Want Some Answers ???


Hi David

Thanks for the reply.

>>Dear Mark, I will make this my last e-mail and wish to thank you for the exchange. I don’t mind if you reply, if you wish to. You deserve the right to have the last say. (I may reply to a non-rhetorical question). Reading between the lines, I sense your irritation and regret it. My irritation was to be told I don’t believe, and need to pray. Though many matters in your last 10 pages call out for a reply, I will be brief:<<

Well it’s been good to write on these matters and an interesting topic. Perhaps some slight irritation was because points were raised and not answered, but never mind. The mention for prayer and believing is because they go with God’s Word. Surely you believe God reveals the truth about the matters we discuss. If so, His Word should have the final authority. I believe Christians should be like Christ (Eph.1.4 4.17-9, Phil.3.8-10, Col.2.6-10 2.Cor.6.21 13.4). He ‘believed’ Genesis as written, with its plain meaning, so I can't understand why you don't. There's no way you can marry what you believe with the Bible.

>>1 Questions on documentable fact:- R Numbers is an historian. His book was in our Public Library Dewey no 231.765 NUM. Morris's endorsement is on the back cover, and that’s why I took the book out and read it. Morris endorsed it as impartial and accurate in the history. I envy the author– just facts and no bias.<<

Are your ‘facts’ mixed up? Nowhere "on the back cover" does Morris endorse Numbers as “impartial and accurate” or “unbiassed accuracy”. Morris says it’s “for those interested in the background of the modern revival of creationism.” And has a “rich mine of information and historical insights”. But nothing like you claimed.

But what an amazing story. You refer to Morris - “
baseless rubbish” “pathetic”, “adds human imagination”, “misquotes”, “misuses words”, “wrong”, “pretends”, “imagines” has “very serious error”, he makes-up ideas, ignores and distorts. Yet he recommends a book and you read and believe every word of it. Rather odd don't you think? R.L.Numbers does have a bias against creationists. So obviously you will admire the ‘author’ and his book. Numbers holds the same theories as you and those resulted in him rejecting the Bible. He wrote,

I vividly remember the evening I attended an illustrated lecture on the famous sequence of fossil forests in Yellowstone National Park and then stayed up most of the night … agonizing over, then accepting, the disturbing likelihood that the earth was at least thirty thousand years old. Having thus decided to follow science rather than Scripture on the subject of origins, I quickly, though not painlessly, slid down the proverbial slippery slope toward unbelief.” (p. xvi. The Creationists: The Evolution of Scientific Creationism, Univ of California Press, 1992).

He doesn’t follow real science that can be tested by observations in the present, (the science that sent men to the moon). He's well-researched, but his prejudices are evident. His book is not an objective study, it majors heavily on personalities, with subtle (and some not-so-subtle) character assassinations. While the high scientific qualifications of many creationists are downplayed. He invariably gives the last word to the evolutionist, which often leaves an impression contrary to the facts as can be seen upon checking the sources. However, he exposes the ‘strained efforts’ of re-interpreting Scripture to fit evolution, and the deceit of some theistic evolutionists ‘stretching the truth to the breaking point’ (p.182) when hiding what they really believe.

You might remember the famous evangelist Charles Templeton. He wrote a book called “Farewell to God – my reasons for rejecting the Christian faith”. He had doubts about the history of Genesis which seemed to contradict science. His reasons for rejecting the Christian faith was the belief in millions of years and the big bang theory. He wrote, “It’s simply not possible any longer to believe, for instance, the biblical account of creation. The world wasn’t created over a period of days a few thousand years ago; it has evolved over millions of years. It’s not a matter of speculation; its demonstrable fact”. (p7 Farwell to God. McClelland & Stewart Inc. NY 1991). So sadly this great preacher became yet another example of one who gave up the faith. All who accept your doctrine will have the same risk.

>>Morris’s misquote: For the record, here is the complete sentence: 'When he sinned, God pronounced a Curse on both Adam and his dominion: "Cursed is the earth for thy sake" (Gen 3.17).' It is an absurd notion that the ground = the earth = the universe.<<

No book or page number? God echoed similar words in Gen.8.21 “I will never again curse the earth” (see also NLT, GNB, NAB). Its not "an absurd notion" that the ground = earth = universe was affected by God’s displeasure. After all, the earth and universe are subject to the Law of Decay. Both were effected by the entrance of sin, so both are tarnished. Otherwise, why would Paul say, “all things” will be restored or remade? (1 Cor15.27 Isa.65:25 Heb.1.10-12).

Your idea is a restoration to more disasters, storms, disease, suffering, death and earth quakes but lasting forever. You have death in the past, present and future. You seem to think in eternity animals will feast on each other. So there will be plenty of death and suffering there. And you will insist its all "
harmonious" and "only part of the truth".

But where is your scholarly support? There’s plenty for Morris. “WORLD — the heavens and the earth that form the universe and the place where people and animals live. Among both the Hebrew people and the Greeks the terms “world” and “earth” were used interchangeably to mean the created universe, the fruitful and habitable earth. The biblical declaration, “The earth is the Lord’s, and all its fullness, the world and those who dwell therein” (Ps. 24:1), denotes the whole of created nature.” (Nelson's New Illustrated Bible Dictionary. Nelson Publ. 1995).

The ground is mentioned in Gen.3 so men won't think it means the work was cursed. But if God only cursed the ground, then what was the state of the ground before it was cursed? We have thorns in the fossil record proving the geological column did not take millions of years to form. And you agree when God cursed the ground “
weeds came” (a stunning admission). So since they are in the fossil record, it can't be millions of years old, correct?

>>Humphreys' credibility: I accept that he is sound in his field. I’m not in his field. I merely gave you 3 reasons why he is not automatically credible on 3 matters which are in my field.<<

So I re-read your mail for those 3 reasons and your field. But only found mention of ‘biblical age’, ‘creation date’ and ‘Gentry’s haloes’. But you don’t sound conversant in those fields. The 'reasons' were not enough to question Humphrey’s credibility or Gentry’s haloes.

I’m satisfied the biblical data is sound to calculate the date of creation. If you ignore the historical biblical data that allows us to put real dates to an incident for a biblical story in the Bible, how does that story differ from a myth? Time texts in the Bible are the main point of Satan’s attack on the authority of Scripture. Whether they are in Genesis, 1 Kings, Luke, or elsewhere, if you don’t take the time-texts literally, you undermine the authority of God’s Word.

>>2 Interpretation of Romans 5 and 1 Cor 15:- I argued from the text that AiG are adding to it and invited you to prove animals are there. (a) You argued from nature that animals are included in what the Bible says (and yet you see nature as insignificant revelation compared with the Bible).<<

I did use "the text" to show animals were included. Adam was appointed head of creation with dominion over “the earth”. Sin and death came into the world because of him (Rom.5:12). But according to you, death did NOT “come into the world”, it was there already. You disagree with Paul, and blame God for billions of years of death and suffering. You said “Psa 104 is an undistorted picture, including sin, death, catastrophe; the writer rejoices in it and so do I.” Yet the Psalmist doesn't rejoice in ‘sin, death' or ‘catastrophe’, (nor does God) so why do you?

Creation was placed in the hands of Adam, his actions (good or bad) affected creation. After the fall there is a universal degeneration. God had cursed "the ground" (Gen.3.17). Scripture says “out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field” (Gen.2:19). So obviously the curse affected all creatures “out of the ground”. And what does
nature show? - that animals do share the same suffering, pain and death as mankind. Even so, creation has been tainted so its a limited "revelation compared with the Bible".

>>(b) You seem to suggest that the Holy Spirit allows interpretation beyond what the words say (as if to say that the words do not convey God’s full meaning, or that you have a fuller revelation than I) The word of God, however, protects itself by saying “add not unto his words”.<<

The key to scripture is that the Holy Spirit reveals its meaning and not the theories of men. He “will teach you everything and remind you of all that I told you.” He “will guide you to all truth… and will declare to you” (Jn 14.26, 16:13). The Holy Spirit never gives an interpretation contrary to what Christ gave regarding Genesis 1-2-3. So popular evolutionary interpretations are not the teaching of the Holy Spirit. If you try to add them to the Bible, it grieves the Holy Spirit, corrupts the gospel and people fall away. "If creation is not to be taken as literally true, you disconnect it from the Gospel, which is then disconnected from the real world" (p26 Creation Prof.D Kelly. vol22.2 2000). If you use outside influences to interpret the Bible, in the end, you won't believe anything it says.

>>On 1 Cor 15, you seem to say that “all will be raised” doesn’t mean all who die in Adam will be raised.<<

What I said was “in Christ all shall be made alive (1 Cor.15:22).” You wrote, “if animals/plants were included in the death, then in v 22 “all” teaches that they too must be included in the resurrection.” My response is that the expression “all will be raised” doesn’t refer to animals/plants. The earth & heavens will be restored or re-created, not resurrected. Only man with body, soul and spirit can be resurrected.

>>3 Four other comments:- You: ‘If you practice what you believe you’d love pictures of dead animals’. Answer: I gave good reasons why I have no picture of my late wife in her dead or dying state.<<

Well originally you asked, “Who made the lovely autumn colours of dying leaves?” and suggested death was part of God’s creation. If true, then pictures of “dying leaves” could be supplemented with pictures of dying animals (you equate the death of plant/animal). What your “late wife” had to do with this is beyond me, you side-step the issue.

God said creation “was very good”; tell me WHAT was “very good”? If there is nothing wrong with a death ridden creation why not have pictures of dead animals on calendars? There is no way you can answer this problem. You blame God for billions of years of billions of deaths, suffering, pain and disease. And try to pretend its all normal and
'part of the truth', but the fact is, it's not true.

Jesus gave tremendous encouragement to those suffering loss (Mt.22:32-3 Jn.5:24 10:28-9 11:25-6). But He also said, “If you had believed Moses, you would have believed me, because he wrote about me.” (Jn.5:46). So there’s a clear link between believing what Moses wrote (Genesis 1-2-3) and believing what Jesus said. If you don’t believe what Moses wrote how can you believe what Jesus said?

>>You: demand a particular interpretation in Rom 5’ ‘Yet you insist the word ‘day’ isn’t ‘day’..’ Answer: I demand a correct interpretation of Rom 5, no more, no less. I never insisted days aren’t days.<<

Then "a correct interpretation" of Rom.5:12 would say that ‘Sin came into the world” and "with sin came death". But if either “sin” or “death” were present in the world already, then Paul’s comment is incorrect. You will accept any interpretation of a day, long as it’s not a 24 hour day. Anything as long as you can believe ‘the millions of years’ mantra. You frantically stress an interpretation about single words (“world” or “ground”) yet totally dismiss whole chapters about cataclysmic events & the very creation text itself.

>>You: ‘It depends on who you trust…God’s word or the alternative..’ Answer: I trust Bible data, but not what some do with it. Assumptions that Gen 1.1 is the same year as Gen 1.3 or Gen 3 are human opinion, not bible data.

If you “trust bible data” you wouldn't compromise with human opinions – theories full of assumptions. The assumption that Gen.1:1 and Gen.1:3 have a billion years between them is a human assumption without evidence. An “interpretation beyond what the words say”. But you don't 'trust Bible data' on "timescales" you said, "the Bible....has no data to work it out."

>>Long time estimates are, I agree, based on scientific rather than Bible grounds, but that doesn’t automatically make them wrong<<

See you don’t ‘trust Bible data’ you trust what evolutionists tell you. The reason the long time estimates are wrong is because there is sufficient, good, reasonable scientific evidence to the contrary. The estimates are not "based on true science" but demanded by evolutionary theory (so evolution can be plausible). Paul warns Timothy to watch out for “oppositions of science falsely so called” (1 Tim.6:20).

>>for Copernicus’ science observation was more correct than Luther/Calvin’s view from the Bible.<<

Anti-Christian propagandists also make much of the conflict between Galileo and the church or religion verses science. Galileo thought that the simpler mathematics of Copernican system would best reflect God’s mathematical simplicity (His Tri-unity). The main opponents of Galileo are the scientific establishment, “The Aristotelian professors, seeing their vested interests threatened, united against him. They strove to cast suspicion on him in the eyes of the ecclesiastical authorities because of [alleged] contradictions between the Copernican theory and scriptures” (p638 The New Ency. Britannica 19.638-640. 15th ed. 1992). I would agree the Bible writers used the earth as a reference frame, as do modern astronomers talking about the ‘sunset’ (speed limit signs also depend on the earth as a reference frame). I also say ‘sunrise’ and ‘sunset’ so I suppose you will find fault with me.

If you want to say Luther/Calvin were wrong, then they (like you) based their
observations on poetry books. But when it came to history and the age of the earth they (unlike you) were right.

However I would say, that what has come to be known as the ‘Copernican principle’ or ‘Cosmological principle’ is unscientific. The ultimate motive behind that is atheistic naturalism. The big bang and Darwinism are two halves, physical and biological, of an atheistic origins myth. Christians who support the big bang theory should realize that they are unwittingly denying their God and compromising with a godless worldview.

>>You: ‘God’s sustaining power kept creation in pristine perfection’. Answer: A human invention. How do you know? According to Morris, you can’t know what happened then.<<

Not human invention, but basic Bible knowledge. “He sustains all things by his powerful word” (Heb.1.3 NAB NLT GNB AV). “He keeps the world from dissolving. By him all things consist. The weight of the whole creation is laid upon Christ: he supports the whole and all the parts.” (Matthew Henry's Commentary). At the fall God indicates man would see a change in creation. So who do you believe? God who was there and tells us what happened, or men who weren’t there and have their own ideas. The alternative is that God left creation to suffer and die, and went elsewhere and doesn't care. You believe that, then you doubt God’s goodness, power & love. “The LORD is righteous in all his ways, and holy in all his works.” (Psa.145:17 see also Psa.34.7-8 145.9 Deut.32.4 Mt.10.29-31).

>>Finally: AiG could be a force for unifying good if they pruned the ever-increasing human additions to scripture. I just wish that there could be a reform movement to do this. CRS and ICR have a bad history of separating from fine Christians while embracing nonChristians like Melvin Cooke (Mormon).<<

You haven’t established any argument against AiG but a few word differences with Morris (As anyone can see). I believe AiG are the cutting edge in the battle against secular evolutionism today. They offer more incentive to believe the Bible as trustworthy, than your doctrine will ever do. They do far more good. And their main enemies are atheistic evolutionism and sadly people like you. I would not recommend AiG books if their theology had 'human additions to scripture'. You accused them of using bad words like 'evolutionary' and 'biblical ages'. To me, this is no real problem at all. I waited with expectation when you started writing thinking you might find something, but nothing came.

>>To me, the saddest part of Numbers’ book was revealing the Christian fate of those who were driven out or had to leave in order (they felt) to maintain their integrity. Some of these are quoted in Genesis Flood as authorities. Some formed other groups. Some drifted into oblivion or limbo. It is a real waste, caused not by a belief in evolution but by insisting on doctrines which are the commandments of men. I have tried to focus on two of these doctrines. Yours sincerely David<<

Well thanks again. I really must insist on the supernatural non-evolutionary creation of the human race. Otherwise, there could be no such thing as human sin or eternal salvation through the blood of Christ Jesus (Rom.6:23 Heb.2.9 1 Jn.1.5 2.2). But why you rubbish Morris when your doctrine paints such ugly pictures of life, Bible, man, death, earth, the future and God Himself, is beyond me.

Look what happened with Numbers and Templeton, they rejected the bible and that was "
caused by a belief in evolution". The well known Charles Kingsley was another, but he stayed in the church, with racist views. “The black People of Australia, exactly the same race as the African Negro, cannot take in the Gospel….poor brutes in human shape…they must perish off the face of the earth like brute beasts” (p.414-17 Kingsley Sermons on National Subjects XLI Macmillan & Co 1880).

Bishop Spong is another '
real waste.' He has attacked almost every Christian doctrine known. Why? He wrote, “I live on the other side of Darwin…(who) not only made us Christians face that fact that the literal creation story cannot be quite so literal, but he also destroyed the primary myth by which we had hold the Jesus story for centuries. That myth suggested that there was a finished creation from which we human beings had fallen into sin, and therefore needed a rescuing. (There is) no perfect creation because it is not yet finished. It is still unfolding….and so the story of Jesus who comes to rescue us from the Fall becomes a nonsensical story”. (Australia Broadcasting Corp. TV Compass interview by G Doogue ABC Studios 8 July 2000).

Often these people foster bitterness towards Christians and continue attacking God’s Word and His character. I’m not interested in unlocking the door to compromise. Once Christians concede to the world that we don’t have to take the words in Genesis as written, then the door has been unlocked. Once this door is unlocked subsequent generations push it open further.

Thankfully many who
leave evolutionary theory for a literal interpretation of Genesis have excellent testimonies. I’ve read dozens thanks to AiG. AiG do a good work against the fallacy of evolution, building faith in scripture, turning the hearts to the Lord, giving fresh hope and direction. It’s sad you are so bitter because they just believe the bible as written.


What Spurgeon said about Darwinism – “There is not a hair of truth upon this dog from its head to its tail, but it rends and tears the simple ones. In all its bearing upon scriptural truth, the evolution theory is in direct opposition to it. If God’s Word be true, evolution is a lie” (In the sermon, Hideous Discovery July 25, 1886).