“I’m a 13-year-old boy that received your magazine from my grandmother. Your magazine and ministry have impacted my life greatly, in fact so much that I’m now teaching a Christian apologetics class at my Christian school.”

Eli A., Talking Rock, Georgia

The Source of the Bible’s Authority

I love Answers magazine, but I wanted to give a special thanks to Steve Ham and his article on the source of biblical authority: God’s nature. I do not believe that I have emphasized enough the source of biblical authority. My teaching has been insufficient. I will endeavor to point out the Source of the Bible’s authority from now on, and I know this will result in more thanks to God and glory to Him!

Don M., Springfield, Virginia

Violating AiG’s Purpose

The article on “Battle over the Nephilim” violated everything Answers stands for. To suggest there is a questionable meaning to Genesis 6:4 based on 6:2 is a lack of understanding of the Hebrew translation [for the words translated “sons of God” in the New KJV]. The correct translation is “sons of leaders.” It is also plural.

So, in order to translate this ’elohim as “gods,” you have to believe that false gods are real and that they can father children. Therefore, the giants are the product of the mighty leaders bearing children that became mighty men.

Donna S., Oregon

Author’s Response: As was stated in the article, Answers in Genesis does not take a position on this subject. The question of whether heavenly beings can sire children was listed as an objection to the view that the “sons of God” refers to heavenly beings. As for the Hebrew translation, we had three Hebrew scholars review the article before publication. In the Bible, the word ’elohim is very common and is translated as “God” (Genesis 1:1), “angels” (Psalm 8:5), false “gods” (Deuteronomy 4:28), “gods of the divine council” (Psalm 82:1, ESV), a “spirit” (1 Samuel 28:13), and in some translations, “judges” (compare Exodus 22:9 in the NKJV and ESV). Properly understanding this term is just one of the many difficulties of interpreting this passage.

Crater Eroded by Flood Waters

Hello, I was interested in the article by Andrew Snelling about the possibility of meteors starting Noah’s Flood, but I have some questions. One of the first things that came to mind was about the crater in Australia. After considering what the Flood did to the rest of the world and how it so drastically changed the earth, wouldn’t the crater in Australia be eroded away by water and sediment, even though it is a big crater?

Charles F.

Author’s Response: One would expect that meteorite craters, especially those due to meteorite strikes at the beginning or early in the Flood, would be eroded away subsequently during the Flood. However, it depends where the meteorite strikes. Once the Flood started there were two possible outcomes. Some craters could have been eroded away by floodwaters scouring across the earth’s surface. However, if the floodwaters were carrying sediments with them, they could simply have covered over other craters, such as this one, burying them with overlying sedimentary layers. In that way the crater would be preserved, though buried. For the crater to be exposed at the earth’s surface today, the retreating floodwaters needed to erode all the overlying sedimentary rocks to expose the crater again. The latter is possibly what happened here, but we don’t yet know for sure. What we do know is that this crater has survived to the present day and is again exposed at the earth’s surface.

Validating the Gap Theory

Someone had just given me a copy on The End of Christianity to read and give some feedback on it. This book is just trying to validate the gap theory and further the author’s views. There seems to be a lack of understanding of the goodness and perfection of creation before the Fall of Adam and the resulting corruption of God’s creation. Thank you for both articles that give an accurate portrayal of his book and some of the ramifications of the ideas.

Geoff D., Crown Pointe, Indiana

One Or Four?

In the article “Four for One,” you blindly accept the evolutionary myth that a Portuguese man-of-war is a “colony” of four individuals. Scientifically, a man-of-war is a single individual with identical DNA. Each of the four “colonies” is essential to the ongoing life of the individual and its offspring. It is merely an organism that has four specialized parts.

My arm has specialized functions that my legs can’t do. My mouth is specialized as are my ears, fingers, toes, etc. I am not a colony and neither is the man-of-war.

Kirt P., Enid, Oklahoma

Author’s Response: Sharing DNA among the parts of the colony is different from humans, who also share DNA among their parts. The zooids (or individuals) of the man-of-war can be separated and still survive. Granted, due to their specialization, they wouldn’t live very long. But our arm cannot function independently.

The term colony is defined as “several individual organisms living together in close association.” The man-of-war is a highly specialized colony, and the PhD creation biologists who reviewed this article agree.

Yes, evolutionists may say that colonies are a stepping stone between single-celled organisms and multicellular creatures, but the extremely complex and specialized designs of the man-of-war do not support such a statement. They point directly to the Creator, who designed all sorts of unique animals that work together to glorify Him.

Clarification: In the article “Self-Healing Concrete” it would have been clearer to use digestion, not breathing, to illustrate involuntary actions controlled by smooth muscles. Several muscles are involved in breathing. Smooth muscles control the respiratory tract, but skeletal muscles control the diaphragm.

Help keep these daily articles coming. Support AiG.

Risk-free trial issue!

Risk-free trial issue!

If you decide you want to keep Answers coming, simply pay your invoice for just $24 and receive four issues (a full year) more. If not, write “cancel” across the invoice and return it. The trial issue is yours to keep, regardless!

Please allow 4-6 weeks for delivery.
New subscribers only. No gift subscriptions.
Offer valid in U.S. only.