Debunking Steve Anderson About The Contradictions Between The NIV and KJV

It has come to my attention in recent years that there is a small group of Christians in the world that believes that the King James Version (KJV) of the Bible is the only legitimate English translation of the Bible, and that all other English translations are nothing more than tools that Satan uses to lead people away from God.  As a consequence, people who believe such nonsense will accuse people like me of not being true believers simply because the NIV Bible is my primary Bible, regardless of the fact that I come to the same conclusions and beliefs that they do regarding the Biblical worldview.

In this blog post, I will be looking at and analyzing Steve Anderson and the supposed contradictions between the KJV and the NIV that he brings up, and I will show that his objections has almost no basis in reality.  I will also look at a "problem" verse that the KJV might be wrong on.

Before I proceed, I want to make it clear that I don't see KJV-only Christians as some sort of enemy.  I consider them brethren because for the most part, they believe the same things about God, Jesus, and the Bible that I do; I just think they're incorrect in asserting that the KJV of the Bible is the only legitimate English translation.

Steve Anderson

Steve Anderson is the pastor of Faithful Word, which is an Independent Fundamentalist Baptist church in Tempe, Arizona.  While Anderson's church only has about 100-130 people in it every Sunday (almost 40 percent of which are children 8 years old and younger according to him), he and some of his colleagues have produced and distributed through YouTube a whole bunch of different documentaries on different topics.

Just doing a casual Google search on Anderson will give you seemingly countless articles about the hateful things he has said about certain people groups, and he has been compared to the folks at Westbro Baptist; I have not fully investigated all the claims against him, but I am inclined to believe the claims in light of what I do know from watching some of his videos:

In his documentary After The Tribulation-The Pre-Tribulation Rapture Fraud Exposed, Anderson and his associates are seen constantly ridiculing pre-trib rapture believers for taking Bible verses out of context in order to make their case.  I don't have any problem with that because I am a strong advocate for reading everything in context to get the proper meaning, but in his documentary New World Order Bible Versions,  Anderson and his associates constantly take verses from the NIV and other translations out of context in order to make it seem like they contradict the KJV of those verses, even though they really don't as I will show you in the next section.

How hypocritical can you get?!  You criticize a group of people for taking verses out of context to make their case in one movie, and then you turn around and do the EXACT SAME THING yourself in another movie to try and defend the KJV-only position!!!  I don't have any respect for intellectual hypocrisy, and I doubt other people do too.

After this hypocrisy became apparent to me, I watched a few of Steve Anderson's sermons on YouTube, and much like the documentaries, Anderson is a man that loves to yell and scream and pound on the pulpit with his fist to make his points.  He also seems to take pleasure in telling people that they are following a false man-made religion if they disagree with him on anything, that they are heretics and false teachers if they don't believe exactly what he believes, and to "go to hell" when they point out the logical and scriptural problems with his unbiblical beliefs. 

Anderson's Supposed Contradictions

In the New World Order Bible Versions documentary, the following supposed contradictions are brought up by Anderson and his associates to try and show that the NIV study Bible that I use is a corrupt tool that Satan uses to deceive people into walking away from God:

1 John 5:7:  "For there are three that testify:..."  (NIV)

1 John 5:7:  "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one."  (KJV)

In the documentary, Anderson states that the NIV translation of 1 John 5:7 is an attack on the doctrine of the Trinity.  According to the NIV compiler's footnote, the words "testify in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one.  And there are three that testify on earth: the" do not appear in any Greek manuscripts from before the 14th century.

Regardless of whether not that is true, the compilers of the NIV Bible are not attacking the doctrine of the Trinity because of a couple passages in the gospel of Matthew.

Matthew 3:16-17:  "As soon as Jesus was baptized, he went up out of the water. At that moment heaven was opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and alighting on him.  And a voice from heaven said, 'This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased.'”  (NIV)

What we have in this passage of Matthew is the Holy Spirit sitting on Jesus' shoulder, and the voice from heaven proclaims that Jesus is the Son, which implies that God the Father is the one speaking, and that Jesus is God the Son (the second member of the trinity).  If this isn't proof of the Trinity, then I don't know what is.

Matthew 28:18-20:  "Then Jesus came to them and said, 'All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.  Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.'”  (NIV)

Notice in verse 19 that Jesus used the word "name" instead of "names"; Since scripture says that Jesus is God, and the Holy Spirit is called the Spirit of God, which makes the Holy Spirit God, this "name" that Jesus is referring to is God, which makes Matthew 28:18-20 not only a strong piece of evidence supporting the trinity, but a piece of evidence that clearly shows that God the Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit have the same divine nature.

If the compilers of the NIV were trying to attack the doctrine of the Trinity, they did a lousy job.

Acts 8:36-38:  "As they traveled along the road, they came to some water and the eunuch said, 'Look, here is water. What can stand in the way of my being baptized?' And he gave orders to stop the chariot. Then both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water and Philip baptized him."  (NIV)

Acts 8:36-38:  "And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?  And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.  And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him."  (KJV)


The argument by Anderson and his associates is that by taking out verse 37, the compilers of the NIV Bible are somehow removing the gospel message of salvation, which is that you need to believe in your heart that God raised Jesus from the dead and confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord, from the text.  The problem with that is that the gospel message of Salvation is found in Romans:

Romans 10:9-10:  "If you declare with your mouth, 'Jesus is Lord,' and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.  For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you profess your faith and are saved."  (NIV)

If the NIV compilers were trying to remove the Gospel message of salvation from the text, they once again did a lousy job.  You'll also find that the KJV of Romans 10:9-10 says the same thing as the NIV version.

1 Timothy 3:16:  "Beyond all question, the mystery from which true godliness springs is great:

He appeared in the flesh, was vindicated by the Spirit, was seen by angels, was preached among the nations, was believed on in the world, was taken up in glory."  (NIV)

1 Timothy 3:16:  "And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory."  (KJV)

The argument that Anderson's associates make about this (and I assume Anderson agrees with them) is that when the NIV says "he appeared in the flesh", it puts doubt in the reader's mind that the "he" is referring to God.  The problem with this argument is that if you read the context of the NIV translation of the New Testament, you will figure out really quickly that the "he" is referring to God; there is no guesswork involved.

In John 1:1, we read that "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."  In John 1:14, we read that "The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth."  In John 1:17-18, we read that "For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.  No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is himself God and is in closest relationship with the Father, has made him known."

So we know from the NIV translation of the gospel of John that the Word was God, the Word became flesh, the Word is full of grace and truth, and that grace and truth came through Jesus; since the Word was God, and the Word became flesh, we know that the "he" in 1 Timothy 3:16 is referring to God.      

Hebrews 1:8:  "But about the Son he says,

'Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever; a scepter of justice will be the scepter of your kingdom.'"   (NIV)

Hebrews 1:8:  "But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom."  (KJV)

Anderson never explained in the documentary how the NIV translation of Hebrews 1:8 was wrong, and instead the documentary talked about the Jehovah's Witnesses' translation of the Bible, which is completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand.  I found it interesting that Anderson chose to ignore Hebrews 1:9; when you read the NIV version of Hebrews 1:8-9, you will notice that God calls the Son "God", and that God is the God of the Son.  There is absolutely zero contradiction between the KJV and the NIV on this one.   

Luke 2:33:  "The child’s father and mother marveled at what was said about him."  (NIV)

Luke 2:33:  "And Joseph and his mother marvelled at those things which were spoken of him."  (KJV)

One time I was talking with a friend of mine who is a KJV-only Christian, and he tried to convince me that by saying "the child's father" instead of "Joseph", the NIV compilers were trying to convince people that Joseph was not Jesus' earthly father.  The problem with that is that Luke 2:4-5 says that Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, and that she was pregnant with child, who we know from Luke 2:21 is Jesus.  Matthew 1:19 reveals that Joseph was her husband, which showed that back in that time and culture, men and women who were betrothed to each other were called "husband" and "wife".  If Joseph is the husband of Mary, and if Mary is Jesus' earthly mother, then that means that Joseph is Jesus' earthly father.  Therefore, we know that in the NIV version of Luke 2:33, "The child's father" is referring to Joseph.  No contradictions here.

In the documentary, Anderson claims that the NIV version of Luke 2:33 is somehow attacking the virgin birth, and he tried to use Luke 2:48-49 to claim that Jesus rebuked that idea.  The NIV version of Luke 1:26-38 clearly shows that Mary was a virgin when the angel Gabriel visited her, and the NIV version of Matthew 1:25 says that Joseph didn't have sex with Mary until after Jesus was born, so there is no possible way that the NIV version of the Bible is denying Jesus' virgin birth.  This is just a flat-out lie that Anderson is spewing.        

Micah 5:2:  "But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are small among the clans of Judah, out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel, whose origins are from of old, from ancient times.”  (NIV)

Micah 5:2:  "But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting."  (KJV)

In the documentary, Anderson claims that the word "origin" in the NIV version of Micah 5:2 implies that Jesus had a beginning, and that this is an attack on his deity.  While I'm not particularly fond of the editors' footnotes in the NIV study Bible that I have, their footnote for Micah 5:2 points out that this verse is talking about Jesus, and they say in the footnote that Jesus' beginnings were from far before his human birth.  They then tell you to look up John 8:58.  

When you go to John 8:58, you notice that Jesus called himself I AM, which is the name that God called himself in Exodus 3:14.  In other words, Jesus is claiming to be God, who has to be an eternal being in order to create space, matter, and time like Genesis 1:1 says.  While the NIV version of Micah 5:2 is hard to understand, the editors' footnotes of the verse makes it clear that Jesus' deity is not under attack.

Isaiah 14:12:  "How you have fallen from heaven, morning star, son of the dawn!  You have been cast down to the earth, you who once laid low the nations!"  (NIV)

Isaiah 14:12:  "How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!"  (KJV)

In the documentary, Anderson asserts that since the term "morning star" is used in both Isaiah 14:12 and Revelation 22:16, the compilers of the NIV are calling Jesus and Satan the same person, and that the NIV is supposedly accusing Jesus of wanting to be like God.  This one made me mad because while it is true that the term "morning star" is used in the NIV version of Isaiah 14:12 and Revelation 22:16, it's pretty clear that the compilers of the NIV are making a distinction between Satan and Jesus.  

When you look at the NIV version of Revelation 22:16, the words "morning" and "star" are both capitalized, and the word "bright" precedes it.  In the NIV version of Isaiah 14:12, the words "morning" and "star" are lower cased, and there are no other words attached to it.  This and the surrounding contexts of each verse shows clearly that two different people are being talked about. 

Hebrews 9:10:  "They are only a matter of food and drink and various ceremonial washings—external regulations applying until the time of the new order."  (NIV)

Hebrews 9:10:  "Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation."  (KJV)

Anderson and his associates claim that the phrase "new order" in the NIV translation of Hebrews 9:10 is a reference to Jesus' second coming, and then Anderson tells a HUUGGEEE lie and says that when you read the NIV version of Hebrews 9:11, it says that it talks about Christ's coming as a high priest as a future event.  They also claim that the NIV version of Hebrews 9:10 is a verse that will prepare Christians to accept the rule of the Anti-Christ when the New World Order has been established.

If you actually read all of the NIV translation of Hebrews 9, you will see that the "new order" is referred to as a past event, and that the "new order" is the new covenant that was enacted when Jesus died on the cross to free people from the sins committed under the old covenant, which is described in the Old Testament.  There is not a single verse in the NIV translation of Hebrews 9 that refers to the "new order" as a future event that hasn't happened yet, so there's no way that it can be used to prepare people for the Anti-Christ's coming reign.   

  

Romans 13:1:  "Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God."  (NIV)

Romans 13:1:  "Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God."  (KJV)

Anderson claims that the NIV translation is in error when it says "governing authorities" instead of "higher powers".  The problem with this is that when you read the KJV of Romans 13:1-5, the context of the passage indicates that the "higher powers" are the governing authorities, which means that there is no contradiction between the NIV and KJV of Romans 13:1.

Galatians 5:12:  "As for those agitators, I wish they would go the whole way and emasculate themselves!"  (NIV)

Galatians 5:12:  "I would they were even cut off which trouble you."  (KJV)

In the documentary, Anderson and his associates assert that Paul would never say something like what the NIV translation of Galatians 5:12 says.  The problem with that is that Paul calls the Judaizers some strong terms in Philippians 3:2.

Philippians 3:2:  "Watch out for those dogs, those evildoers, those mutilators of the flesh."  (NIV)

Philippians 3:2:  "Beware of dogs, beware of evil workers, beware of the concision."  (KJV)

I can already hear Anderson and people like him getting ready to claim that the NIV is wrong when it uses the phrase "mutilators of the flesh", so here is what the Easton's Bible Dictionary has to say about the word "concision":

"(Gr. katatome; i.e., "mutilation"), a term used by Paul contemptuously of those who were zealots for circumcision ( Philippians 3:2 ). Instead of the warning, 'Beware of the circumcision' (peritome) i.e., of the party who pressed on Gentile converts the necessity of still observing that ordinance, he says, 'Beware of the concision;' as much as to say, 'This circumcision which they vaunt of is in Christ only as the gashings and mutilations of idolatrous heathen.'"

Since "mutilators of the flesh" is a reasonable translation of "katatome", this means that there is nothing wrong with the NIV translation of Philippians 3:2.  In turn, this means that it's reasonable to believe that Paul would make such a comment, especially since he's already calling them "dogs" in both the NIV and KJV of Philippians 3:2.

On top of that, in both the KJV and the NIV version of Matthew 23:29-32, Jesus told the religious leaders of his day that they were the ancestors of those who murdered the prophets, and he told them to finish what their ancestors started.  It's possible that Paul is making a similar type of statement in Galatians 5:12.  In short, Anderson's claim about Galatians 5:12 falls on its face. 

As we can see, all of the supposed contradictions between the NIV and KJV of the Bible that Steve Anderson brought up are false claims.   Like I said in my section about Steve Anderson, Anderson consistently rips verses from the NIV out of context in order to make it seem like there's some major contradictions between it and the KJV that affect important doctrines.  As I have shown, this is a whole bunch of nonsense that has no basis in reality.

Having said that, let's look at a "problem" verse where the KJV might actually be the one in error.

The Acts 12:4 Problem

One of the most used verses by KJV-only people comes from the following passage from the book of Acts:

Acts 12:1-4:  "It was about this time that King Herod arrested some who belonged to the church, intending to persecute them.  He had James, the brother of John, put to death with the sword.  When he saw that this met with approval among the Jews, he proceeded to seize Peter also. This happened during the Festival of Unleavened Bread.  After arresting him, he put him in prison, handing him over to be guarded by four squads of four soldiers each. Herod intended to bring him out for public trial after the Passover."  (NIV)

Acts 12:1-4:  "Now about that time Herod the king stretched forth his hands to vex certain of the church.  And he killed James the brother of John with the sword.  And because he saw it pleased the Jews, he proceeded further to take Peter also. (Then were the days of unleavened bread.)  And when he had apprehended him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people."  (KJV)

Because the KJV is the only one to use the term "Easter" in Acts 12:4, and all the other versions say "Passover", the KJV-only Christians assert that all the other versions are the ones in error.  They try to justify this assertion by saying that only the first day of the Festival of Unleavened Bread was called the Passover.  Because of this error, they then assert that the Passover had already passed when Peter was arrested, which means that Easter has to be the correct interpretation.  This would make the KJV right, and all the other versions wrong on Acts 12:4.

The problem with this is that the terms "Festival of Unleavened Bread" and "Passover" are interchangeable, according to the gospel of Luke:

Luke 22:1:  "Now the Festival of Unleavened Bread, called the Passover, was approaching..."  (NIV)

Luke 22:1:  "Now the feast of unleavened bread drew nigh, which is called the Passover..."  (KJV)

As we can see, the term "Passover" is referring to the entire Festival of Unleavened Bread according to Luke.  It also turns out that according to the Old Testament, the term "passover" and "Festival of Unleavened Bread" are interchangeable:

Exodus 12:14-20:  "This is a day you are to commemorate; for the generations to come you shall celebrate it as a festival to the Lord—a lasting ordinance.  For seven days you are to eat bread made without yeast. On the first day remove the yeast from your houses, for whoever eats anything with yeast in it from the first day through the seventh must be cut off from Israel.  On the first day hold a sacred assembly, and another one on the seventh day. Do no work at all on these days, except to prepare food for everyone to eat; that is all you may do.

Celebrate the Festival of Unleavened Bread, because it was on this very day that I brought your divisions out of Egypt. Celebrate this day as a lasting ordinance for the generations to come.  In the first month you are to eat bread made without yeast, from the evening of the fourteenth day until the evening of the twenty-first day.  For seven days no yeast is to be found in your houses. And anyone, whether foreigner or native-born, who eats anything with yeast in it must be cut off from the community of Israel.  Eat nothing made with yeast. Wherever you live, you must eat unleavened bread.”  (NIV)

Exodus 12:14-20:  "And this day shall be unto you for a memorial; and ye shall keep it a feast to the Lord throughout your generations; ye shall keep it a feast by an ordinance for ever.  Seven days shall ye eat unleavened bread; even the first day ye shall put away leaven out of your houses: for whosoever eateth leavened bread from the first day until the seventh day, that soul shall be cut off from Israel.  And in the first day there shall be an holy convocation, and in the seventh day there shall be an holy convocation to you; no manner of work shall be done in them, save that which every man must eat, that only may be done of you.

And ye shall observe the feast of unleavened bread; for in this selfsame day have I brought your armies out of the land of Egypt: therefore shall ye observe this day in your generations by an ordinance for ever.  In the first month, on the fourteenth day of the month at even, ye shall eat unleavened bread, until the one and twentieth day of the month at even.  Seven days shall there be no leaven found in your houses: for whosoever eateth that which is leavened, even that soul shall be cut off from the congregation of Israel, whether he be a stranger, or born in the land.  Ye shall eat nothing leavened; in all your habitations shall ye eat unleavened bread."  (KJV)

Ezekiel 45:21:  "In the first month on the fourteenth day you are to observe the Passover, a festival lasting seven days, during which you shall eat bread made without yeast."  (NIV)

Ezekiel 45:21:  "In the first month, in the fourteenth day of the month, ye shall have the passover, a feast of seven days; unleavened bread shall be eaten."  (KJV)

So, we now know that both the Old and New Testaments agree that "Passover" is another term for the Festival of Unleavened Bread, and we know that both the KJV and the NIV of Luke 22:1, Exodus 12:14-20, and Ezekiel 45:21 are in complete agreement on that.  The question then become this:  In light of the fact that both the KJV and the NIV of the Old and New Testaments agree that "Passover" is another term for the Festival of Unleavened Bread, why is the KJV the only one that says "Easter"?

My current theory on this problem is that the KJV of Acts 12:4 is in error when it says that Herod intended to bring Peter to trial after Easter, and the reason I say this is because there's a big difference in timing.  If the NIV is correct, then Herod was waiting until the end of the festival to bring Peter to trial, which would only be 2-4 days; if the KJV is correct, then Herod was waiting until the end of the month to bring Peter to trial, which would be roughly a week and a half.  

In John 15:20, Jesus tells his disciples that because the world persecuted him, they will also persecute his disciples in the same way.  When you consider how little time passed between Jesus' arrest and his execution, I'm inclined to believe that King Herod would prefer to bring Peter to trial sooner rather than later.  

If there is another explanation of why "Easter" is the correct term, I am willing to hear it and examine it to see if it is true.  If not, then I'm inclined at this point to say that the KJV of Acts 12:4 has a translation error when it uses the term "Easter".  

Conclusion

I can already imagine KJV-only Christians who may read this post getting upset at the idea that the KJV of the Bible might have an error in it because the KJV-only worldview tells them that the KJV of the Bible is perfectly translated, but you have to consider things from my perspective.

I have in my possession both an NIV and a KJV of the Bible.  Why on earth would I do that?  For starters, while the NIV translation is the most readable due to it being in modern English, I find that parts of the KJV actually read better than the NIV, meaning that it sounds better.  Also, there are math errors in certain verses in the NIV version of the Old Testament that the KJV doesn't have in it, so I got a KJV of the bible in case a scoffer wants to try to use the math errors in my NIV Bible against me.  In other words, while both translations have errors in them, they are in agreement on just about everything when you actually study them in context, and each one's errors are corrected in the other translation.

For those KJV-only Christians who are more reasonable than the others in their camp, I want to put some questions to you:

Why is the KJV of the Bible the only legitimate English translation?  Why is God able to perfectly preserve his word in old English, but unable to do so in modern English?  If God is powerful enough to create this reality out of nothing in an instant with nothing but his Word, and if he is powerful enough to hold this reality together by his Word, then how is he not powerful enough to do something as easy as preserving his Word in modern English?

Where in the Old and/or New Testament does it say that the KJV is the only legitimate English translation of the Bible?  Where in scripture do you get the specific belief about the KJV of the Bible?  

If God wants as many people as possible to repent of their sins against him and submit to him as a response to hearing his Word, then why would he force modern English-speaking people to spend countless hours studying a form of English that almost nobody speaks today in order to get to a point where they can know what the words in God's Word mean?  Wouldn't it be far easier if he perfectly preserved his Word in modern English so that people can spend their time trying to understand the message instead of the language that the message is written in? 

If the KJV of the Bible is God's perfect preservation of his word in English, then how come the earliest versions contained the Apocrypha before they eventually took it out?   

For the record, I don't believe that any English translation of the Bible is 100 percent inerrant in its translation; I'm just trying to show how absurd it is to believe that God can only do it once a few hundred years ago when he's the most powerful being there is, and he knew that the English language would change over time. 

I don't have any problems with someone preferring a KJV of the Bible over the modern English translations; I only have a problem when they start talking about how the KJV is the only legitimate English translation and that all other translations are tools of the devil because I am worried that KJV-only Christians are committing idolatry.  The reason that I am worried that they are committing idolatry is that according to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, idolatry is "immoderate attachment or devotion to something", and KJV-only Christians definitely fall under this category with relations to the KJV Bible.  At times, it seems like they put that particular translation on par with God himself.  
 
I also have a problem with the division that the KJV-only position causes in the body of Christ.  As I stated in the beginning, I and the average KJV-only Christian come to virtually all the same conclusions about the Biblical worldview using our respective Bibles, and yet according to his position, my version of the Bible is somehow leading me away from God even though he and I are coming to the same conclusions.  Don't they realize how lacking in normal intelligence it is to believe that my Bible is leading me away from God when in reality it's actually leading me to all the same conclusions that their Bible does?  If the NIV Bible leads me to all the same conclusions about the Biblical worldview that the KJV leads them to, then how is my Bible leading me away from God?

With that in mind, I beg KJV-only Christians to stop rejecting other believers for using a different Bible translation from you, and to start accepting or rejecting people who call themselves believers based on whether or not their beliefs line up with the message and teachings of the Bible.

I don't hate KJV-only Christians; my favorite apologist is Dr. Kent Hovind, who is a KJV-only Christian.  He may be wrong in his belief that the KJV is the only legitimate English translation of the Bible, but he and I agree on just about everything else as far as I can tell.  On top of that, he doesn't treat believers like me like we're somehow intellectually and spiritually deficient for using a different translation, like Steve Anderson does in his videos.  

I am not an NIV-only person, I am not implying that the NIV Bible is the best English translation of the Bible, and I am not saying that the KJV is not a legitimate translation; I just want KJV-only believers to be less dogmatic about what translation of the Bible a person uses, and focus more on their doctrinal beliefs and actions.

Update on 5/2/2015

Hello folks!  Check out my video blog below:

If you want to know why you need to be saved, take the Good Person test.

If you want to check out my book Another Inconvenient Truth, go here.

To follow Justin's apologetics news and activities, check out the book's Facebook page.

To follow news about Derby Productions, check out the Facebook page.

Watch the latest trailer for Dark Knight: Freedom below:

American Humanists in Academia: the 21st century religious leaders

*This article originally appeared as a guest article on onlyjesussaves.com.*



As many people in Christian apologetics have pointed out in recent years, Humanism is a man-made religion that puts man on God’s throne, and evolution serves as their explanation for the origins of the universe and all life on Earth; evolution was created to explain away all the evidence supporting the truthfulness of scripture, the Flood, and God’s existence.

In 1981, Darwinist Richard Lewontin said the following:

“It is time for students of the evolutionary process, especially those who have been misquoted and used by the creationists, to state clearly that evolution is a FACT, not theory, and that what is at issue within biology are questions of details of the process and the relative importance of different mechanisms of evolution. It is a FACT that the earth with liquid water, is more than 3.6 billion years old. It is a FACT that cellular life has been around for at least half of that period and that organized multicellular life is at least 800 million years old. It is a FACT that major life forms now on earth were not at all represented in the past. There were no birds or mammals 250 million years ago. It is a FACT that major life forms of the past are no longer living. There used to be dinosaurs and Pithecanthropus, and there are none now. It is a FACT that all living forms come from previous living forms. Therefore, all present forms of life arose from ancestral forms that were different. Birds arose from nonbirds and humans from nonhumans. No person who pretends to any understanding of the natural world can deny these facts any more than she or he can deny that the earth is round, rotates on its axis, and revolves around the sun.”

However, in an article titled “Billions and Billions of Demons” on page 31 of The New York Review of Books from January 9, 1997, the very same Richard Lewontin admitted the following:

“Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover that materialism is absolute for we cannot allow a divine foot in the door.”

You have to give Lewontin credit; it takes a lot of guts to admit that everything you said about evolution being a fact 16 years earlier was a lie.  Since evolution is a materialistic explanation of how everything originated, Lewontin is admitting that materialistic explanations of the origin of life are “unsubstantiated Just-so stories”, meaning there is no observational evidence supporting it.  Lewontin also called materialistic explanations “counter-intuitive”, meaning that it goes against common sense and reason.

What I want to focus on in this article is when Lewontin said material explanations are “mystifying to the uninitiated”.  This implies that Evolution is a religion, and the professors who promote Evolution are initiating students into it.  In his article titled “A Religion For A New Age”, which was in the 1983 Jan/Feb issue of The Humanist, John Dunphy proved this:

“I am convinced that the battle for humankind’s future must be waged and won in the public school classroom by teachers who correctly perceive their role as the proselytizers of a new faith: a religion of humanity that recognizes and respects what theologians call divinity in every human being.
 
These teachers must embody the same selfless dedication as the most rabid fundamentalist preachers, for they will be ministers of another sort, utilizing a classroom instead of a pulpit to convey humanist values in whatever subject they teach, regardless of the educational level—preschool day care center or large state university.
 
The classroom must and will become an arena of conflict between the old and the new—the rotting corpse of Christianity, together with its adjacent evils and misery, and the new faith of humanism.
It will undoubtedly be a long, arduous, painful struggle replete with much sorrow and many tears, but humanism will emerge triumphant. It must if the family of humankind is to survive.”

As I have observed the world the past couple of years, I have noticed that there are a lot of similarities between the religious leaders of Jesus’ time, and the modern humanists who control the American academic community.

They Believe in Science, But They Deny its Observations

Matthew 15:1-9:  “Then some Pharisees and teachers of the law came to Jesus from Jerusalem and asked, ‘Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? They don’t wash their hands before they eat!’

Jesus replied, ‘And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition? For God said, “Honor your father and mother“ and “Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death.”  But you say that if anyone declares that what might have been used to help their father or mother is “devoted to God”, they are not to “honor their father or mother” with it. Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition.  You hypocrites! Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you:

“These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me.  They worship me in vain; their teachings are merely human rules.“‘”

Jesus rightly pointed out that the religious leaders of his day claimed that they submitted to the God of the Bible, but they proved that they really didn’t by putting man-made traditions and rules over God’s commands.

The funny thing about evolutionists is they claim that their belief in evolution is based on their observation of the real world, yet when the observational evidence shows that biblical creation is true, they deny what their observations are telling them, and they impose their evolution narrative on the evidence.  On pages 118-119 of I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist, Norman Geisler and Frank Turek show exactly that:

“Do darwinists insist on spontaneous generation because they just don’t see the evidence for design? Not at all. In fact, exactly the opposite is true—they see the evidence clearly! For example, Richard Dawkins named his book The Blind Watchmaker in response to William Paley’s design argument that we cited in the last chapter. The appearance of design in life is admitted on the first page of The Blind Watchmaker. Dawkins writes, ‘Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.’ Two pages later, despite acknowledging ‘the intricate architecture and precision-engineering’ in human life and in each of the trillions of cells within the human body, Dawkins flatly denies that human life or any other life has been designed. Apparently, Dawkins refuses to allow observation to interfere with his conclusions. This is very strange for a man who believes in the supremacy of science, which is supposed to be based on observation.

Francis Crick, codiscoverer of DNA and another ardent Darwinist, agrees with Dawkins about the appearance of design. In fact, the appearance of design is so clear he warns that, ‘biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved.’ Crick’s little memo to biologists led Phillip Johnson, author and a leader in the Intelligent Design (ID) movement, to observe, ‘Darwinian Biologists must keep repeating that reminder to themselves because otherwise they might become conscious of the reality that is staring them in the face and trying to get their attention.’”

They Try to Appear Morally Superior To People Who Believe in God:

Matthew 23:27-28:  “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of the bones of the dead and everything unclean.  In the same way, on the outside you appear to people as righteous but on the inside you are full of hypocrisy and wickedness.”

Back in Jesus’ day, the Pharisees and religious leaders did their best to appear righteous to the people, portraying themselves as morally superior to everyone else.  Jesus rightly called them out on it.

Some of the  humanists and evolutionists who control academia also view themselves as being morally superior to people who believe in God.  In an article titled “A Designer Universe?”, evolutionist Steven Weinberg showed that belief in the context of talking about how people used the bible to justify slavery back in the pre-civil war era:

“With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil–that takes religion.”

Some evolutionists and humanists take it a step further and suggest that not only are they morally superior to people who believe in God, but that they are morally superior to God himself.  On page 51 of The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins wrote the following slander of God’s character:

“The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction:  jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.”

Science Will Ultimately Condemn Evolutionists:

John 5:45-47:  “But do not think I will accuse you before the Father. Your accuser is Moses, on whom your hopes are set.  If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me.  But since you do not believe what he wrote, how are you going to believe what I say?”

One of the beliefs that the Pharisees and religious leaders of Jesus’ time was that because they were the blood descendants of Moses and because their ancestors were the recipients of the Law, they thought they would get a free pass to heaven.  Jesus rightly pointed out that on the day of judgement, Moses himself would be the one to accuse them before God.

When these evolutionists and humanists stand before God on their day of judgement, if they try to accuse God of not leaving enough evidence of his existence, God will hold them accountable for creating a theory to explain away all the evidence he left behind, and he will hold them accountable for the countless people who went to Hell because they were led astray by the evolutionists and humanists.

Evolutionists Try to Convince Us That All Scientists Believe in Evolution:

John 7:45-49:  “Finally the temple guards went back to the chief priests and the Pharisees, who asked them, ‘Why didn’t you bring him in?’

‘No one ever spoke the way this man does,’ the guards replied.

‘You mean he has deceived you also?’ the Pharisees retorted.  ‘Have any of the rulers or of the Pharisees believed in him?  No! But this mob that knows nothing of the law—there is a curse on them.'”

In Jesus’ day, the religious leaders tried to dissuade people from believing in Jesus by committing the appeal to authority fallacy.  Appealing to authority is a logical fallacy because authorities can come to the wrong judgments through error, bias, dishonesty, or falling prey to groupthink.  Therefore, whenever anyone appeals to authority to prove that evolution is true, you have the right to call them out for committing a logical fallacy.

The humanist and evolutionists in our society commit the same fallacy.  Frequently in my discussions with people who believe in evolution, they will tell me that evolution must be true because the most prominent scientists in our society tell us that it’s true, as if they’re somehow incapable of error, bias, dishonesty, or groupthink.  The scientists themselves frequently tell us that all real scientists believe in evolution.

The truth of the matter is that there are many scientists in the mainstream that don’t believe in evolution, but they almost never express their disbelief.  Why not?  Because of the following:

Scientists/Professors Don’t Express their disbelief in Evolution in Order to Keep Their Job:

John 12:42-43: “Yet at the same time many even among the leaders believed in him. But because of the Pharisees they would not openly acknowledge their faith for fear they would be put out of the synagogue; for they loved human praise more than praise from God.“

While the religious leaders of Jesus’ day were claiming that nobody among the religious leaders believed that Jesus was who he claimed to be, the truth was that many of the religious leaders kept their belief in Jesus to themselves because they knew that if they made their belief public, they would in effect “lose their job” as a religious leader, and they valued that more.

The same thing is going on today with the evolutionists and humanists who control academia.  They tell us that all real scientists believe in evolution, but then if one of those “real” scientists so much as hints that evolution is not true, they will lose their job.  If you don’t believe me, then watch the beginning of Ben Stein’s movie Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed.  From the 5:00-15:32 mark, we see a number of testimonies about non-christian scientists who lost their job simply because they hinted at the possibility that evolution wasn’t true.

On page 162 of I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be An Atheist, Geisler and Turek write:

“…by admitting God, Darwinists would risk losing financial security and professional admiration.  How so?  Because there’s tremendous pressure in the academic community to publish something that supports evolution.  Find something important, and you may find yourself on the cover of National Geographic or the subject of a PBS special.  Find nothing, and you may find yourself out of a job, out of grant money, or at least out of favor with your materialistic colleagues.  So there’s a money, job security, and prestige motive to advance the Darwinian worldview.”

Not only do today’s evolutionists and humanists have those motives to advance their world view, but the religious leaders of Jesus’ day did as well.  Right after Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead, the religious leaders had a little meeting to talk about Jesus:

John 11:47-48:  “Then the chief priests and the Pharisees called a meeting of the Sanhedrin.

‘What are we accomplishing?’ they asked.  ‘Here is this man performing many signs.  If we let him go on like this, everyone will believe in him, and then the Romans will come and take away both our temple and our nation.‘”

The thing you have to understand about first-century Jerusalem is that while it was under Roman occupation, the Romans allowed the religious leaders of the day to govern their own people, and as a result, the religious leaders were the wealthy and elite of Jewish society; they were seen as the ones who made a better life possible and as the source of objective truth, just like today’s evolutionists and humanists are.

In other words, the religious leaders of Jesus’ day were worried about losing all their wealth, jobs, and prestige if they allowed Jesus to continue his ministry and continue converting people.  Aside from the fact that they really didn’t believe in God and his Word, those were their primary motives for killing Jesus.

Conclusion

It is just downright eery how similar the behavior and motives of today’s evolutionists and humanists are to to the behaviors and motivations of the religious leaders of Jesus’ day.  It is because of this that I make a bold proclamation:

If Jesus of Nazareth were walking around 21st century America today, I firmly believe that he would condemn the humanists and evolutionists for the same things that he condemned the religious leaders of his day for, and he would use remarkably similar language to do it.

Because of the fact that their behaviors and motivations are similar to the religious leaders of Jesus’ day, I believe that today’s evolutionists and humanists would do whatever it took to silence Jesus, up to and including putting him to death.

As you can see, humanists and evolutionists are nothing more than the 21st century equivalent of the religious leaders of Jesus’ day, and we need not fear them.

Islam Can Be Disproven Without A Bible

Those of you who follow my blog know that I mostly focus on issues related to the Biblical world view, or on atheism because atheism is the worldview that most of the leaders of the American academic community hold to, and that needs to be spoken against.  I typically do not talk about other religions in detail, but because of how big of a global issue it is, I feel that now is the time for me to say something about Islam, the second-largest religion in the world.

For many years, I never thought in my wildest dreams that Islam would have a snowball's chance in Hell of creeping into and taking over the American culture.  However, after reading about the University of New Mexico's passage of Resolution 6S, I began to rethink that idea.  When you read the actual resolution document, this is how they define Islamophobia:

"Whereas, Islamophobia is defined as dislike or prejudice against Islam or Muslims especially as a political force."

The problem I have with this definition of Islamophobia is that it is way too vague.  A vague definition like this would make it possible to punish someone who says anything negative about Islam, even if what they say is true.  The rest of this post would qualify as Islamophobia under this definition.  This whole definition of Islamophobia is simply another form of Sharia Blasphemy laws, minus the death penalty.

Many Christians try to de-convert Muslims using the Bible, which isn't a bad thing.  Apologist David Wood created a five-part series talking about 50 reasons why Muhammad isn't a prophet using Islam's official sources and comparing them to what the Bible says when applicable; I will post links to each part of the series at the end of the post.  To set me apart from everyone else that I know of, I will disprove Islam using only Islam's official sources.

The Islamic Dilemma

Arguably the most glaring reason that Islam is a false religion is what David Wood calls "The Islamic Dilemma".  The root problem of this dilemma is that the Quran itself teaches that the Bible is the inspired, inerrant, incorruptible Word of God.  Most Muslims don't even know this, so I will show you where the Quran teaches this:  

Quran 3:3-4: “He has sent down upon you, [O Muhammad], the Book in truth, confirming what was before it. And He revealed the Torah and the Gospel Before, as guidance for the people. And He revealed the Qur'an. Indeed, those who disbelieve in the verses of Allah will have a severe punishment, and Allah is exalted in Might, the Owner of Retribution.”

This Quran passage is clearly saying that the Quran confirms the Bible, and that Allah gave the Jews and Christians the Bible to give them guidance.  By saying that those who disbelieve in the verses of Allah will be punished, this clearly implies that the Bible is the Word of God.

Quran 18:27:  "And recite, [O Muhammad], what has been revealed to you of the Book of your Lord. There is no changer of His words, and never will you find in other than Him a refuge."

This Quran verse makes it clear that nobody can change Allah's words.  Since Allah is the one who gave the Jews and Christians the Bible, this means by extension that nobody can corrupt the Bible.

Quran 5:68: "Say, 'O People of the Scripture, you are [standing] on nothing until you uphold [the law of] the Torah, the Gospel, and what has been revealed to you from your Lord.' And that which has been revealed to you from your Lord will surely increase many of them in transgression and disbelief. So do not grieve over the disbelieving people."

In this Quran verse, Allah is clearly commanding Jews and Christians to stand on the Bible, and to not be deterred by people who don't.  Since Allah tells them to stand on the Bible, that means that Jews and Christians are supposed to judge everything by the Bible.  We can see that in the following verse:

Quran 5:47: “And let the People of the Gospel judge by what Allah has revealed therein. And whoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed - then it is those who are the defiantly disobedient.“

Here we are told that Allah will punish Christians if they don't judge by the Bible, which Allah supposedly gave them.  If that wasn't bad enough for Muslims, this next verse is worse:

Quran 10:94: “So if you are in doubt, [O Muhammad], about that which We have revealed to you, then ask those who have been reading the Scripture before you. The truth has certainly come to you from your Lord, so never be among the doubters.”

This Quran verse, without a shadow of a doubt, is telling us that if you want to know whether or not the revelations of Allah in the Quran and other official Muslim sources are true, then you have to go to the Jews and Christians and compare Islam's revelations with the Bible's revelations.  In other words, the Bible stands in judgement over the Quran, according to Allah.

So, as I have just shown you, the Quran teaches that the Bible is the inspired, inerrant, incorruptible Word of God, and it stands in judgement over Islam.  Why is this a dilemma?  Because if the Bible is the Word of God, then Islam is false because its core message contradicts the Bible's.  If the Bible is not the Word of God, then Islam is still false because it claims that the Bible is the Word of God when it really isn't.

So by affirming the Bible as the Word of God and saying that the Bible stands in judgement over Islam's revelations, Islam is false, no matter what the truth about the Bible is. 

Islam's own sources show that Muhammad is a false prophet

While the Islamic Dilemma is more than enough to prove that Islam is false, there is one more thing that proves without a shadow of a doubt that Islam is false:  Muhammad died in the exact manner that he said he would die in if he was a false prophet.  Much like the Islamic Dilemma, most Muslims don't know this, I will show you that Islam's own sources prove this.

Quran 69:44-46: “And if Muhammad had made up about Us some [false] sayings, We would have seized him by the right hand; Then We would have cut from him the aorta.”

According to Allah in this Quran passage, if Muhammad was a false prophet who made up revelations from Allah, then he die in a specific way, which was having his aorta cut.  Take note that Allah did not say how long it would take for him to kill Muhammad in this way; he only describes the manner in which he would kill Muhammad.  Go to the Budkari Hadith, the second-most reliable source in Islam behind only the Quran, and we read the following:

Bukhari's Hadith 4.394: "When Khaibar was conquered, a roasted poisoned sheep was presented to the Prophet as a gift (by the Jews). The Prophet ordered, 'Let all the Jews who have been here, be assembled before me.' The Jews were collected and the Prophet said (to them), 'I am going to ask you a question. Will you tell the truth?' They said, 'Yes.' The Prophet asked, 'Who is your father?' They replied, 'So-and-so.' He said, 'You have told a lie; your father is so-and-so.' They said, 'You are right.' He said, 'Will you now tell me the truth, if I ask you about something?' They replied, 'Yes, O Abu Al-Qasim; and if we should tell a lie, you can realize our lie as you have done regarding our father.' On that he asked, 'Who are the people of the (Hell) Fire?' They said, 'We shall remain in the (Hell) Fire for a short period, and after that you will replace us.' The Prophet said, 'You may be cursed and humiliated in it! By Allah, we shall never replace you in it.' Then he asked, 'Will you now tell me the truth if I ask you a question?' They said, 'Yes, O Abu Al-Qasim.' He asked, 'Have you poisoned this sheep?' They said, 'Yes.' He asked, 'What made you do so?' They said, 'We wanted to know if you were a liar in which case we would get rid of you, and if you are a prophet then the poison would not harm you.'"

After Muhammad was poisoned, he was told by the ones who poisoned him that if he was a true prophet, he would not be hurt by the poison, but if he was a false prophet, he would die.  Flash forward to Muhammad's death, and we read the following:

Bukhari Hadith 5.713: "The Prophet in his ailment in which he died, used to say, 'O 'Aisha! I still feel the pain caused by the food I ate at Khaibar, and at this time, I feel as if my aorta is being cut from that poison.'"

That's right, Muslims:  Muhammad died in the exact manner that he said he would die if he was a false prophet.  Of all the ways a person can die, I can't think of a more humiliating death than that.

Conclusion:

So, the two reasons I can never become a Muslim are because the Quran affirms the Bible as the Word of God and says that the Bible stands in judgement over it, and because Muhammad died in the exact manner he said he would die if he was a false prophet.  There are many other reasons to reject Islam, but these two are all I need.

If you are a Muslim reading this, I beg you to put aside your emotions and think through this logically.  I am not using my bible to make my points; I am using your own sources, and that should scare you.  Your own sources disprove Islam.  Some of you may try to claim that the verses I quoted to you don't mean what they appear to say, but you don't have that option according to Allah.
  
Quran 12:1:  "Alif, Lam, Ra. These are the verses of the clear Book."

Quran 15:1:  "Alif, Lam, Ra. These are the verses of the Book and a clear Qur'an."

Quran 22:72:  "And when Our verses are recited to them as clear evidences, you recognize in the faces of those who disbelieve disapproval. They are almost on the verge of assaulting those who recite to them Our verses. Say, 'Then shall I inform you of [what is] worse than that? [It is] the Fire which Allah has promised those who disbelieve, and wretched is the destination.'"

Quran 24:34:  "And We have certainly sent down to you distinct verses and examples from those who passed on before you and an admonition for those who fear Allah."

Quran 24:46:  "We have certainly sent down distinct verses. And Allah guides whom He wills to a straight path."

Quran 26:2:  "These are the verses of the clear Book."

Quran 36:69:  "And We did not give Prophet Muhammad, knowledge of poetry, nor is it befitting for him. It is not but a message and a clear Qur'an."

Quran 57:9:  "It is He who sends down upon His Servant [Muhammad] verses of clear evidence that He may bring you out from darknesses into the light. And indeed, Allah is to you Kind and Merciful."

It is clear from this small sample of verses from the Quran that not only is the entire Quran perfectly clear, but that each of the verses in it are perfectly clear.  With that in mind, every interpretation of every verse I quoted to support my assertion that the Quran teaches that the Bible is the Word of God that stands in Judgement over Islam is correct because I took each verse at face value.  I did the same thing in my other section about Muhammad's death. 

I don't want you guys to believe in a horribly and hilariously false religion that will give you a one-way ticket to Hell; I want you to believe in the religion that stands up under intense intellectual scrutiny, and that religion is found within the pages of the Bible.

How can you be saved according to the Bible?  It's quite simple:  You have to put your faith in Jesus Christ, repent of all your sins, and accept salvation as the free gift of God that it is; this will result in you having a personal relationship with Jesus.   Here are some Bible verses that support that idea:

John 3:16-18:  "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.  For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.  Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son."

2 Corinthians 7:10:  "Godly sorrow brings repentance that leads to salvation and leaves no regret, but worldly sorrow brings death."

Ephesians 2: 8-9:  "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God—not by works, so that no one can boast."  

John 10:14-18:  “I am the good shepherd; I know my sheep and my sheep know me—just as the Father knows me and I know the Father—and I lay down my life for the sheep.  I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them also. They too will listen to my voice, and there shall be one flock and one shepherd.  The reason my Father loves me is that I lay down my life—only to take it up again.  No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father.”

  

You might be thinking regardless of whether or not Islam is true, you are a good person anyway, so you don't need to repent of your sins and enter into a personal relationship with Jesus.  If you think that, I invite you to take the Good Person Test.

Now that you know how to be saved, I beg you all to get saved.  You can know true freedom through Jesus, and you will have the privilege of spending eternity with God in his Kingdom (see my blog post about the Kingdom of Heaven).  

Part 1 of David Wood's reasons for rejecting Muhammad as a prophet

Part 2 of David Wood's reasons for rejecting Muhammad as a prophet:

For part 3 of David Wood's reasons for rejecting Muhammad, click here.

For part 4 of David Wood's reasons for rejecting Muhammad, click here.

Part 5 of David Wood's reasons for rejecting Muhammad was recently taken down from YouTube for unknown reasons, but I was able to download it to my computer before that happened.  If you want to see it, leave me a message on the contact form on this blog. 

The Battle For Our Children...

As followers of Jesus, we know that we are supposed to train up our children in the ways of the Lord because we are commanded to in scripture. For example, Paul tells us so in his letter to the Ephesians:

Ephesians 6:4: “Fathers, do not exasperate your children; instead, bring them up in the training and instruction of the Lord.”

King Solomon taught us the importance of raising children in the training and instruction of the Lord:

Proverbs 22:6: “Start children off on the way they should go, and even when they are old they will not turn from it.”

 Even Moses understood the importance of this, and commanded the Israelites to do the same:

Deuteronomy 6:4-9: “Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength. These commandments that I give you today are to be on your hearts. Impress them on your children. Talk about them when you sit at home and when you walk along the road, when you lie down and when you get up. Tie them as symbols on your hands and bind them on your foreheads. Write them on the doorframes of your houses and on your gates.”

We know what we have to do as Followers of Jesus, but we are told all the time by our society in these modern times that it is not ok to indoctrinate your children into your religion; in other words, you're not allowed to train up your children in the way of the Lord because they are not in a position to know whether it is true or not.

In her article Do Parents Have The RightTo Force Religion on Their Kids? that appeared in The Washington Post, journalist Leslie Morgan Steiner wrote the following:

“So I wonder: Does religious freedom apply within the nuclear family? Other than tradition passed down within male-dominated cultures where wives and children were considered chattel of men, why do modern parents believe we hold the right to force our children to practice certain religious beliefs? Why don't we expose our children to multiple religions without picking one, and them let them decide for themselves as adults -- as we do with most important decisions, such as careers, spouses and where to live?

Most Western civilizations no longer force women or children to marry against their will or follow orders from the patriarchal forces in the family. Why does religion, at times, seem to be an exception? Or is sharing your religious beliefs with your children simply part of being a loving, supportive parent?”

In her blog post Stop Inviting My Kid to Church: Religion is Not For Children, blogger and presumably atheist MsJoyFG wrote the following:

“This part will be touchy for people who do not believe the same as we do and I respect that; I'll raise my kids and you can raise yours. I do not think religion is for children. I think that they should be exposed to the beliefs of all people, and while I will tell my children 'this is what Mommy and Daddy believe,' I do not expect her to believe the same thing. I'll ask Miss N what she thinks -- and she has some really amazing thoughts on the matter -- but I will not tell her she is wrong if she disagrees with me about the big beliefs.

I do not tell her she is going to hell if she does not believe as I do, that she ought to live in fear for the people in her life who do not because it is unfair to expect a child to live like that. It is not right to speak in absolutes with children because they will believe anything and everything you tell them and they are still developing the cognitive ability to sift through the logic of some claims. Case in point: Boy honestly thinks Batman is a viable career choice (after Miss N encouraged him to come up with a back up plan, he's settled on police officer/Batman).”

It's funny that MsJoyFG claims that we can't speak in absolutes about religion to children because they will believe anything you tell them, because that is exactly what our society does when it comes to Evolution and homosexuality, and people like her don't even bat an eye towards society when that happens.

In the article Why Evolution Should Be Taught to Kids that appeared in Newsweek, Mary Charmichael wrote the following:

“Britain has just made evolution a mandatory part of the curriculum for even its youngest students, and American states ought to follow. Without evolution, biology isn't really science—it's just memorization—and our kids, even the littlest ones, deserve a more interesting introduction to the natural world than that. It's time we gave it to them.

The Concord Consortium is already working on one way to teach evolution to kids—an interactive, technology-driven fourth-grade curriculum called Evolution Readiness. The group is testing the approach in classrooms in Massachusetts, Missouri, and Texas. It's purposely keeping things simple, but it's not talking down to its students. "When you're 10 years old, the time to your next birthday is a long time, so it's really hard to understand things that take place over millennia," says Horwitz, who leads the project. "So we're looking at adaptation over a few generations, not a few million years." The group is also keeping things at the macro level, leaving out discussions of the genetic change that drives evolution—which, of course, is how Darwin did things, too, since genetic science hadn't been worked out in his time.” 

You hear that? Learning about biology through purely observation is no fun, so they have to introduce this imaginative fairy tale called evolution in order to make things more exciting! On top of that, when you read the whole article, Carmichael writes that we should be teaching evolution to our children because Charles Darwin taught his children about evolution. 

Therein lies a BIG problem: If they can teach our children about evolution because Charles Darwin did, then why can't followers of Jesus train up their own children in the ways of the Lord, especially when the Lord clearly commands his followers to do so? To advocate this position is total intellectual hypocrisy.

It gets even more disturbing when we look at the article Labour’s plan to introduce LGBT education to five year olds is the best idea they’ve had, written by Eleanor Margolis for the NewStatesman:

“Labour’s plan to introduce LGBT-oriented sex education to five-year-olds is simply one of the best ideas they’ve had. Liberal parents may shrug and say, 'cool', Daily Mail readers may reel off the usual Hallmark conservatism stuff about 'loss of innocence'. But for me and all the millions of other LGBT people who know first-hand what it’s like to feel alienated at school purely because of our sexuality, this proposed policy couldn’t be more important.

For too many of us, our first introduction to anything LGBT is via playground meanness. I spent most of my childhood thinking 'gay' was a rude word. When I was five, my very accepting parents just didn’t think to tell me that it’s OK for girls to fancy girls, and I didn’t think to ask them. If my teachers had taken it upon themselves to impart that crucial nugget, even as a side note – 'A triangle has three sides. Two plus two is four. Oh, by the way, gay people are a thing and that’s fine' – things could’ve been very, very different.” 

Wait a minute! I thought that homosexuality was a sexual orientation that people were born with, that they couldn't choose to be anything else; how come we're now indoctrinating five-year-olds into it?  

It's pretty obvious what they're doing:  Much like evolution, society wants the idea of homosexuality being good and normal to be so ingrained into kids' heads when they can barely read or think for themselves that by the time that they start experiencing homosexual urges when they're a little older, they will have been taught their whole life that there's nothing wrong with homosexuality, and they won't think anything of acting on their urges.  

Fellow believers who are parents raising up kids, don't let society tell you how to raise your kids, and don't let them raise your kids.  Raise your kids up like scripture tells you to:  in the ways of the Lord.  In the future, I will be releasing a companion guide for my book Another Inconvenient Truth; the purpose of this companion guide will be to help you explain the topics of my book in a way that your five-year-old  can understand.  It will be a great tool for countering what the people in this post are doing.

The Flood of Noah is a Historical Fact

Growing up in the USA, I have heard claims all over academia and society talking about how the world-wide flood recorded in Genesis 7 & 8 is a myth based on countless flood myths that were written before it.  However, as I have considered the evidence in the observable world supporting the Flood, I have come to realize that the flood described in Genesis 7 & 8 is an undeniable historical fact.

The Claims of Scoffers:

In an unbelievably accurate display of prophecy, Peter wrote the following in his second letter:

2 Peter 3:3-7:  "Above all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires.  They will say, 'Where is this "coming" he promised? Ever since our ancestors died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation.'  But they deliberately forget that long ago by God’s word the heavens came into being and the earth was formed out of water and by water.  By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed.  By the same word the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire, being kept for the day of judgment and destruction of the ungodly."

Peter clearly is telling us that in the last days, Scoffers who promote uniformitarian philosophies grounded on no evidence would come along and deny three things:  The creation as described in Genesis 1:1-2:3, the Flood, and the coming judgement known as the Day of The Lord.  Are there scoffers who deny the flood?

In promotion of his 1999 book, Robert M. Best wrote the following:

"Noah's Ark and the Ziusudra Epic: Sumerian Origins of the Myth is a book that takes a fresh look at six versions of the Ancient Near East flood myth, demythologizes them, and combines the various story elements like pieces of a jigsaw picture puzzle into one coherent story. There actually was an archaeologically confirmed flood about 2900 BC on which the ark stories were based, but it was a local river flood, not a global deluge. The original ark stories were about a small commercial river barge that was hauling a few hundred cattle, sheep, and goats, but there were no kangaroos, lions, apes, elephants, or giraffes on that cattle barge."

Unfortunately, so-called Christians like Hugh Ross who accept Evolution promote the idea that the flood in Genesis 7 & 8 was a local flood, as Hugh Ross blatantly tells us in this YouTube video. 

In The Myth of Noah's Ark, D.M Murdock, in the context of the Babylonian flood story, said that the Flood of Genesis 7 & 8 was:

"...a cataclysmic event for which there is no solid, scientific evidence..."

In this post, I will address these claims in reverse order; by showing the observable and historical evidence that the flood was Global, it will be easier to show why the Flood could not have possibly been local. 

Physical Evidence For The Flood:


Every sane person who studies geology knows that every single continent on the planet is filled with sediment layers containing the fossils of billions of dead animals and plants, but there is more to the story:  there are marine fossils in rock layers that are WAY above sea level.  In the article High & Dry Sea Creatures, Dr. Andrew Snelling wrote the following for AIG:


"Marine fossils are also found high in the Himalayas, the world’s tallest mountain range, reaching up to 29,029 feet (8,848 m) above sea level.  For example, fossil ammonites (coiled marine cephalopods) are found in limestone beds in the Himalayas of Nepal. All geologists agree that ocean waters must have buried these marine fossils in these limestone beds. So how did these marine limestone beds get high up in the Himalayas?"

Dr. Snelling did not make an arbitrary assertion; when you go to the actual article, you will notice that there is a footnote in that quote which refers to a 1997 geology textbook, which is available for cheap on Amazon.

While Dr. Snelling goes on in the next paragraph to explain the "young earth creationist" view that the mountains in the world might not have always been as high as they are now on the Basis of Psalm 104:8 (a view which I agree with him on), let's pretend for a second that he is wrong and the mountains have always been as high as they are now:  How on Earth did those marine fossils get up there if there was no global flood when ocean waters are what buries marine fossils in limestone beds?

In Genesis 8, we read about how God caused the flood waters to recede; the obvious question is, where did these flood waters recede to?  God tells us where in Psalm 104:

Psalm 104:5-9:  "He set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved.  You covered it with the watery depths as with a garment; the waters stood above the mountains.  But at your rebuke the waters fled, at the sound of your thunder they took to flight; they flowed over the mountains, they went down into the valleys, to the place you assigned for them.  You set a boundary they cannot cross; never again will they cover the earth."

In the article Vast Underwater Ocean Trapped Beneath Earth's Crust, we read the following:

"Scientists have discovered evidence of a vast water reservoir trapped hundreds of miles beneath the surface, capable of filling Earth's oceans three times over.

Located 400 miles (660 km) beneath Earth's crust, this body of water is locked up in a blue mineral called ringwoodite that lies in the transition zone of hot rock between Earth's surface and core. Interestingly, this water is not in a form familiar to us - it's neither liquid, ice nor vapor. Geophysicist Steve Jacobsen from Northwestern University suggests it means that water on Earth may get pushed to the surface from below, contradicting previous beliefs that water was delivered via icy comets."

Take special note of what Jacobsen said at the end of the article regard the amount of water in this reservoir:

"'If [the stored water] wasn't there, it would be on the surface of the Earth, and mountaintops would be the only land poking out,' he said."

While there is disagreement between Jacobsen and the bible about whether or not the flood went above the very tops of the mountains or not, they are in perfect agreement on one thing:  There is more than enough water in that reservoir under the surface of our planet to have a global flood.  Furthermore, we now know where all that flood water went. 

For those who still believe after reading what I have presented thus far that the Flood was merely local, Michael S. Cole has a good summary of the reasons why the flood couldn't have been local in his article Noah's Ark--Truth of Myth?:

"I see two major problems with the local flood theories. You cannot cover the highest mountains with water for several months if the flood was only regional. (Gen. 7:20). Secondly, and even more significant is the covenant which God made after the Flood. God promised, "Never again shall there be a flood to destroy the earth." (Gen. 9:11). If the flood of Noah was merely a local flood, then God would have broken that promise hundreds of times since then. Other problems include that a population as large as one billion would not likely be contained within a single valley that would be amenable to local flooding. Besides, some people and animals could have simply gone to higher ground as happens during local flooding today. Even if the world's human population was not widely spread, nothing would have kept the birds and all the animals confined within that local flood area. Genesis 7:21-23 says that all creatures outside the Ark who lived on the land were destroyed. I also object to the possibility of a local flood because God could have merely instructed Noah and his family, along with the animals to be saved, to migrate out of the area that would be flooded."

Historical Evidence for The Flood:

As I mentioned in the beginning, most critics will point out that stories of a Global flood were found in other cultures before Moses compiled Genesis together, and they therefore assert that Genesis copied from those other stories.  On pages 3-4 of Noah and The Last Days Companion Guide, Ray Comfort sums it up well: 

"The worldwide catastrophic Flood, recorded in the book of Genesis, was a real event that affected real people.  We would therefore expect there to be records of this historical event in the nations of the world, and this is what we find. Accounts of a devastating flood—distorted though they may be—are found in historic records in practically all nations, from ancient Babylon onward. This evidence must not be lightly dismissed.  If there never was a worldwide Flood, then why are there so many stories about it?
 
The reason for these global flood traditions is not difficult to understand. When the eight survivors walked off the Ark, they carried a common account. Japheth likely told his children the account, they passed it down to their children, and they in turn told their children. Shem and Ham no doubt did the same. If the details changed, Noah was still alive to correct them and the account likely remained pretty much true to fact. The history book of the universe, the Bible, tells us that Noah’s descendants stayed together for approximately 100 years.
 
Then came the Tower of Babel, where God scrambled the unified language, forcing men to spread out
across the whole earth (Genesis 11:1–9). As these people moved away from Babel, their descendants formed nations based primarily on the languages they shared in common.Without its original biblical figures on hand to correct errors, as the story of the Flood was verbally passed from one generation to the next, some aspects would have been lost or altered. And this is what has happened. The Ark became a canoe, or a mountain top. The length of the Flood became just a few days in some of the stories.

 The fact that over 270 cultures retain distant memories of that cataclysmic event is a great confirmation of the biblical account and exactly what we would expect as nations traveled around the world passing down the account of the Flood. Though the details have been lost, most of the legends share common themes: man became corrupt, the Flood was worldwide, eight people survived, representatives of all land animals were saved, a dove was released to seek dry land, the survivors came down from a mountain to repopulate the whole world, and so on.
 
For instance, Hawaiians have a flood story that tells of a time when, long after the death of the first man, the world became a wicked, terrible place. Only one good man was left, and his name was Nu-u. He made a great canoe with a house on it and filled it with animals. In this story, the waters came up over all the earth and killed all the people; only Nu-u and his family were saved.
 
Another flood story is from China. It records that Fuhi, his wife, three sons, and three daughters escaped a great flood and were the only people alive on earth. After the great flood, they repopulated the world.
 
Critics claim the Bible’s account borrows from earlier myths. But it’s the other way around. The Bible declares that the earth-covering cataclysm of Noah’s day is an obvious fact of history, and thus the reason the Flood stories use names similar to the Bible’s is that they are borrowing from God’s Word. That’s why Noah-like names such as Nu-u, Nu-Wah, Noh, Nos, and Nuh are preserved in so many of the Flood legends.  Although there are varying degrees of accuracy, these legends and stories all contain similarities to aspects of the same historical event—Noah’s Flood."

Much like what I said about the age of the earth in my previous post, Just How Old Is The Earth & Universe?, the truth about the Flood is not a matter of science; it is ultimately a matter of history, of who was there to witness the event in question.

Remember when I said that Moses compiled Genesis?  Most people think that Moses wrote that book, but in reality, Genesis is a collection of ten different eyewitness accounts by ten different authors; there are ten different sign-off points at spots in Genesis to indicate where one account ends, and who wrote it.  In Creation Seminar 6, Dr Kent Hovind explains it wonderfully (watch from 2:30-6:44 to see where Hovind talks about the different authors of Genesis).

So who wrote down Genesis 6:9b-9:29?  The answer is found at the beginning of Genesis 10:

Genesis 10:1:  "This is the account of Shem, Ham, and Japheth, Noah's sons who themselves had sons after the flood."

So there you go:  Noah's sons, who were on the Ark with Noah during the flood, are the ones who wrote their eyewitness testimony about the flood.  

Conclusion:  

As crazy as this may sound, based on the evidence presented in this post, I believe that the Flood of Genesis 7 & 8 is as much of a historical fact as the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans in 70 AD and the death and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth in the early 30s AD.  

In terms of physical evidence, you have sediment layers made of sand, mud, and lime with no erosion marks containing billions of dead animals and plants on every continent, going from the bottom of the ocean to the top of the Himalayas, and we have a giant water reservoir under the surface of our planet where the water is in some unknown form that prevents it from coming to the surface and flooding the globe again.

In terms of historical evidence, you have 270 different cultures containing global flood traditions that share many important details with the Genesis account; what separates those accounts from Genesis is that the Genesis account was written by three people who were first-hand eyewitnesses due to the fact that they were on the Ark when the global flood happened.  

On top of that, as I show in Another Inconvenient Truth, the Jesus of the gospels and the historical Jesus are one and the same, and that Jesus clearly taught that the flood was a historical fact when he was talking about his second coming:

Matthew 24:36-41:  "But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.  As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man.  For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark; and they knew nothing about what would happen until the flood came and took them all away. That is how it will be at the coming of the Son of Man.  Two men will be in the field; one will be taken and the other left.  Two women will be grinding with a hand mill; one will be taken and the other left."

According to Jesus himself, if he was wrong about the flood, then we can't trust him when he talks about the unseen spiritual world:

John 3:11-12:  "Very truly I tell you, we speak of what we know, and we testify to what we have seen, but still you people do not accept our testimony.  I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe; how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things?"

The thing you have to remember is that what Jesus said in John 3:11-12 is the most self-condemning thing he could have said if he wasn't who he claimed to be.  However, since the Gospels are the most accurate historical records we have about Jesus, we know that Jesus was who he claimed to be, which is God in human form.  Since Jesus is God in human form, everything he said and taught is true.  Therefore, when he talks about the Flood as a historical fact, we can trust him to be speaking the truth.

Just How Old Is The Earth & Universe?

*This article originally appeared as a guest article on onlyjesussaves.com; it has been edited slightly to account for some information that was missing from the original post.*   





The age of the Earth, and the universe, is a topic that not only fascinates most people, but it also is one of the most important things to the religion of Evolution.  As I show in my book Another Inconvenient Truth, the theory of Evolution violates our most fundamental scientific laws, and ultimately goes against all observations of the real world and universe. In my observation of history, I have noticed that as more and more observational evidence supporting the biblical accounts has piled up, the atheists and humanists controlling academia have placed Evolution further and further back in time.  It’s almost like they think that if they put their theory further back into an unobservable past, it will become more plausible.  Sadly, a lot of Christians have fallen for this lie.

To set the record straight once and for all, I will show you how “young earth” creationists came to the conclusion that the universe and the Earth were created 6,000 years ago.

As we all know, God created Adam on the sixth day of creation.  When Adam was 130, he had a son named Seth (Genesis 5:3).  When Seth was 105, he had a son named Enosh (Genesis 5:6).  When Enosh was 90, he had a son named Kenan (Genesis 5:9).  When Kenan was 70, he had a son named Mahalalel (Genesis 5:12).  When Mahalalel was 65, he had a son named Jared (Genesis 5:15).  When Jared was 162, he had a son named Enoch (Genesis 5:18).  When Enoch was 65, he had a son named Methuselah (Genesis 5:21).  When Methuselah was 187, he had a son named Lamech (Genesis 5:25).  When Lamech was 182, he had Noah (Genesis 5:28).  When Noah was 500, he had sons named Shem, Ham, and Japheth (Genesis 5:32).

Noah was 600 years old when the Flood happened (Genesis 6:6), which means that 100 years had passed between when God warned him about it, and when it actually happened.  According to Genesis 8:13, Noah was 601 when the water from the flood had completely receeded.  According to Genesis 11:10, Shem became the father of Arphaxad two years after the flood.  When Arphaxad was 35, he became the father of Shelah (Genesis 11:12).  When Shelah was 30, he had a son named Eber (Genesis 11:14).  When Eber was 34, he had a son named Peleg (Genesis 11:16).  When Peleg was 30, he had a son named Reu (Genesis 11:18).  When Reu was 32, he had a son named Serug (Genesis 11:20).  When Serug was 30, he had a son named Nahor (Genesis 11:22).  When Nahor was 29, he had a son named Terah (Genesis 11:24).  When Terah was 70, he had Abram, Nahor (a different one), and Haran.  When Abram was 75, he set out from Harran (Genesis 12:4). 

In Genesis 15:13-16, God made the following promise to to Abram:

“Then the Lord said to him, ‘Know for certain that for four hundred years your descendants will be strangers in a country not their own and that they will be enslaved and mistreated there.  But I will punish the nation they serve as slaves, and afterward they will come out with great possessions.  You, however, will go to your ancestors in peace and be buried at a good old age.  In the fourth generation your descendants will come back here, for the sin of the Amorites has not yet reached its full measure.'”

In Exodus 12:40, we read the following:

“Now the length of time the Israelite people lived in Egypt was 430 years.”

In other words, 430 years passed between God’s promise to Abram and the actual Exodus from Egypt.

In 1 Kings 6:1, we read the following:

“In the four hundred and eightieth year after the Israelites came out of Egypt, in the fourth year of Solomon’s reign over Israel, in the month of Ziv, the second month, he began to build the temple of the Lord.”

In other words, the Exodus to the fourth year of King Solomon’s reign was 480 years.

The fourth year of King Solomon’s reign was 966 BC, and the book of Malachi was written shortly after 433 BC, so that’s a span of 533 years.

The time between the book of Malachi and the birth of Jesus was from 433-5 BC, a span of 428 years.

Jesus was put to death in the early 30s AD.  For the sake of this post, we’ll assume that his death, resurrection, and ascension to heaven was in 33 AD.  We’ll say that Jesus lived for 33 years on this Earth.

Since this is the year 2015, that would mean that 1,982 years have passed since Jesus ascended to heaven.

When you add all that up, we find that the universe and the Earth are both 5,909 years old.  Most creationists round it up to 6,000 years in order to make it simple for the sake of argumentation.

Why is this topic so important?  Contrary to what our society tells us, the issue of the age of the Earth and universe is NOT a question of science.  You can make all kinds of assumptions and guesses using flawed dating methods, but unless you have someone who was there at the beginning to verify that your theory was true, science can NEVER give us the age of the Earth and universe.

Thankfully, we have the eyewitness testimony of the one who was there at the beginning to observe the creation of the universe; namely, the creator himself: God.  Not only that, the writers of the Old Testament wrote down enough genealogies and time spans that by looking at them along with the rest of the historical record, we can figure out roughly how old the Earth and Universe is.

Not only that, but we know historically exactly where the idea of the Earth being millions (and eventually Billions) of years old comes from.  Before 1795, most people believed that the Earth was as old as the Bible says it is.  Then James Hutton came along and asserted that the Earth was millions of years old without providing any real evidence to show how it was more correct than what the bible teaches.  Hutton made this assertion based on his Uniformitarianism, which is the belief that the way things in the world and universe operate now is the way that they’ve always operated in the past.  Hutton’s assertion caused many people to doubt the Bible, and caused many to walk away from their faith.

In an amazing display of prophecy, the apostle Peter saw people like Hutton coming in the future:

2 Peter 3:3-7:  “Above all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires.  They will say, ‘Where is this “coming” he promised? Ever since our ancestors died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation.‘  But they deliberately forget that long ago by God’s word the heavens came into being and the earth was formed out of water and by water.  By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed.  By the same word the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire, being kept for the day of judgment and destruction of the ungodly.”

Take special notice of verse 4; notice how it perfectly sums up the idea of Uniformitarianism.  Isn’t it amazing how someone writing a letter in the early 60s AD could perfectly describe a secular belief that didn’t come into existence until over 1,700 years later?  Just another piece of evidence that shows that nothing takes God by surprise.

In conclusion, you don’t have to be scared or nervous when the scientific and academic community insist that the universe and the Earth is billions of years old.  You know what the Bible says about that, and the bible has never been proven wrong in historical or scientific matters.  You can trust it when it says that the universe and Earth is 5,909 years old.

You can also trust Creationists when they say that that Bible teaches that the universe and Earth is 6,000 years old.