HOW OLD IS THE EARTH?

Who cares about the age of earth? The evolutionists care about it a lot as there whole story is based on billions of years. This presentation presents considerable credible evidence for a young earth.

Whose interpretation of the facts will you believe?

Your eternal destiny depends upon knowing the truth and only God’s Word reveals the truth as given by the Creator of the Cosmos. If you have not read my recent post “What is Truth?” can I suggest you do so even before you watch this video.

HOW OLD IS THE EARTH?

How old is the earth? Six to ten thousand years old? Older? How precisely can a creation date be calculated? Does the Bible teach a six thousand year old Earth? Why do most scientists believe the earth is old? This Creation Ministries video explores one of the most controversial issues in the church, and answers these and many more questions regarding when God created.

DID HUMANS EVOLVE FROM APES?

Humans did not evolve from chimps, gorillas, or orangutans. However, according to Darwinian evolution, humans are related to modern apes in that we shared a common ancestor.

This informative article by Dr Don Batten and Warren Nunn of Creation Ministries will equip you to explode this commonly held notion.

ape-man

Artists’ impressions of Homo erectus have most often depicted some really primitive, subhuman ‘ape-man’. However, the evidence that these were people (that should even share our species name) is mounting. So artists’ renditions are gradually shifting toward a much more obviously human appearance, as here.

Since Charles Darwin first proposed the basis for such ideas in the 19th century when he wrote On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life, molecules-to-man evolution has increasingly been taught as fact. Later, he fleshed out the idea of human evolution from a common ancestor with apes in The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex.

The concept that humans and apes share a common ancestor contrasts with what we read in the Bible, because on the sixth day God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness.” (Genesis 1:26) Further, in verse 27: “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.” In Genesis chapter 2 it gives us more details, including that God made Adam from ‘dust’ and fashioned Eve, the first woman, from part of his side.

The two contrasting explanations for our existence—and for apes—have obvious philosophical/faith starting points because neither side can go back in time and observe how everything came into being. Both sides can only examine what we have in the present and draw conclusions from that.

Biblical creationists accept the Bible as an eyewitness account of that—for us—unobservable beginning. Thus, we can expect that by examining anything from germs to giraffes, that the data will best fit the presupposition of a perfectly created life-form that now exists in a world that is imperfect because of the Fall (Genesis 3). Therefore, we can expect (predict) that all life-forms now are not as genetically ‘perfect’ as their first parents.

So, ‘Did humans evolve from apes’ is really part of the bigger question, ‘Did humans and apes, and everything else, evolve?’

The answer is no, nothing ‘evolved’ in the sense that Darwin proposed through naturalistic, unguided processes. Instead, God created everything (including Adam and Eve) in six, 24-hour days and it was very good, as we are told in Genesis 1:31.

Because we can trust the Bible as real history, we know that

(a) all life was created about 6,000 years ago,
(b) there was a global Flood of judgment on the world, which only eight humans and a limited number of creatures survived, and that
(c) all air-breathing land animals are descendants of those that walked off Noah’s Ark about 4,500 years ago.

The DNA evidence

Chimpanzees are said to be the closest relatives of humans. There is an oft-repeated claim that human-chimp DNA is 98% (or more) similar. This figure was based on rather primitive comparisons published in 1975. These early reports were popularized by evolutionists, but this was long before even the initial drafts of the human and chimp genome that were announced in 2001 and 2005, respectively. As explained in Evolution’s Achilles’ Heels, and other places, with our modern understanding of genetics, we now know that “98%” is simply not the case.1 Even with genes that are similar between chimps and humans, the similarity is closer to 80%. If we consider the genes that chimps have that humans don’t and vice versa, the similarity drops to 70% or even less. However, the 98% myth persists.

An objective analysis of the claimed ape-men fossils shows that there is loads of wishful thinking involved.

Not enough time!

For the sake of the argument, let’s assume that the human and chimp genomes derived from a common genome in the six or seven million years since evolutionists say that humans and chimps split from the common ancestor. Then there is a need to account for 35,000,000 single-letter (base-pair) differences that had to arise and become fixed in the two genomes (i.e. the original letter in that location was replaced completely from the line to humans or the line to chimps); tens of millions of chromosomal rearrangements also had to occur, spread, and fix; as well as tens of millions of base-pair (‘letter’) insertions and deletions. (See Evolution’s Achilles’ Heels chapter 2 for more details). In short, there is simply insufficient time for evolutionists to account for the differences between chimp and human DNA, even with highly unrealistic assumptions in favour of it happening.2

Evolutionary time is measured in generations, not years. In six million years, there would only have been a few hundred thousand generations since chimps and humans were supposedly the same species. How then can there be enough time for so many brand-new genes to arise and be integrated? Each generation would have to select and retain an unbelievably huge number of mutations. This problem has come to be known as Haldane’s Dilemma. Despite claims to the contrary, Haldane’s Dilemma has never been solved. Modern knowledge of the genetic differences between chimps and humans shows that the problem is far greater for evolutionists than even Haldane imagined.3

Adam and Eve?

Studies of mitochondrial DNA, which is inherited from your mother, show that all humans had a single female ancestor.4 Likewise, studies of the Y-chromosome, which is only inherited from your father (to son!), show that all humans had a single male ancestor.5 Of course the evolutionary time scales attached to these individuals don’t match the Bible, but recalculations based on measurements of mutation rates in today’s world show that the biblical time frame is consistent with the data.

The world-wide genetic evidence in humans is consistent with the Bible’s history, that we are all descendants of Noah’s family, beginning some 4,500 years ago.6

Genetic decay

The number of mutations added to the human genome each generation is now known to be so high that it is inevitable that the human genome is deteriorating. This points back to a created perfection in the recent past.7 The same problem applies to all other complex creatures. This is another serious problem for the evolutionary idea that mutations and natural selection created humans and chimps from a common ancestor 6–7 million years ago. As the Russian geneticist, Alexey Kondrashov, remarked, “Why aren’t we dead 100 times over?” (he was assuming the evolutionary time frame).8

Fossils?

Are there really ‘ape-men’? An objective analysis of the claimed ape-men fossils shows that there is much wishful thinking involved, which is driven by the desire to ‘prove evolution’, or to justify the funding from National Geographic (e.g.), given to find ‘ape-men’.

There are a range of Homo species, including Neandertals. These are all descendants of Noah’s family. One exception is Homo habilis (‘handy man’), which prominent evolutionary anthropologists acknowledge is a ‘mixed taxon’, meaning that the fossil bones came from both apes and humans (hence it not surprisingly looks like an ‘ape-man’).

Other than that, objective numerical analysis shows that Australopithecus (‘southern ape’), supposedly the ancestors of humans (Homo spp.), are just types of apes that are not intermediate between chimps and humans.

That is, based on the fossils, there is no coherent story of human evolution from a common ancestor with apes, which is not surprising, considering the genetic evidence that shows they never existed.9

Conclusion

By reading the associated links to this article and books such as Evolution’s Achilles’ Heels, or by searching creation.com, you can learn more about this subject and when next someone asks you about any human-ape connection, you too will be able to gently suggest that they perhaps should take a closer look at the evidence.

LIVE ETERNALLY NOW – Practice the Presence of God

There is only one way to live eternally now and that is to endeavour to walk constantly as in His presence. Jesus made it possible for our Heavenly Father to send the third person of the Trinity, the Holy Spirit, to indwell our spirit. We need to remind ourselves constantly of His presence and purpose, to be our counsellor, our teacher, our comforter. If you have not read the book “The Practice of the Presence of God” by Brother Lawrence then get it now FREE on Amazon as a Kindle ebook. Let me give you two powerful quotes from the book.

Image result

When we are faithful to keep ourselves in His Holy Presence, and set Him always before us, this not only hinders our offending Him and doing anything that may displease Him, at least wilfully, but it also begets in us a holy freedom, and, if I may so speak, a familiarity with God, wherewith we ask, successfully, [for] the graces we stand in need of.” (Brother Lawrence, c.1614–1691)

All things are possible to him who believes…They are less difficult to him who hopes, they are more easy to him who loves, and still more easy to him who perseveres in the practice of these three virtues.” (Brother Lawrence, c.1614–1691)

Moreover, if we did walk in His presence continually, I am sure we would start to see the power return to the church. Perhaps, we would begin again to see the church growing as the early church did, as recorded in the Book of Acts. “Continually, more and more people believed in the Lord and were added to their number – great crowds of both men and women as they met regularly in the temple courts in the area known as Solomon’s Porch… The apostles performed many signs, wonders and miracles among the people and the believers were wonderfully united.“

How difficult it is now, to find a church that believes in an inerrant/infallible Bible, and therefore teaches the truth:

1. God created a perfect world: the pinnacle of His creation was a man and woman made in God’s image to be in relationship with Him.

2. Death and suffering in the world is a direct consequence of their disobedience (SIN).

3. Sadly, just ten generations after Adam, wickedness caused God to judge the world with a world wide flood just 4,000 + years ago. Noah’s Flood is responsible for the billions of fossils found in rock layers all over the world, and the fossil fuels, not billions of years of slow gradual change.

4. Just about 200 years after the flood, God judged wickedness again, by confusing the languages at the Tower of Babel. This act is responsible for the dispersal of people groups and establishment of all the nations.

5. Another 300 + years, God then established a nation, Israel to represent Him. Sadly again, they did not do a good job, but its existence today as prophesied by most of the Old Testament prophets, is proof God exists, and the Bible is God’s Word.

6. Finally, just over two thousand years ago, God the Father sends His Son, Jesus, to divide history into BC and AD. It was also at the prophesied time and place. Jesus has provided the only way back for mankind into a right relationship with our Heavenly Father and the promise of eternal life. The penalty for SIN is death and Jesus the sinless son of God died in our place so we can be made righteous before God in Him.

Will you repent of your SIN, recognise Him as Lord of the Universe and accept His free gift of eternal life?

7. Jesus will return again also as promised and prophesied. Moreover, fulfilled prophesy indicates the time is near. God’s history book gives us the timing of all of these events (not the day or hour: “but you, brethren, are not in darkness so that this day should overtake you as a thief.” 1 Thess. 5:2-4). The world is just 6,000+ years old not billions as Satan would have you believe. God has and is constantly at work in His world. Sadly, much of the traditional church has been deceived and just as Jesus foretold, at His second coming, the majority of people including many church goers (apostasy – a great falling away) will be like the people of Noah’s day who perished when the flood came.

Are you prepared for Jesus second coming. Have you searched the Scriptures and heeded John’s instruction in Revelation: “Blessed is he who reads and those who hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written in it; for the time is near.” Revelation 1:3

NEW FILM “IS GENESIS HISTORY?” SAYS UNEQUIVOCAL YES!

Dr. Del Tackett is part of an upcoming film titled “Is Genesis History?” and he’s hoping the documentary will give Christians the confidence they need to stand strong on the Word of God, particularly the creation account, without compromise.

“I’m hoping that people will look at the film and they would realise that they don’t have to accede to the accusation that if you hold to a position of [young earth], of a literal historical position in Genesis, then [you are] unscientific or stupid,” Tackett told The Christian Post during the premiere screening at The Creation Museum earlier this month.

“My hope is that those people that want to hold to biblical truth would walk away with the confidence that there is credible evidence and there are credible scientists, that they could be sure that what God has given us is true and can hold onto that.”

The documentary follows Tackett as he embarks on an eye-opening educational journey through evidence that supports historic claims from the book of Genesis, featuring commentary from renowned scientists and Bible scholars.

The film explores the questions and findings of the universe being created in six literal days, as well as whether or not humans evolved, the validity of a global flood, what happened to the dinosaurs and more.

“Here’s my position, and I think it’s one of the things that I’ve learned throughout the film: We are in an amazing time when the research is allowing us to see so much data that reinforces a Creator, that reinforces what He told us in the beginning,” Tackett said to Christian Post. “And I think it’s going to be increasingly difficult for the current paradigm to last much longer.”

“I would tell Christians, ‘If you are going to put your trust in Evolution and you’re going to say that God’s Word is now just an analogy, or it’s just some kind of simile, you’re twisting the Word of God because of a paradigm that is already really shaky.’ I would say, ‘You have that backwards. We start with the Word of God. We start with the record that God has given to us and stand on that, then begin to view the world around us. That’s when things will make sense.'”

The same is true when people try to make sense of evil, he noted. “If you come from a natural position, you won’t understand it. But if you come from it as it is described in the word of God, then it does make sense.”

“We live in a time where the current scientific paradigm is infiltrating a lot of the seminaries and a lot of the hierarchy in evangelical Christianity because people have been led to believe that science has settled this issue of deep time,” Tackett lamented.

If Christians are now feeling that they have to somehow rectify their faith for a scientific perspective, Tackett said then they are ripping out the foundation of everything that God has given to His creation.

“You lose the concept of a God that speaks life into existence, you lose the concept of male and female, you lose the concept of marriage, and the origin of sin and why there is evil. You lose the concept of a God that is holy, who judges sin and who will judge sin again,” he explained.

What the Bible scholar sees today is a generation caught in the current belief of creation without God.

“The world is still captive in the current paradigm. That paradigm, just as every paradigm in the past, really doesn’t allow any other questions,” Tackett pointed out.

What Tackett failed to say is that the theory of evolution has been the most successful ploy that Satan has concocted. It provides the excuse for fallen man to reject God, and despite the fact their is no mechanism (or evidence) to take you from “goo to you”, they won’t except the obvious – intelligent design because it requires a designer – GOD.

CHRISTIANITY STANDS OR FALLS ON THE HISTORICAL ACCURACY OF GENESIS

How did Christ and His Apostles view the Old Testament?

According to Jesus, “Scripture cannot be broken” (John 10:35) and “not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished” (Matthew 5:18). When referring to the Old Testament, He would often assert, “It is written”, making clear that He considered Scripture to be the final authority in all matters of faith and life. Along with the Pharisees He regarded the Old Testament as truly God’s Word. When quoting Genesis 2:24, for example, He affirmed that it was God speaking (Matthew 19:45) even though the passage itself does not specifically state this.6

Looking for Answers pic

In his second letter to Timothy, the Apostle Paul wrote, “All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness” (2 Timothy 3:16). Commenting on this verse, and the New Testament in general, Frederick C. Grant, Professor of Biblical Theology at Union Theological Seminary wrote, “Everywhere it is taken for granted that what is written in scripture is the work of divine inspiration, and therefore trustworthy, infallible, and inerrant.”7

From this it might be understood that Professor Grant held to a similarly high view of Scripture. Not at all! In fact, he believed much of the Bible to be based on myths. Despite this, and along with many other liberal theologians, he recognised the Apostles’ unswerving commitment to the Old Testament as the Word of God and as unquestionably trustworthy in everything it teaches.

It is not difficult to see why scholars understand this to be true.8,9 In the Apostle Paul’s thinking, the Jews had been “entrusted with the oracles [the very words] of God” (Romans 3:2). When referring to the Old Testament he had no hesitation in affirming, “The Holy Spirit was right in saying to your fathers …” (Acts 28:25). Similarly, when quoting from the Psalms, the Apostle Peter stated that, while the words came from the mouth of David, it was the Holy Spirit speaking (Acts 4:2425). Moreover, he affirmed that “no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit” (2 Peter 1:20–21).

Both Jesus and His Apostles undoubtedly regarded Genesis as history. Jesus, for example, affirmed the creation of Adam and Eve (Matthew 19:4), the murder of Abel (Luke 11:5051), the Noahic Flood (Matthew 24:37–39) and the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah (Matthew 10:15). Moreover, for Him, these were not simply interesting stories; rather they provided the basis for understanding important spiritual truths. Similarly, the Apostle Paul built his teaching on events recorded in the Old Testament, such as the doctrine of Original Sin (Romans 5) and the role of men and women in the church (1 Timothy 2:12–14). The writer to the Hebrews referred to the accounts of Abel, Enoch and Noah as real events that happened to real people (Hebrews 11). Significantly, this letter was written to encourage Christians who were facing serious persecution; but what use are mythical characters to those potentially facing death? The idea that anyone would think that such people might be helped by reminding them of stories suitable only for Sunday School children is absurd. The writers of the New Testament undoubtedly accepted the first book of the Bible as historical and Huxley was right: if Genesis is wrong, Christianity was built upon no more than “legendary quicksands”.

Where does your church, your denomination stand on the inerrancy of scripture? Ask your pastor to get one of the excellent PhD speakers from Creation Ministries to come speak at your church on the evidence for the Genesis account of Creation. His response may surprise you.

IS THE BIBLE TOO HARD TO DEFEND? SADLY, EVANGELICAL PASTOR ANDY STANLEY THINKS SO

Evangelical pastor preaches that the Bible isn’t the foundation for the Christian faith.

Pastor Andy Stanley has a church network of over 30,000 people in the Atlanta area, and his church was rated the fastest-growing in America in 2014 and 2015.

andystanley

The Bible’s historical reliability is one of the most important considerations when it comes to whether people  will accept the Bible’s claims about Jesus—and they’re right! If the Bible is demonstrably wrong regarding its history, it is not a reliable record, and the claims the Bible makes about Jesus are so extraordinary that it requires the Bible to be a supernatural, inspired, inerrant book. This is of course what it claims to be. Creation Ministries found it necessary to counter this serious challenge to the authority of God’s Word with this excellent article by Lita Cosner and Scott Gillis.

Pastor Andy Stanley says, “If the Bible is the foundation of our faith, it’s all or nothing. Christianity becomes a ‘fragile house of cards’ religion. Christianity becomes a fragile house of cards that comes tumbling down when we discover that perhaps the walls of Jericho didn’t.”2

Stanley’s message is clear as to the ‘unnecessary reason’ youth have left the faith:

So, if you stepped away from Christianity because of something in the Bible, if you stepped away from the Christian faith because of Old Testament miracles, if you stepped away from the Christian faith because you couldn’t reconcile 6,000 years with a 4.5 billion year old earth and something you learned in biology, I want to invite you to reconsider, because the issue has never been, ‘is the Bible true?’.2 (Emphasis added)

While he hopes to persuade people to come back to church, the route he took is actually more likely to deconstruct the faith of the young people he wants so much to keep in the church. In our experience (which to be honest, is much more wide than his own—speaking in over 1000 churches of varying denominations each year), people think the Bible’s historical reliability is one of the most important considerations when it comes to whether they will accept the Bible’s claims about Jesus—and they’re right!

What most people have commented on is the third part of his sermon series. Stanley begins that message by saying:

“In Sunday School we learned the song, “Jesus loves me, this I know, for the Bible tells me so.”

He goes on to say,

“You grew up, but your faith didn’t grow up with you. You grew up, but you outgrew your faith. Your childhood god could not stand the rigors of adulthood, the questions of adulthood.”2

The reason he thinks this is a problem is:

“If the Bible is the foundation of our faith, it’s all or nothing. Christianity becomes a ‘fragile house of cards’ religion. Christianity becomes a fragile house of cards that comes tumbling down when we discover that perhaps the walls of Jericho didn’t.”2

To call Scripture a ‘house of cards’ (and elsewhere in the same sermon he calls it a ‘fragile thread’) reveals a troubling attitude for a pastor to have towards Scripture, which Jesus and the Apostles presented as the absolute foundation for our faith. After all, if he cannot be sure about Scripture, how can he be sure about the One that Scripture is ultimately all about, and moreover, the Bible’s history that necessitated Jesus becoming our Saviour.

Too hard to defend it

One reason Stanley argues we need this change in perspective is that Scripture is too hard to defend:

“What your students have discovered, and if you read broadly you’ve discovered, it is next to impossible to defend the entire Bible. But if your Christianity hangs by the thread of proving that everything in the Bible is true, you may be able to hang onto it, but your kids and your grandkids and the next generation will not. Because this puts the Bible at the center of the debate. This puts the spotlight right on the Bible. Everything rises and falls on whether not part, but all the Bible is true. And that’s unfortunate, and as we’re going to discover today, it is absolutely unnecessary.”2

Among the things he specifically states are indefensible and not supported by evidence:

  • Israel’s Exodus from Egypt
  • The walls in Jericho fell down
  • The earth is 6,000 years old
  • The chronological information in 1, 2 Kings, 1, 2 Chronicles, and 1, 2, Samuel
  • The global flood in Noah’s day

But as apologist James White pointed out in his rebuttal to Stanley, if the Bible is wrong, Christianity is untrue.4 Jesus’ own view was that the Scriptures could not be broken (John 10:35), and the New Testament authors referred to the Old Testament’s history as the foundation for New Testament theology. If the Bible is wrong about historical events, the basis for New Testament teaching vanishes. Worse still for Stanley, if Jesus is wrong about the very Scripture Stanley says is not defensible, then how can he still encourage faith in Jesus and His (historical) resurrection?

Did the early church have the Bible?

Stanley bases his argument that Christianity does not stand or fall with the Bible by his absurd claim that, for the first several hundred years of Christianity, they didn’t have the Bible: “For the first 300 years of the existence of Christianity, the debate centered on an event, not a book.” While they may not have had all the New Testament books bound together under one cover and called it ‘the Bible’, the entire Old Testament and many of the New Testament books functioned authoritatively from the beginning of the Church and were the central source of their theology, used to settle the doctrinal controversies of that time. In fact, there are over 100 references in the New Testament to the book of Genesis, let alone many other Old Testament events. So much of our Christian doctrine, and even Jesus’ own teaching, are centered on those biblical historical events.

Astonishingly, however, Stanley suggests that Peter might have responded to historical questions about the Old Testament as follows:

“Peter would have looked at you like, ‘I’m not really sure what you’re talking about, but I followed a man for three years who spoke like no other man spoke. He was arrested and crucified and we thought, Game over, because he said too much to be a good teacher, he claimed too much about himself to be a good teacher. Game over. We’re all in hiding; a bunch of women come babbling that “The tomb is empty, the tomb is empty”. I looked into an empty tomb, and do you know what I concluded? Somebody stole the body. And a few days later I had breakfast with my risen friend on the beach. So I’m not sure about 6,000-year-old earth, I’m not sure about archaeological evidence, I’m not sure about all that. The reason I’m following Jesus is because I saw him die, and I saw him alive, and I went into the streets of Jerusalem to say, God has done something among us.”2

But this does not match up with what Peter actually said in Acts 2 (by the way, it should be noted that Stanley purposely references no actual Scripture in his first several sermons). In Peter’s sermon as recorded by Luke, he included a lengthy quote from the prophet Joel and two Psalms, because he wasn’t arguing from his personal testimony and experience, but that the history they witnessed was a fulfillment of the Scriptures. And, even when he did appeal to his own eyewitness testimony, he tied this to a confirmation of the Scriptures (2 Peter 1:16–21)—the very Scriptures Stanley argues Christianity didn’t emphasize until 300 years later.

In Part 5 of the sermon series, Stanley dedicates an entire session to the reasons people leave the faith due to injustice in the world. Although Stanley does make some pertinent points, at no time does he state the foundational, historical event of Adam’s Fall as the cause of death and suffering in the world. In a self-labeled ‘footnote’, Pastor Stanley implies that a belief in evolution does not challenge the Gospel’s big picture when he states “Francis Collins actually embraces what we would consider macro-evolution and yet he is still a conservative Christian. If you didn’t think a person could believe in evolution and be an evangelical Christian, you should read this book. If science is the reason you have walked away from faith, I highly recommend his book, The Language of God [see our review].” Francis Collins would agree with Stanley when he stated in this sermon series, “And when religion and science conflict, at the end of the day if you are an honest person, science must win.” When people compromise on the historical account of creation they are unable to effectively explain the existence of death and suffering if God created a very good world. And Francis Collins along with his former organization BioLogos actually believes that Jesus could be wrong about His statements about biblical history and the historical Adam and Eve. See It’s not Christianity!.

Just another ‘New Testament Christianity’

It is interesting to note how Stanley defends the historical reliability of the New Testament and the historical trustworthiness and early composition of the New Testament documents. But as is shown by the list of Old Testament events that he claims are indefensible, he is all too ready to give up on the historical reliability of the Old Testament, which Jesus and the New Testament authors quoted constantly in all sorts of contexts, always taking it as completely authoritative and true.

We have pointed out that you can’t have a New Testament-only Christianity, because the Christians during the time of the New Testament used the Scriptures—the Old Testament.

Will this approach bring people back to the faith?

The saddest thing about this attempt to justify Christianity apart from the Scriptures is that it won’t work. We’ve come into contact with many young people with questions, and most aren’t interested in a ‘squishy’ Christianity that takes all the ‘hard’ passages of the Bible metaphorically while only holding on to some sort of a belief in Jesus.

The answer is not to so easily abandon the authority and the inerrancy of Scripture, but rather to learn how we can know that the Bible is reliable.

Andy Stanley is obviously passionate, and we would agree that a simple “the Bible tells me so” faith will likely not sustain people when they encounter objections to the faith. But the answer is not to so easily dismiss the authority and inerrancy of Scripture, but rather learn how the evidence supports the historical account of the Bible.

Many Sundays, after hearing a creation presentation, people will come up to one of our speakers and be so excited that they realize they can trust the entire Bible! By hearing that the Bible’s history is reliable, and that there are answers to all the objections that they’ve heard, believers are more confident to share their faith.

It takes effort, but it is not too hard to defend the entire Bible; we’ve been defending Scripture from the first verse for over 30 years. That is the key to keeping young people in the church. And the effort has eternal consequences. Given the wealth of scientific and archaeological support and information that is available today to support the Bible’s history, it is a shame that Stanley did not take the time to research it, before so readily abandoning the Bible as the inerrant source for the Christian faith.