I'm going to do KingJ a favor & provide William Lane Craig's argument for Biblical Inerrancy. He is the leading figure in Christian Apologetics. I and many others believe his apologetic stance only serves to deter & confuse not convince & convert.
I personally couldn’t care less about Craig’s arguments. And I think neither KingJ cares about Craig.
And I’ll even tell you why: because WLC is not the fellow Christians are supposed to listen to, since he already compromised the Bible to the highest degree possible. Craig believes in big bang and all the other forms of evolution, so no surprise that he’s losing almost all his debates with atheists. Indeed, when you embrace their theories, what exactly are you left with as arguments against their theories? Figure that out!
The History Channel is currently airing the series "Hidden Secrets of the Bible."
Is that your source of information regarding your disbelief in the Bible, especially Genesis? An atheistic source? Really? Yet again: really?
What would you expect them to say, that the Bible is true?
This is one of the most pathetic things I have ever heard. Jeremiah7:29, do you even know what ‘apologetics’ means?
So, in your view, the best defense for the Bible is actually ignoring what the Bible says and corrupting the Bible with external authority such as human theories?
Oh, boy…
And now let’s take a look at what that fellow (the fellow that you recommended) says:
(I only took the time to review your first link, and it was already too much. You’ll see below why.)
“But when it comes to the truth of evolution, many Christians feel compelled to look the other way.”
Ironically that’s exactly what he does: indeed, when it comes to the truth of the Bible, many Christians feel compelled to look the other way. Because they don’t want God’s truth. They instead want a man-fabricated ‘truth”: evolution. But then why do they claim to be Christians?
“They hold on to a particular interpretation of an ancient story in Genesis“
1. Taking Genesis literally is actually no interpretation, not a “
particular interpretation”.
2. If he calls Genesis as “
an ancient story” then this settles how much of a Christian he really is.
“a story that began as an oral tradition for a wandering tribe of Jews thousands of years ago”
There he is, going against the Bible in the highest degree possible, and then calling himself a Christian.
“While Genesis contains wonderful insights into the relationship between God and the creation, it simply does not contain scientific ideas about the origin of the universe, the age of the earth or the development of life.”
Utterly wrong. The origin of the universe is this one: God made the universe.
As for “
the development of life”, the Bible is also clear: animals would bring forth “
after their kind”.
“For more than two centuries, careful scientific research, much of it done by Christians, has demonstrated clearly that the earth is billions years old, not mere thousands, as many creationists argue.”
So if he’s not a “
creationist” (that is, if he doesn’t believe that God created the universe), what exactly is this fellow? Doesn’t he claim to be a Christian?
“We now know that the human race began millions of years ago in Africa - not thousands of years ago in the Middle East, as the story in Genesis suggests.”
Well, if there was any doubt that this fellow isn’t a Christian in any amount, now there is no such doubt anymore. I strongly suspect that he’s an atheistic troll. And I don’t think anyone in the world could run against himself in such a large degree (didn’t he claim to be a Christian?).
“And all life forms are related to each other though evolution. These are important truths that science has discovered through careful research. They are not “opinions” that can be set aside if you don’t like them.”
I really laughed here. Big time.
“Anyone who values truth must take these ideas seriously, for they have been established as true beyond any reasonable doubt.”
At this one I laughed so much that my belly still hurts.
Oh, boy, how truly pathetic.
“In particular, humans share an unfortunate “broken gene” with many other primates, including chimpanzees, orangutans, and macaques. This gene, which works fine in most mammals, enables the production of Vitamin C. Species with broken versions of the gene can’t make Vitamin C and must get it from foods like oranges and lemons.”
Indeed, that was an argument for evolution. Far from the smoking gun (never present), but an argument nevertheless. Fortunately, meanwhile it was shown that pseudogenes are not pseudo after all. And if they are functional genes, instead of junk genes, then they indicate common design instead of common ancestor. In other words, they show Creation, not evolution. How about that…
The very concept of pseudogenes was disproved - by evolutionists themselves…
For example:
http://genomebiology.com/2012/13/11/R102
or:
https://www.landesbioscience.com/journals/rnabiology/article/18277/
Indeed, YECs really don’t have to do anything to disprove evolution. They only have to stand aside and watch. Sooner or later, evolutionists would do such a fine job in disproving evolution all by themselves…
But I suppose not all evolutionists have heard the news:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudogene
You can see that all references given there date back to 2008 or earlier…
Well,
wikipedia is notorious, just as
rationalwiki and
talkorigins, for its willingness to “see” evolution and disregard all evidence against evolution, so no news here.
Meanwhile, not only pseudogenes are not pseudo, not only they are actually functional, but in fact they are required for proper functionality of the organism. How about that…
And the irony of all this is not that this is a 2012 news. On the contrary, evolutionists knew more or less about this since mid-1980s, for example:
http://mcb.asm.org/content/5/8/2090.full.pdf
And let me remind you that as late as 2010, hardcore evolutionists such as John C. Avise published books such as “
Inside the Human Genome: A Case for Non-Intelligent Design”:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Inside-Human-Genome-Non-Intelligent-Design/dp/0195393430
in which they claimed:
“noncoding repetitive sequences—“junk DNA”—comprise the vast bulk (at least 50%, and probably much more) of the human genome”
I guess this settles for how true the evolutionary predictions are. Indeed, yet another failed evolutionary prediction. But again, apparently not all evolutionists have heard the news:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/molgen/
“Furthermore, while these vestigial DNA sequences were discovered more recently than the vestigial organs known in Darwin's time, we know enough about how they arise that we do not need to postulate any mysterious designer or unknown function to explain them.”
What? “
Vestigial DNA sequences”? They’re not vestigial anymore. How about that…
What? “
We know enough about how they arise”? Really? Is that why
they didn’t even know what exactly they are?
What? “
We do not need to postulate any mysterious designer or unknown function”? Well, indeed, you don’t need to postulate any unknown function. You only need to postulate
known functions…
And a known designer too, by the way. How about that…
Here’s another failed evolutionary prediction: introns, assumed to be “evolutionary junk”. But in 2003 Scientific American, quoting a molecular bioscience institute director, said that "
The failure to recognize the importance of introns may well go down as one of the biggest mistakes in the history of molecular biology":
www.imb.uq.edu.au/download/large/TheUnseenGenome.pdf
And here’s another evolutionary source admitting that “
If it's "so-called" junk, whoever is calling it that is wrong”:
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/01/discoveries_mak068581.html
and quoting a research news release on the matter:
“Far from being useless, the non-coding part of DNA contains so-called regulatory regions or enhancers that determine when and where each gene is expressed.”
Therefore that page concludes:
“That's not junk. The only thing that's garbage here is the term "junk" itself.”
Now, enough talking about failed evolutionary predictions. So, is there anyone still believing in evolution? Is there anyone around still believing in these fellows,
who always have it wrong, instead of believing in God,
who always has it right?
Now, Jeremiah7:29, let‘s return to your link. Let’s see what other things that fellow of yours is capable of.
“Thousands of hapless sailors died painful deaths scurvy during the age of exploration because their “Vitamin C” gene was broken.”
Well, if those sailors didn’t read their Bible…
Because God clearly said we should eat plants and their
fruits and their seeds.
And by the way, it’s not thousands of sailors. It’s actually millions. And all they had to do to
not die is read their Bible. How about that…
So much for how helpful the human theories are. And how
actually helpful the Bible is…
“Such evidence proves common ancestry with a level of certainty comparable to the evidence that the earth goes around the sun.”
Well, since now we actually know the “certainty” of the former, we can thus also tell the “certainty” of the latter. Even without bringing relativity into discussion…
“This is but one of many, many evidences that support the truth of evolution - that make it a “sacred fact” that Christians must embrace in the name of truth. “
Look at how terribly sick this fellow is: he calls human theories as “
sacred”.
Since in the rest of the “article” he doesn’t make any point, I’ll stop here.
So, Jeremiah7:29, are these the fellows that you believe in?
Are these the sort of people, the sort of authorities that keep you away from the Bible? Because I find him utterly pathetic.
And let’s in the end review the title, to see if even that makes any sense:
“Jesus would believe in evolution and so should you”
Wait… what? Jesus would believe in evolution? In other words, Jesus would believe that He is profoundly incapable of creating things? That He couldn’t even make a chicken? And that all that He could do is a primordial soup? Really?
Yet again: really?
But wait, not even that, because formal theories include abiogenesis. So what could have Jesus created? The rock upon which would rain for millions of years to form the oceans? No,
not even that rock, because there’s a theory for that too, included in geological evolution. How about the universe, is Jesus the Creator of that? Of course not: don’t mainstreamers work hard to “explain” away even that? (See for example the last books of Stephen Hawking, 2010, and Lawrence Krauss, 2012).
So in the view of this profoundly sick fellow that you, Jeremiah7:29, believe in and so proudly quoted here,
Jesus would believe that Jesus couldn’t create anything.
Let me tell you again: this fellow, the fellow that you linked to, is not only sick, he’s
terribly sick. And not only he’s not a Christian, but he’s
so unchristian.
Other than that, can I help you with anything else? Like, perhaps, finding Jesus?
The real Jesus, this time? The Biblical Jesus?
Because if you think that a tolerant Jesus is the real Jesus, you cannot possibly be more mistaken. The real Jesus is the Jesus that will send most of mankind to hell. It’s not me saying that, it’s the Bible saying that. That is, if you read the actual Bible, and not human interpretations of the Bible.
True, this is the age of mercy. Plentifully given to everybody that wants it. But very soon that will end and the age of justice will come. And stay forever. Read that again, and make sure you understand it: forever. Do you have any idea what
forever means?
If you think that Jesus is or should be tolerant, let’s see if you are instead tolerant. So you tell me: would you welcome in your home somebody that claims that you don’t exist (atheists)? How about those who follow the atheists (those who embrace atheistic theories)? And would you welcome in your house somebody that would claim that the very chair he’s sitting on was not made by you, but instead by long naturalistic processes? Would you share eternity and your home with people like that?
Looking forward for your answer.
.
) but only deal with / rebuke the saved.
Yeah, you need to think on that a bit more....