This week, we received several e-mails that we felt warranted a public response as others will be interested in the topics and responses. The first e-mail is about how to reach your pastor who believes in theistic evolution. The second e-mail is from someone who is against eating meat and the suffering of animals. The third e-mail concerns archaeological dating and evolution. We pray that many will benefit from today’s Feed Back.
From: Elizabeth K.
Subject: thank you for your post about the recent, “evolution of smell” articles
Just wanted to thank you for your timely post refuting the latest headlines touting the, ”evolution of smell” news articles appearing lately.
I have been in the process of gathering resources to support a biblical-creationist point of view in order to share them with my pastor in the hope that he might re-think his theistic-evolution perspective.
I recently came across the ”smell” article in my local newspaper & wanted to find something to refute it so that I might include this latest evolutionary ”breakthrough” as yet another example of flawed naturalistic ”science”, and I was thus very grateful to find your post on exactly the topic I was seeking.
Thank you, and may the Lord bless you and your ongoing efforts to defend His Word!
Elizabeth, thank you for your kind words.
If you want to reach your pastor, don’t use evidence or interpretation of evidence as your method, but turn to Scripture. Creationists and evolutionists can argue evidence versus evidence all day long and in most cases neither will budge. The underlying argument is not evidence, but presuppositional beliefs. If your pastor is a theistic evolutionist, he has placed man’s secular interpretation of science over the authority of the Word of God. I don’t know about you, but I would seriously question a pastor who believes more in man’s word than in God’s Word.
Whenever I have had the opportunity to talk to a pastor who does not believe in a literal young earth creation, I always ask them these two questions:
Do you consider yourself to be a pastor/minister of the Word of God?
To which they almost always say yes, so I follow with the second question:
Then why don’t you accept God at His Word?
At this point the pastor who believes in theistic evolution, progressive creationism, Day Age, Framework Hypothesis or any other old earth view of creation has no option but to admit whose authority they hold in the highest regard.
There are serious theological problems with any old earth creation view that undermines the message of the Cross and ultimately Jesus’ deity. Since Jesus quoted from Genesis and considered it to be accurate, if it is not accurate, then Jesus was a liar and if He was a liar He couldn’t have been the Son of God and if He wasn’t the Son of God, then the entire Christian faith crumbles and falls into ruin.
Sadly, many atheists understand the importance of a literal Genesis account of creation more than many Christians do. See the following quote from atheist G. Richard Bozarth:
Christianity has fought, still fights, and will fight science to the desperate end over evolution, because evolution destroys utterly and finally the very reason Jesus’ earthly life was supposedly made necessary. Destroy Adam and Eve and the original sin, and in the rubble you will find the sorry remains of the son of god. Take away the meaning of his death. If Jesus was not the redeemer that died for our sins, and this is what evolution means, then Christianity is nothing. *G. Richard Bozarth, The Meaning of Evolution, American Atheist, Sept. 20, 1979, p. 30.
Here are some articles that we have previously posted that will provide additional theological issues concerning theistic evolution that should prove beneficial when talking to your pastor. I would recommend printing them out and sitting down with your pastor to discuss them.
Please keep me posted on what happens and we will be praying for you and your pastor.
Subject: You’re wrong
You are wrong about God allowing us to eat ’tortured flesh’, and you are wrong about Jesus, the protector of innocent suffering as in the temple scene. He ordered it all to cease. If he was so worried about animal sacrifice, how do you think he felt about animals killed for food? Do you think animals suffer not, when their throat is slit. They are in agony. Does god want his own creation to be in agony for another of his creation?
I think you have not thought this out, but just like the other few billion or so ’meat eaters’ out there, egotistically and immorally allow yourself to believe in a possible mistranslation of our bible, to fit your own distorted, and misguided views, just so you can blindly ’hurt’ animals for your pleasure of food.
You could read this, and see for yourself the implications:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kamran-pasha/was-jesus-a-vegetarian_b_276141.html (its just ’one’ source, and only noted here as a reference, not the final word), that Jesus was indeed a vegetarian, as was his brother and likely entire family, and entire Jewish culture.
So how is it that Jesus , the Jewish culture before and after him, were all staunch vegetarians, yet God said , sure, go ahead and slaughter innocent animals, inflict them with agony just because you are too lazy and immoral to eat right. How would you feel if a animal caught you, slit your throat or worse, then skinned and cooked and ate you. Ugly isn’t it, yet mankind, and you apparently think nothing of doing it to them, as surely God condones us, brutalizing part of his creation, just for our indulgences. I don’t buy it, and I doubt you really do either it’s just become ’convenient’.
Why choose murder, when we can easily be vegetarian in today’s world, and isn’t it likely that the genesis issue was only meant to be temporary, if at all?
You can counter and say Jesus most cert. wasn’t, but given that ’fish’ was erroneously referred to in the last scripture you noted on that page, and indeed its ’fish weed’, makes it very clear we were talking about seaweed, and not the meat of fish themselves. To eat fish is a dirty process, and to the fish again as animals a painful issue considering they are alive, breathing, and then hurt to kill them for our pleasure of food. How is that not obvious, except to those who are lazy, and don’t think about, well, because they don’t have to…the spoils of man is what this is about not thinking of anyone but gluttonous selves.
Feel free to counter the Jesus example.
Thanks for allowing me to post my view.
Lee, thank you for sharing your views on vegetarianism and not eating meat.
As a trained wildlife biologist, I understand your concern about animal suffering, however you have some serious theological errors in your comments that I hope to address.
You state that we are wrong about God allowing us to eat “tortured flesh” or meat. If this is true, then how do you account for the following Scripture verses?
Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. And as I gave you the green plants, I give you everything. But you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood. Gen. 9:3-4
God clearly told Noah that he could eat meat providing the animal was not alive at the time of consumption. This actually led to the practice of draining the blood out of an animal before it was eaten.
And the LORD spoke to Moses and Aaron, saying to them, “Speak to the people of Israel, saying, These are the living things that you may eat among all the animals that are on the earth…This is the law about beast and bird and every living creature that moves through the waters and every creature that swarms on the ground, to make a distinction between the unclean and the clean and between the living creature that may be eaten and the living creature that may not be eaten.. Lev. 11:1-2; 46-47
If God did not want man to eat meat or to kill animals, then why did He devout this entire section of Leviticus to what was clean and unclean for man to eat?
On one occasion, while the crowd was pressing in on him to hear the word of God, he was standing by the lake of Gennesaret, and he saw two boats by the lake, but the fishermen had gone out of them and were washing their nets. Getting into one of the boats, which was Simon’s, he asked him to put out a little from the land. And he sat down and taught the people from the boat. And when he had finished speaking, he said to Simon, “Put out into the deep and let down your nets for a catch.” And Simon answered, “Master, we toiled all night and took nothing! But at your word I will let down the nets.” And when they had done this, they enclosed a large number of fish, and their nets were breaking. Luke 5:1-6
If we were not to eat meat, then why did Jesus help these fishermen to catch so many fish? (And the Hebrew word used for ‘fish’ meant ‘fish’ not ‘fish weed’.)
And when it grew late, his disciples came to him and said, “This is a desolate place, and the hour is now late. Send them away to go into the surrounding countryside and villages and buy themselves something to eat.” But he answered them, “You give them something to eat.” And they said to him, “Shall we go and buy two hundred denarii worth of bread and give it to them to eat?” And he said to them, “How many loaves do you have? Go and see.” And when they had found out, they said, “Five, and two fish.” Then he commanded them all to sit down in groups on the green grass. So they sat down in groups, by hundreds and by fifties. And taking the five loaves and the two fish he looked up to heaven and said a blessing and broke the loaves and gave them to the disciples to set before the people. And he divided the two fish among them all. And they all ate and were satisfied. And they took up twelve baskets full of broken pieces and of the fish. And those who ate the loaves were five thousand men. Mark 6:35-44
If it was wrong for man to eat meat, including fish, then Christ’s actions would have been sinful in nature as he had just caused 5,000 people to have sinned, thus denying His deity, which means that His death on the cross was for nothing and our faith is based upon just another sinful man and not God’s promise of a perfect sacrificial Lamb.
You also mention that it was Jewish tradition to be vegetarian before and after Jesus life. Evidently you are unaware of the strict kosher practices of preparing meat. These practices date back to the Levitical times of Moses and are a large part of the lives of orthodox Jews. There is far more written about clean and unclean meat and preparation of meat than there is about vegetables.
In several places you tell us to ‘think about it’. I suggest you think about what you wrote in lieu of what Scripture says for you seem to have ignored God’s own words when He said on more than one occasion that man can kill animals and eat their meat.
I recommend you check out the recommended resource that accompanies today’s Feed Back posting (Worship Not the Creature: Animal Rights and the Bible).
From: A. Brown
Subject: reply to article Oldest Inhabitants found in Texas
I am an archaeologist. And want to know how you can refute scientific dating as to the age of the oldest inhabitants on the planet. The information recovered from the Texas site will undergo much more testing until an exact date is applied to the site. And if you don’t like those dates, well than look into the Meadowcroft Rockshelter site in Pennsylvania. It dates to 13,500 BP (before present), or the Topper Site site in Virginia, which has been dated to 16,000 BP. And to make it even more interesting, look into the Monte Verde archaeological site in Chile (the oldest site in the Americas) which dates to 20,000 BP. These dates are not questioned and the radio carbon accuracy is +/- 100 years.
It has taken billions of years for life to form and grow on the earth and become what it is today, not 6,000. It is just not possible for life to evolve so much in so little time.
Lee, thank you for asking about archaeological dating.
I would first like to comment on your ending statement before addressing the rest of your question.
You are absolutely correct that it is not possible for life to have evolved in only 6,000 years. To be honest, it is impossible for life to have evolved no matter how many years you give it, millions, billions or ever trillions. The evolution of life defies the known and accepted laws of chemistry, biology and information. We have a plethora of articles on our site that show multiple examples of the invalid premises behind evolutionary theory.
As for your questions and comments about dating of archaeological sites, I would first state that all dating methods, including carbon 14, are based on a number of assumptions that cannot be proven. A number of articles previously posted on our site deal with the problems involved with various dating methods (Dating Methods).
To my knowledge, archaeology continually proves the Bible’s account of kings and kingdoms to be accurate. The only problem is that most archaeologists turn to man’s fallible dating methods to alter the historical accuracy of God’s infallible Word. It seems ironic that they see the physical evidence in front of them of the accuracy of God’s Word and yet they continue to mistrust its accuracy.
It’s not the evidence or the dating methods, but the presuppositional beliefs behind the interpretations of the evidence. The question to ask is why you believe in time spans longer than what the Bible indicates? Have you succumbed to placing man’s fallible ideas over God’s infallible Word, His written account of history?
Instead of questioning the archaeological dating of various sites, question who you want to place your hope of eternal salvation in, man or God? Man can’t save himself, let alone anyone else, but Christ, who believed in a literal Genesis, can save one from eternal damnation.
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God. And this is the judgment: the light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their works were evil. For everyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his works should be exposed. But whoever does what is true comes to the light, so that it may be clearly seen that his works have been carried out in God. John 3:16-21
by Dr. J. Y. Jones
Worship Not the Creature: Animal Rights and the Bible delivers the most forthright and engaging presentation of the Biblical view of animals in print. J. Y. Jones, long an accomplished physician, scholar, writer, outdoorsman, hunter, and man of God, is uniquely qualified to offer his cutting-edge treatment of this controversial topic. Don’t let the down-to-earth, diverting and friendly style fool you. Just as Americas wise Founding Fathers discovered latent tyranny in a penny tea tax, Dr. Jones powerfully exposes the radical political agenda of the contemporary animal rights movement. With careful argument, he reveals the animal rights movement as a potentially significant menace to liberty and even to Christianity itself. Adding Dr. Joness able apologetic for the Christian faith in reasoned and transparently personal terms, one should prepare for a rich, compelling, and enjoyable read.
About the Author: An eye physician and surgeon for almost forty years, Dr. Jones is a decorated Vietnam veteran. He has received numerous awards for writing and photography. He is a frequent speaker at wild-game suppers and other sportsmens events, and particularly enjoys sharing his Christian testimony. He has volunteered in twenty-three overseas eye-surgery mission trips. He is fluent in Spanish and conversational in Russian. He has been married to his wife, Linda, since 1964.