil erasers, correction fluid, and a delete key.
B) God is infallible, therefore it is without mistake (mistake #2)
C) As long as fallible humans exist, there will be misinterpretation of the Bible.
D) In view of this, we should not be hasty in assuming that a currently held
dominant view in science is the final word on the topic. Prevailing views
of science in the past are considered errors by the scientists of today.
E) This is self evident.
7) Mistake #4: Failing to understand the context of the passage
A) This is the most common mistake that happens. A person takes a text out
of context. A text out of context is pretext. The idea is to not find the
truth, but to try to assert the preconceived idea that the Bible is mistaken.
They have come to the Bible with the dogmatic notion that it is false.
Therefore, they make this common mistake.
B) This type of mistake also happens to those who believe in the Bible. They
to have a preconceived idea and try to interpret the scriptures based upon
their preconceived idea.
C) Example: Matt. 5:20-26 and Matt. 23:13-36
1) In Matt. 5 we have stating that one who calls his brother a fool shall
be in danger of hell (Gehenna) fire.
2) In chapter 23 we have Jesus himself calling those scribes fools.
3) Seems to be a contradiction. Those who are critical of the Bible state
that this is a clear contradiction since those in the eternal Gehenna
are those who have sinned and suffered the judgement of God. As
we know from Heb. 4:15 that Jesus did no sin, therefore He is not in
danger of the eternal Gehenna.
4) Some state that Matt. 5 indicates that we can never call someone a
fool. If we do then we are also in danger of the eternal Gehenna.
The answer to Matt. 23 that is given is that Jesus, being God, could
call people fools and not be in danger. Yet there is no scriptural
support for this claim.
5) The answer is in the context of the two passages. In Matt. 5 the context
is in calling someone a fool from the emotion of anger without cause
(Matt. 5:22), this would be an unrighteous use of the word. In Matt. 23,
Jesus is condemning those that sit in the seat of Moses and that they
abuse this power for their own glory (Matt. 23:1-12). Jesus had a cause
that cause was the fact that they did not the things that they required
of the people.
D) The teaching is in the fact that if we call someone a fool out of anger without
a cause, we are in danger and need to repent and ask for God’s forgiveness. Yet
we are at liberty to call someone a fool if we have just cause (PS. 14:1).
8) Mistake #5: Neglecting to interpret difficult passages in the light of clearer ones
A) Some passages are hard to understand. Sometimes the difficulty is due to
obscurity. At other times, it is because passages appear to be teaching
something contrary to what some other passage is clearly teaching.
B) Example
1) I John 1:8; “If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves,
and the truth is not in us.
2) I John 3:9; “Whosoever is born of God doth not sin; for his seed
remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.”
C) This would seem to be contradictory in nature.
D) Explanation
1) John is writing to Christians I John 1:1-3
2) John states that Christians have sin in verse #8
3) Yet in verse 9, he declares that the Christian doth not sin.
4) Verse 9 seems to be the difficult one. Yet if we remember context
we can come to an answer.
5) To help we have to look at verse #7, “But if we walk in the light as He
is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of
Jesus Christ his son cleanseth us from all sin.”
6) The meaning is that the child of God does not continually practice
sin. This is what is meant by walking in the light. The child of God
continually works their life to follow Christ. The sinner does no
such thing.
7) If a pig and a lamb fall into the mud, the pig wants to stay there, but
the lamb wants to get out. Both a Christian and a nonchristian can
fall into sin, but the Christian cannot stay in it and feel comfortable.
9) Mistake #6: Basing a teaching on an obscure passage.
A) Some passages are difficult because their meanings are obscure. This is
usually because a key word is used only once or very rarely so that it is
difficult to know what the author is saying, unless it can be inferred from
the context.
B) Matt. 6:11; “Give us this day our daily bread.”
1) The word in question is the one translated “daily”
2) Experts in Greek still have not come to any agreement either on
its origin, or on its precise meaning.
3) Some of the suggestions are as follows
a) Give us this day our continuos bread
b) Give us this day our supersubstantial bread (indicating
supernatural).
c) Give us this day bread for our sustenance.
d) Give us this day our daily (what we need for today) bread.
4) Each has its defenders, and each one is a possibility based on the
limited information available.
5) There does not seem to be any compelling reason to depart from
what has become the generally accepted translation, but this
example does serve to illustrate the point.
C) When we are unsure, several things must be kept in mind.
1) We should never build a doctrine on an obscure passage. The old
saying goes ‘ The main things are the plain things’. If something
is important, it will be clearly taught in scripture, and in more than
one place.
2) When a passage is not clear, we should never conclude that it means
something that is opposed to another plain teaching.
10) Mistake #7; Forgetting that the Bible is a human book with human characteristics
A) Remember that scripture is not dictation.
B) The writers had their own unique styles.
C) It manifests human perspectives
1) David wrote from a shepherd’s. Psalm 23
2) Kings wrote from a prophetic vantage.
3) Chronicles from a priestly standpoint
D) It contains human interests
1) Hosea possessed a rural interest
2) Luke a medical interest
3) James a love of nature
E) Forgetting the humanity of scripture can lead to falsely impugning its integrity
by expecting a level of expression higher than that which is customary to a
human document.
11) Mistake #8; Assuming that a partial report is a false report
A) Critics often jump to the conclusion that a partial report is false.
B) However, this is not so. If it were, most of what has ever been written
would be false, since seldom does time or space allow a complete
report.
C) On occasions, the Bible expresses the same thing in different ways, or
at least from different viewpoints, at different times.
D) Hence, inspiration does not exclude a diversity of expression. The four
gospels relate the same story in different ways to different people, and
sometimes even quote the same saying with different words.
1) Matt. 16:16; “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.”
2) Mark 8:29; “Thou art the Christ”
3) Like 9:20; “The Christ of God”
E) The 10 commandments that were written with the finger of God are
stated with variation. (Ex. 20:8-11; Deut. 5:12-15)
12) Mistake #9; Demanding that NT citations of the OT always be exact
A) Critics often point to variation in the NT’s use of the OT passages
as a proof of error.
B) Variations in the NT citation of the OT fall into different categories
1) Change of speaker
a) Zech. 12:10; “and they shall look upon ME whom they
have pierced,”
b) John 19:37; “They shall look on HIM whom the pierced.”
c) The difference is simple. In Zech. It is the Lord who is
speaking. This can be determined by the use of the word
I which is used in the preceding verses describing what
God will do. In John it is john who is talking.
2) Other times writers only cite part of the OT text.
a) Jesus quotes Isa. 61:1-2 in Luke 4:18-19 yet He stopped
in the middle of the sentence.
b) Had He gone any further, He could not have said what He
said in verse 21 of Luke “This day is this scripture fulfilled
in your ears.” For the very next phrase from Isaiah “the day
of vengeance of our God,” which refers to His second coming.
3) Sometimes the NT paraphrases of summarizes the OT
a) Matt. 2:6; Micah 5:2
b) Matt. Said Jesus moved to Nazareth “that it might be fulfilled
which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a
Nazarene.” Notice, Matt. Quotes no given prophet, but rather
“prophets” in general. It is futile to insist on a specific OT text
where this could be found.
13) Mistake #10; Assuming that divergent accounts are false ones
A) Just because two or more accounts of the same event differ, it does not
mean that they are in error.
1) Matt. 28:5;”And the angel answered and said unto the women,”
2) John 20:12; “And seeth two angels in white sitting,”
B) These are not contradictory reports. In fact, where there is two there is
always one.
C) Matt. did not say there was ONLY one angel. One has to add the word
“only” to Matt.’s account to make it contradict John’s.
14) Mistake #11; Presuming that the Bible approves of all it records
A) It is a mistake to assume that everything contained in the Bible is
commanded by the Bible.
B) The whole Bible is true (John 17:17)
C) It records some lies (Gen 3:4; John 8:44)
D) Inspiration encompasses the Bible fully and completely in the sense
that it records accurately and truthfully even the lies and errors of sinful
beings.
E) The truth of scripture is found in what the Bible REVEALS, not in everything
it records.
F) Unless this distinction is held, it may be incorrectly concluded that the Bible
teaches immorality because it narrates David’s sin (II Sam. 11:4), that it
promotes polygamy because it records Solomon’s (I Kings 11:3), or that it
affirms atheism because it quotes the fool saying “there is no God” (Ps. 14:1)
15) Mistake #12; Assuming that round numbers are false
A) Another mistake made by the critics is claiming that round numbers as
false.
B) This is not so, round numbers are just that, round numbers.
C) We should not expect for a prescientific age people to use today’s precise
measurements. In fact, this is never put forth of any other ancient work.
16) Mistake #13; Neglecting to note that the Bible uses different literary devices.
A) The bible reveals a number of literary devices.
1) Several books are written in poetic form (Job, Psalms, Proverbs)
2) The Gospels are filled with parables
3) In Gal. 4, Paul utilizes an allegory
4) The NT abounds with metaphors (II Cor. 3:2-3; James 3:6)
5) It uses similes (Matt. 20:1; James 1:6)
6) It uses hyperboles (Col. 1:23; John 21:25)
7) Satire (Matt. 19:24 with 23:24)
B) It is not a mistake for the Bible to use a figure of speech, but it is a
mistake for a reader to take a figure of speech literally.
17) Mistake #14; Forgetting that only the original text, not every copy is without error
A) When critics do come upon a genuine mistake in a manuscript copy,
make another fatal error, they assume it was in the original inspired text.
B) They often forget that God only uttered the original text of the Bible and not
the copies.
C) Example
1) II Kings 8:26; “Two and twenty two years old was Ahaziah,”
2) II Chron. 22:2; “Rory and two years old was Ahazial,”
3) The later number cannot be correct, or he would have been older than
his father. This is obviously a copyist error.
D) Several things need to be observed about copyist errors
1) They are errors in the copies, not the originals
2) They are minor errors which do not effect any doctrine of the faith.
3) The errors are relatively few in number.
4) Usually by the context, or by another scripture, we know which one
is in error.
18) Mistake # 15; Confusing general statements with universal ones
A) Critics often jump to the conclusion that unqualified statements admit of
no exceptions. They seize upon verses that offer general truths and then point
with glee to obvious exceptions. In doing so, they forget that such statements
are only intended to be generalizations.
B) Proverbs 16:7; “When a man’s ways please the Lord, he maketh even his
enemies to be at peace with him.” It affirms that when a man’s ways please
the Lord, He makes even his enemies to be at peace with him. This
obviously was not intended to be a universal truth. Paul was pleasing to
the Lord and his enemies stoned him (Acts 14:19). Jesus was pleasing to
the Lord yet His enemies crucified Him. Nonetheless, it is a general truth
that one who acts in a way pleasing to God can minimize his enemies’
antagonism.
III) Conclusion
1) Many people for many years have studied this aspect of the Bible. One can only
conclude that those who think they have discovered a mistake in the Bible do not
know too much about the Bible, they know too little.
2) This does not mean that we understand all the difficulties in the Bible
3) Will we ever, maybe, yet to date every difficulty that has been addressed by the
critic has been dealt with in a satisfactory manner. The Bible has come out on
top.
A) This, of course, does not mean that the critic will accept the conclusion that
given.
B) Remember that they are searching for something, anything, to show the Bible
to be false.
4) One other thing to remember. When confronted by someone that states that there are
contradictions in the Bible, simply ask them to show you one. 9 times out of 10, they
will not be able to because they personally have not seen one. They have only heard
that there are.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)