How do you answer the fundamental philosophical flaws in your teaching? For example, if things that are complex require a designer, such as a watch needing man, man needing God, then who designed God? Or, if all men are sinners, and men put pen to paper to write the Bible, then how can you assume its infallibility? Remember, God didn’t tell you the Bible is infallible, the men who wrote it did. While you rightly surmise that evolutionists interpret facts through their belief systems or “glasses,” do you not do the same? Lastly, how do you answer Matthew 16:28 “Verily I say unto you, there be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.” If you take this literally, without complex interpretation, then Jesus was wrong. If you say it has a different meaning than the literal, then you open up the entire Bible to interpretation. Thank you for taking time to answer my questions.
With all due respect even in disagreement,
—M.F.

Blinded

Just to say VERY WELL DONE! (Re: Creation Museum [visit by atheists]). God must be be so proud of you all walking “as sheep” in this 21st-century world.

I’ve spent nearly the entire evening now watching the YouTube protesters, and the one thing that struck me most was the venom many people have: just as a guess I’d say Satan has got them well blinded. On the flip-side, though, it was fabulous to see some newscasters jumping to your defence. Keep up the great Faith . . . and your tremendous work!!!

—S.O., Ireland

Have Something to Add?

Let us know what you think.

Thank you for contacting Answers in Genesis. Please see my comments below and note they are meant to kindly challenge you.

How do you answer the fundamental philosophical flaws in your teaching? For example, if things that are complex require a designer, such as a watch needing man, man needing God, then who designed God?

But what God are you talking about? The God of the Bible is without design and without origin. This is why He describes Himself as I AM, that I AM (Exodus 3:14; John 8:58). Name denotes character in the Old Testament. This self-disclosure of Jehovah, the speaking of His Divine name, is a designation of absoluteness coupled with unfettered liberty and self-dependence. It is “uninterrupted continuance with a boundless duration.”1, 2 Only created things need a creator. If something was designed, then there has to have been a designer. God, by definition, could not have been designed, since He is an uncreated being. We are finite and can only see the universe from within, which is why we cannot completely understand a Being who lives outside space and time and who is infinite.

Or, if all men are sinners, and men put pen to paper to write the Bible, then how can you assume its infallibility?

Why are you neglecting that a perfect God inspired them (2 Peter 1:20-21)? Could He not have overcome their fallibility as He spoke through them? Making this assumption is to sit in judgment of God’s Word—without listening to what He says. It is God alone, as Creator, who has the right to sit in judgment when it comes down to it, but God is merciful (Luke 6:36).

Remember, God didn’t tell you the Bible is infallible, the men who wrote it did.

Since God inspired it, then He did write it.

While you rightly surmise that evolutionists interpret facts through their belief systems or “glasses,” do you not do the same?

Of course, and we are open about it. Please see Searching for the “Magic Bullet.” What better glasses to look through than those of the perfect Creator who does not, nor needs to, ever change His story?

Lastly, how do you answer Matthew 16:28 “Verily I say unto you, there be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.” If you take this literally, without complex interpretation, then Jesus was wrong.

The Matthew 16:28 passage is quite simple to answer without a complex explanation. It simply refers to a Kingdom that had already arrived along with the King. This is well and clearly announced in the early part of the gospels. Repentance and faith were then and are now the tickets into the kingdom. Thus, there were many at that time who were about to enter the kingdom before they died. This is not difficult if you adopt a different (and Biblical) view of the kingdom. The Kingdom is both already and not yet. 3

Also, many critics like to quote this and say that those standing there did not see the return of Christ before they died, so Jesus was wrong. However, Jesus did not say that they would see His second coming—only that they would see Him coming in His Kingdom. He made this statement six days prior to taking Peter, James, and John up to a high mountain by themselves (Matthew 17:1). Those with Him on the mountain (who had also been there when He spoke earlier) did, in fact, see Him transfigured. Matthew’s account in chapter 17 specifically leads from the statement to the fulfillment.

If you say it has a different meaning than the literal, then you open up the entire Bible to interpretation.

The point has never been the “literal” interpretation, but the straightforward meaning based on context. Secondly, the Bible tells us to read it as it’s written:

2 Corinthians 4:2
but have cast from us the cloaks of unhonesty, and walk not in craftiness, neither corrupt we the word of God: but walk in open truth, and report ourselves to every man’s conscience in the sight of God.
Proverbs 8:8–9
8 All the words of my mouth are righteous, there is no frowardness nor falsity therein.
9 They are all plain to such as will understand, and right to them that find knowledge.

So, why would anyone read the Bible as if it were only one style? Why not read history as history, poetry as poetry, prophecy as prophecy, metaphors as metaphors, etc.?

If there is one thing I can encourage you to do, it is to at least evaluate the Bible based on the Bible’s own claims and merits. By automatically assuming a lesser “god” (i.e., a designed “god”) and starting with the assumption that mere men wrote the Bible, then, of course, you are more likely to come to the conclusion that God doesn’t exist, the Bible has errors, etc. Indeed, the god that you have devised here (i.e., a created being not capable of inspiring men to communicate his words or fulfill his prophecies) is not the Creator God that the Bible describes. It’s much easier to doubt the god you’ve put forward, but that is not the true God who gives us being.

But, really, when you do this, you are setting yourself up as the authority over God. Adam and Eve did this (Genesis 3); Satan did this (Isaiah 14:12–14); and many others in the Bible did as well. All of us have at one point or another, which is why we are all sinners (Romans 3:23). We have all wanted to be the authority over God. But it is only proper and wise to acknowledge our Creator’s holiness and our fallibility in utter humility.

Matthew 28:18
Jesus came and spake unto them, saying: All power is given unto me in heaven, and in earth.
Colossians 1:16–17
for by him were all things created, things that are in heaven, and things that are in earth: things visible, and things invisible: whether they be majesty or lordship, either rule or power. All things are created by him, and in him, and he is before all things, and in him all things have their being.

I encourage you to reconsider how you view the Bible and read it based on it own claims. With kindness in Christ,

Bodie

Help keep these daily articles coming. Support AiG.

Footnotes

  1. Carl Keil and Franz Delitzsch, Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament, Vol. 1, pp. 442–3. Back
  2. For more on the discussion of I AM, please see (off-site link) The I AM Sayings Prove Jesus to Be Divine.” Back
  3. See also 2 Peter 1:16-18. Back