Our Websites

Creation vs. Evolution at the County Fair

Testimony Highlight

We recently received a letter from Gary in North Knox, IN telling us how he shared the creation message at his county fair. I want to share with you a portion of his letter:

At our booth we showed the DVD of your dad’s first four seminars, Confronting Evolution. We also displayed your DVDs and books as well as material from Ken Ham’s ministry. We gave away about 320 DVDs, plus another 30 or so resources after we ran out of DVDs.

It is so encouraging to read stories like Gary’s and realize that countless others are helping to spread the truth about creation to a lost and dying world. It’s really not that hard to get involved. Everybody can do something for God. Like Dad always says, “Even the worst of you can serve as bad examples.” So let’s get busy laying up treasures in heaven. That’s what will really matter (see Matthew 6:20).

Want to get involved?

We’ve made some resources available at a great price so that you can do what Gary and many others have done! Our Confronting Evolution DVD is a two-hour edited version of Dr. Hovind’s Creation Seminar! These DVDs are available for just $0.99 each (in packs of 25, 50, and 100) so that you can use them as tracts. The impact has been staggering! More than 40,000 of them now circle the globe, spreading the truth of the gospel through the creation message wherever they go! Other track packs include the T.R.U.T.H. About the Dinosaurs.

If you have an evangelism story to share with us, please submit it on our testimonies page or write to us at:

Creation Science Evangelism
P.O. Box 37338
Pensacola, FL 32526
 

,

Leave39 Responses to testCreation vs. Evolution at the County Fair

  1. Mike Ayala October 6, 2010 at 8:36 am #

    Hi Eric,

    Thank you for making CSE materials available to hand out. They are extremely effective when received by folks who do not have an axe to grind. I handed out many copies of the Confronting Evolution DVD at church, and doing so stimulated interesting conversations. Some had never before heard how intellectually undefendable evolution is.

    Praise God for your faithfulness in ministry.

    Mike Ayala

  2. Alfred Russell Wallace October 6, 2010 at 9:50 am #

    Yes, pass around your propaganda at a COUNTY FAIR. lol.

    REAL scientists will have discussions about the proven and factually verified scientific theory of evolution in the real venues of the scientific community.

    Not the county fair.

    • CSE October 6, 2010 at 10:03 am #

      Yes, Alfred, the county fair – you know, the place where real people spend their time. What is the problem with that?

  3. Alfred Russell Wallace October 6, 2010 at 11:21 am #

    Maybe it’s me… a science centre does not usually pass out flyers and try to sell DVD’s at a county fair.

    at least none of the reputable ones do that.

  4. Jack Napper October 6, 2010 at 12:21 pm #

    “Yes, Alfred, the county fair, you know, the place where real people spend their time. What is the problem with that?”

    Yep, real people that hopefully don’t know any better. Real people that are more quick to believe sound bites, slogans, catch phrases and whatever message you can convey through a silly cartoon.

  5. H. Bosma October 6, 2010 at 11:32 am #

    @ CSE
    A county fair is not the place to discuss scientific theories.

    Handing out propaganda at a county fair is an attempt to misinform them and mislead them.
    It also shows that on a stage that matters your idea’s can’t stand the test.

    People on a county fair probably do not have the background to fully understand what the theory is about. Your persuading with emotion not knowledga.

  6. Alfred Russell Wallace October 6, 2010 at 12:46 pm #

    CSE or Eric,

    Can you please explain this contradiction in the Bible?

    Kings 8:26 “Two and twenty years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign; and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. And his mother’s name was Athaliah, the daughter of Omri king of Israel.”

    Chronicles 22:2 “Forty and two years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign, and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. His mother’s name also was Athaliah the daughter of Omri.”

    Looks to me like a scribal error, meaning that the Bible has mistakes in it.

    • CSE October 7, 2010 at 8:24 am #

      @ Alfred Russell Wallace, and Duane

      The supposed conflict between II Kngs 8:26 and I Chron 22:2 is dealt with very thoroughly in the book The ‘Errors’ in the King James Bible by Peter Ruckman.

      Ahaziah was 22 when he began to reign WITH HIS MOTHER and 42 when he began to reign by himself. No contradiction here at all.

      Hope this helps.

      KH

  7. Jeff Brace October 6, 2010 at 2:20 pm #

    In the end, aren’t christians all about soul winning first? County fair, the cofffee shop or the street corner.

    Alfred, you must have a real axe to grind to chase us little ol christians blogging on the internet. How sad.

  8. Charles Haley October 6, 2010 at 3:03 pm #

    Are you implying that scientists are not “real people?”

    • CSE October 6, 2010 at 4:19 pm #

      No. But we are being criticized for sharing the Truth of God’s Word with people at the county fair.

  9. Alfred Russell Wallace October 6, 2010 at 5:32 pm #

    “In the end, aren’t christians all about soul winning first?”

    What is this a competition?

    Just stop trying to “win” souls, you sound like an army of zombies parading around with your book of misinformation and perverted ideas of dinosaurs in the garden of eden.

  10. Jeff Brace October 6, 2010 at 4:32 pm #

    You go CSE. God’s blessings on you all.

  11. Nigel McNaughton October 6, 2010 at 4:49 pm #

    So if I don’t spend my time at county fairs, I’m not real?

    I’m hurt! lol

    I think it’s more ‘your customers are more likely to be found there’.

  12. Charles Haley October 6, 2010 at 5:30 pm #

    Then why say, “the place where real people spend their time” even putting “real people” in italics?

    It seems to me that you are attempting to create an “us vs. them” conflict.

  13. Julie Collins October 6, 2010 at 5:55 pm #

    Alfred Russell Wallac,

    unlike YOUR propaganda, OUR science is NOT paid for by tax dollars. we do not STEAL money like you do to encourage lies!

    Jack Napper

    are you talking about atheist and evolutionist? because the definition fits…

  14. Duane October 7, 2010 at 2:31 am #

    “Julie Collins October 6th at 5:55 pm

    Alfred Russell Wallac,

    unlike YOUR propaganda, OUR science is NOT paid for by tax dollars. we do not STEAL money like you do to encourage lies!

    Jack Napper

    are you talking about atheist and evolutionist? because the definition fits,”

    No, you take 10% of the income from people who can least afford it for an invisible product and a bit of theater where you make people feel guilty for being human on the basis of false promises and exaggerated claims. The church takes in $ billions, pays no taxes, keeps its books secret, and always needs a little more. It’s the easiest scam to pull in the world, since you don’t even have to convince anyone of anything. How handy it must be to have a verse that warns of scoffers. It’s the only prophesy it gets right.

    “Alfred Russell Wallace October 6th at 12:46 pm

    CSE or Eric,

    Can you please explain this contradiction in the Bible?

    Kings 8:26 “Two and twenty years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign; and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. And his mother’s name was Athaliah, the daughter of Omri king of Israel.”

    Chronicles 22:2 “Forty and two years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign, and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. His mother’s name also was Athaliah the daughter of Omri.”

    Looks to me like a scribal error, meaning that the Bible has mistakes in it.”

    You don’t even have to go that obscure. When was Jesus born? Matthew says Jesus was born during the reign of Herod the Great who died in 4-5 BCE. Luke says Jesus was born during the census of Quirinius, who didn’t take the governorship of Syria until 6 CE after the Romans deposed Archelaus. There’s a discrepancy of 10 years.

    Then there’s the death, which is pretty important to the theology. Matthew 12:40 says he will be in the Earth for 3 days and 3 nights, when all 4 gospels have him buried for 2 nights and 1 full day. Mark 15:25 says Jesus was crucified at the third hour while John 19:14 has Jesus still with Pilate at the sixth hour. Roman Time and Jewish Time were both reckoned by daylight so that does not account for the error. There are further problems with the resurrection, like who saw him when and where. Not to mention the manner of death for Judas.

  15. Pete October 7, 2010 at 7:33 am #

    It’s really sad that creationism has such a strong foothold in this country. Websites such as these are so bizarre it still amazes me to see them. People get indoctrinated when they’re very young, and it’s unfortunate. The rest of the western world is laughing at the US. But I firmly believe the more we talk about it the better chance we have of moving from indoctrination to reality. You can’t convince this generation (see above and below) but I have hope for the generations to follow.

  16. H. Bosma October 7, 2010 at 8:16 am #

    @ Julie Collins.

    The tax money is spend on objective scientific research. Which is funded because the proposal made sense and is promisable.
    Your “science” is only based to provide evidence to the questions you are asking.

    A county fair is no place to discuss science. Science isn’t about promoting it to the public. It’s no democracy. The best fitting answer is the winner. If there is found some new evidence, science adapts to it.
    Not like a bible which held up to not see the answers in front of you.

  17. H. Bosma October 7, 2010 at 8:30 am #

    @CSE
    Who reigned for the 19 year in between?

    Why can’t the bible be fallible. Even if it is the word of god, it’s written down by people and people make mistakes.

  18. Jeff Brace October 7, 2010 at 9:06 am #

    @ H Bosma The tax money is spend on objective scientific research. Which is funded because the proposal made sense and is promisable.

    Need we remind you of climategate?

  19. Alfred Russell Wallace October 7, 2010 at 10:53 am #

    CSE,

    That was perhaps the WORST explanation of that passage I have yet heard. The awful reasoning you used did not satisfy my question, I will leave that determination with the other readers. Where in the passage does it say “with his mother”? You’re reaching, CSE.

    I agree with H. Bosma, why can’t you admit that the Bible is not totally inerrant. It was written down by humans and humans are not infallible. Your bible teaches you that human beings are imperfect, so why can’t you just accept that?

    • CSE October 8, 2010 at 7:51 am #

      @ Alfred,
      That was the short of the answer. Here’s the full explanation (this should be sufficient):

      Jehu was appointed by God to cut off the house of Ahab. Ahab was the king of Israel, not of Judah. But Ahaziah was related to Ahab by marriage because his father Jehoram “walked in the way of the kings of Israel, like as did the house of Ahab: FOR HE HAD THE DAUGHTER OF AHAB TO WIFE: and he wrought that which was evil in the eyes of the LORD” 2 Chronicles 21:6.

      In 2 Chronicles 22:7 we read: “And the destruction of Ahaziah was of God by coming to Joram: for when he was come, he went out with Jehoram against JEHU the son of Nimshi, WHOM THE LORD HAD ANOINTED TO CUT OFF THE HOUSE OF AHAB.

      Ahaziah was son- in-law of the house of Ahab. 2 Kings 8:26 -27 “Two and twenty years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign: and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. And his mother’s name was Athaliah, THE DAUGHTER (grand-daughter) OF OMRI KING OF ISRAEL. And he walked in the way of the house of Ahab, and did evil in the sight of the LORD, as did the house of Ahab: FOR HE WAS THE SON IN LAW OF THE HOUSE OF AHAB.” Ahaziah is counted as a son -in- law to Ahab, even though it was his father who had married into the house of Ahab, and not Ahaziah himself.

      Ahaziah was thus related by marriage to the house of Ahab through the marriage of his father with Athaliah the daughter of Ahab.

      When it says in 2 Chronicles 22:2 that Ahaziah was 42 years old when he began to reign, this refers to his age as the last member of the reigning dynasty of the house of Ahab. Ahaziah could not have been 42 years old biologically, because his father was only 40 years old when Ahaziah became king (See 2 Chron. 21:20 – 2 Chron. 22:2 [Jehoram (the father of Ahaziah) was thirty and two years old when he began to reign, and he reigned in Jerusalem eight years, and departed without being desired…and the inhabitants of Jerusalem made Ahaziah his youngest son king in his stead…Forty and two years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign”). For a man to become a father at the age of 18 is very likely, but for a son to be born two years earlier than his father is not.

      The house of Ahab began, of course, with Ahab who reigned for 22 years and his son Jehoram was in his twelfth and final year at the time Ahaziah began to reign. 22 + 12 = 34. This would be the house of Ahab on the king’s of Israel side.

      When we look at the house of Ahab on the king’s of Judah side and we come up with an additional 8 years reign as king on the part of Jehoram, Ahaziah’s father.

      22 + 12 + 8 = 42. This is the age of Ahaziah as a member of the extended reign of the house of Ahab.

      Ahab’s other son, Ahaziah, who reigned for 2 years before Jehoram and died childless is excluded from this equation because he was not related in a father to son relationship with either Jehoram of Israel or Ahaziah of Judah. He had no children.

      Furthermore, the two years of Ahaziah, Ahab’s son, are overlapped on one side by both Ahab his father and on the other by Jehoram his brother. 1 Kings 22:41 tells us that “Jehosaphat the son of Asa began to reign over Judah in the fourth year of Ahab king of Israel.” Ahab reigned for 22 years, so at the time Jehosaphat begins to reign, Ahab has 18 more years to go as king of Israel.

      When Ahab goes out to battle the Syrians, his son Ahaziah is made coregent. 1 Kings 22:51 tells us “Ahaziah the son of Ahab began to reign over Israel in Samaria the seventeenth year of Jehoshaphat king of Judah, and reigned two years over Israel.”

      The 17th year of Jehoshaphat would overlap Ahab’s 22nd and final year. Ahab dies in battle so Ahaziah, his son, continues to reign. However this Ahaziah soon falls down through a lattice in his upper chamber and was sick with a disease that finally killed him.

      2 Kings 3:1 tells us: “Now Jehoram the son of Ahab began to reign over Israel in Samaria the eighteenth year of Jehoshaphat king of Judah, and reigned twelve years.” Notice that Aahaziah began to reign in Jehoshaphat’s 17th year, reigns 2 years, and Jehoram begins to reign in Jehoshaphat’s 18th year.

      We see that Ahaziah was coregent to his father Ahab for one year and Jehoram, his brother, was coregent to Ahaziah for one year during his sickness. Looked at in this way, his two year reign is overlapped by both that of his father and his brother. We are left then with the 22 years of Ahab, 12 years of Jehoram of Ahab and the additional 8 years of Jehoram of Judah which again totals 42 years of father’s and sons who have offspring which reign till the time of Ahaziah of Judah.

      Ahab’s reign of 22 years does not overlap the 12 years of his son Jehoram. Likewise the one year of Ahaziah, king of Judah, does not overlap the reign of his father Jehoram. 2 Chronicles tells us that the band of men that came with the Arabians had slain all the eldest sons, so the only one left to sit on the throne was the youngest son, Ahazhiah.

      The house of Ahab was then cut off by Jehu when he killed both Jehoram of Israel and Ahaziah of Judah. Athaliah, that wicked queen, destroyed the rest of the seed royal of the house of Judah, except the baby Joash who was stolen away and hid for six years while Athaliah reigned. The continuous reign of successive “sons” of the house of Ahab ceased with the death of Jehoram and Ahaziah.

      Ahaziah was 42 years old as the final member of the house of Ahab, but only 22 years old physically as a son of Jehoram.

  20. Geno Castagnoli October 7, 2010 at 1:35 pm #

    CSE wrote:
    The supposed conflict between II Kngs 8:26 and I Chron 22:2 is dealt with very thoroughly in the book The Errors in the King James Bible by Peter Ruckman.

    Ahaziah was 22 when he began to reign WITH HIS MOTHER and 42 when he began to reign by himself. No contradiction here at all.”
    *********
    Geno comments:
    There is nothing in the text or the context of either citation to indicate that is the case. Oh yeah…. it’s 2 Chron, not 1 Chron.

    It is the position of CSE (in the Statement of Faith) that:
    “The final guide to the interpretation of Scripture is Scripture itself, and that Scripture is our final authority”

    Therefore, we should take what Scripture says over what Peter Ruckman says. The apologetics of CSE notwithstanding, the contradiction is clear.

    Nice try, though… If I hadn’t checked it out for myself, I might have bought that one.

    • CSE October 8, 2010 at 7:54 am #

      @ Geno,
      Sorry for the typo on our part. Please refer to the response to Alfred that was just posted for the full explanation.

  21. Mike Ayala October 7, 2010 at 5:16 pm #

    Hi Alfred,

    I am curious as to why these two verses have captivated you? What is the significance of these two verses out of all the others in the Bible? Are you trying to make some sort of point?

    Hey Duane,

    How did you come to the conclusion about the timing of the resurrection in relation to the crucifixion? Is that something you researched yourself or is it something you heard someone else say? How did you determine the actual days and timing?

    God bless you both,

    Mike Ayala

  22. Duane October 7, 2010 at 10:48 pm #

    “@CSE October 7th at 8:24 am

    @ Alfred Russell Wallace, and Duane

    The supposed conflict between II Kngs 8:26 and I Chron 22:2 is dealt with very thoroughly in the book The Errors in the King James Bible by Peter Ruckman.

    Ahaziah was 22 when he began to reign WITH HIS MOTHER and 42 when he began to reign by himself. No contradiction here at all.

    Hope this helps.

    KH”

    Did a little research. Honestly, I don’t think this is an error worth discussing. It’s minutia and obvious that it is a scribal error. Even if one were to grant a divine origin for the Bible, if I were to write it out by hand there is no magic to prevent me from miscopying a number. This is not enough to invalidate the Bible. There’s plenty of actual discrepancies (and interpolations added in later copies-some major ones), but that is not one of them. I went through many apologetics and most of them acknowledge the scribal error. Apparently, the way Hebrew numbers are written with a simple stroke above or before the characters changing the meaning by decades, it’s not much of a leap to see a simple human error in copying. Some translations of the Bible even correct it. It’s just not that big of a deal. It’s not like the Jesus birth timeline discrepancy that is not a scribal error but tied to actual verifiable events (among the few in the whole Bible). What is a bigger deal is a questionable ad hoc explanation when none was required. An honest answer of, “Yes, that is a minor scribal error, it does not call into question a divine origin of the Bible as much as human error in copying over the centuries,” is preferable to an obvious fabrication. It goes to trust. If I can’t believe you to say the truth on something like this, how can I trust you on other issues?

    Speaking of which, Peter Ruckman? I looked him up. If this is who you consider an authority, then you’ve proved my point. You would have been much better off acknowledging the error over quoting someone like that.

  23. David McCrea October 8, 2010 at 1:42 am #

    It’s really sad that Darwinian evolution has such a strong foothold in this country. Evolution websites are so bizarre it still amazes me to see them. People get indoctrinated when they’re very young, and it’s unfortunate. And it’s the government schools funded by taxpayer dollars that are indoctrinating students to believe they spontaneously generated (emerged) from sea mud and eventually evolved into bacteria and beyond. But I firmly believe the more we talk about it the better chance we have of moving from indoctrination to reality. You can’t convince this generation (see above and below) but I have hope for the generations to follow.

    Amen.

  24. David McCrea October 8, 2010 at 2:01 am #

    Alfred Russell Wallace
    October 6th at 5:32 pm

    “In the end, aren’t christians all about soul winning first?”

    What is this a competition?

    Just stop trying to “win” souls, you sound like an army of zombies parading around with your book of misinformation and perverted ideas of dinosaurs in the garden of eden.”

    Mr. Wallace:

    Christianity is all about winning souls to Christ. It’s called the Great Commission, but unlike Islam, there is no compulsion in Christianity. The job of a Christian is to share the gospel or good news of Christ. The rest is up to the individual to believe or reject the gospel.

    And if you’re talking about the Jehovah’s Witnesses, which is replete with the doctrine of demons, then yes you would be correct that it would be a competition.

    Please stop trying to destroy souls by parading around with your book of contrived fantasies (you know the book) trying to convince people they evolved from nothing and are headed to nothing upon their death. Talk about perverted ideas.

  25. David McCrea October 8, 2010 at 1:23 am #

    I started to write this post by asking the question, “How do Darwinian evolutionists rank the various human races in terms of their perceived evolutionary development?”

    Then I thought that wasn’t a fair question to ask since it implied that Darwinian evolutionists already ranked the various human races in terms of their evolutionary development.

    So instead, my questions is, “DO Darwinian evolutionists rank the various human races differently in terms of their perceived evolutionary development?” If so, what is the precise ranking starting at the top and working your way down?

    Now you might want to be a little careful here. If you claim there is an evolutionary difference, then you run the risk of being called a racist.

    But on the other hand, if you claim there is no perceived evolutionary diference between the various races, then you not only compromise an essential tenet of Darwinian evolution, you also run the risk of agreeing with the Bible. See Malachi 2:10 and Acts 17:26.

    Heaven forbid!

  26. Charles Haley October 8, 2010 at 6:06 am #

    Climategate:

    the review found that the researchers concerned, led by the Director of UEA’s world-renowned Climatic Research Unit (CRU), Professor Phil Jones, could not be faulted for their “rigour and honesty as scientists”, and there was no evidence that they had behaved in a way that might undermine the conclusions of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

  27. Mike Ayala October 8, 2010 at 8:42 am #

    Hi Eric,

    Isn’t it lovely how these evolutionists and Bible critics are helping us to become better Christians stimulating us to study to show ourselves approved. I think they do not know what a service they are doing for us.

    God bless you.

    Mike Ayala

  28. Duane October 8, 2010 at 11:15 am #

    Mike Ayala October 7th at 5:16 pm

    Hey Duane,

    How did you come to the conclusion about the timing of the resurrection in relation to the crucifixion? Is that something you researched yourself or is it something you heard someone else say? How did you determine the actual days and timing?

    God bless you both,

    Mike Ayala”

    Mark 15:42-43 (King James Version)

    42And now when the even was come, because it was the preparation, that is, the day before the sabbath, [that is, Friday]

    43Joseph of Arimathaea, an honourable counsellor, which also waited for the kingdom of God, came, and went in boldly unto Pilate, and craved the body of Jesus.

    Mark 16

    1And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, had bought sweet spices, that they might come and anoint him.

    2And very early in the morning the first day of the week, they came unto the sepulchre at the rising of the sun. [that is, Sunday]

    John 19:31 (King James Version)

    31The Jews therefore, because it was the preparation [that is, Friday], that the bodies should not remain upon the cross on the sabbath day, (for that sabbath day was an high day,) besought Pilate that their legs might be broken, and that they might be taken away.

    John 20

    1The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulchre, and seeth the stone taken away from the sepulchre. [That is, Sunday]

    Luke 23:52-56 (King James Version)

    52This man went unto Pilate, and begged the body of Jesus.

    53And he took it down, and wrapped it in linen, and laid it in a sepulchre that was hewn in stone, wherein never man before was laid.

    54And that day was the preparation, and the sabbath drew on.

    55And the women also, which came with him from Galilee, followed after, and beheld the sepulchre, and how his body was laid.

    56And they returned, and prepared spices and ointments; and rested the sabbath day according to the commandment. [More Friday into Friday night/Saturday which is the Sabbath]

    Luke 24 (King James Version)

    Luke 24

    1Now upon the first day of the week [Sunday], very early in the morning, they came unto the sepulchre, bringing the spices which they had prepared, and certain others with them.

    2And they found the stone rolled away from the sepulchre.

    3And they entered in, and found not the body of the Lord Jesus.

    Matthew 27:62 (King James Version)

    62Now the next day, that followed the day of the preparation, the chief priests and Pharisees came together unto Pilate, [Preparation is Friday, so this was then Saturday. The wording is confusing and redundant]

    Matthew 28

    1In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre. [Sunday]

    2And, behold, there was a great earthquake: for the angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon it.

    All four Gospels state Jesus was crucified on the day of preparation before the Sabbath. All four Gospels say that He arose early Sunday morning. Friday night and Saturday night is 2 nights, Saturday Day is one full day. Technically, he was already gone before dawn, which would have made it still the Sabbath, but I’m not going to be pedantic.

    Matthew 12:40 (King James Version)

    40: For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale’s belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.

    The four Gospels contradict Jesus’ own prediction.

    Now to the other thing.

    Is that explanation from Peter Ruckman?

    Peter Ruckman. I looked him up. He believes UFOs caused the plagues in medieval Europe. He believes the CIA flies around in space ships developed from technology gained when the government made a deal with aliens to allow them to kidnap children and use their organs as food and to experiment on U.S. citizens. He believes in all kinds of nonsensical conspiracy theories involving aliens and Atlantis and the government. He’s another one who never met a conspiracy theory he didn’t like. He’s even controversial in the Christian community. He believes somehow that the English King James Version of the Bible is even more authoritative than the original Hebrew and Greek. The English translation was given a special advanced revelation. Are we supposed to believe anything he says? There’s a word for people like that. It’s Crank.

    Eric, this is what bothers me. If you take these kinds of cranks seriously as authorities, then how are we supposed to trust you? I have to wonder if you know the difference between a valid idea and nonsense.

  29. Stephen Holshouser October 8, 2010 at 1:14 pm #

    CSE,

    Can you give one other example in scripture where it says a person was X years old, but it wasn’t refering to their physical age?

    When it says Jehoram was 32 when he began to reign, does that mean his physical age or the time of the reign of the house of Ahab?

    It seems worse to essentially say that you need a guru to interpret the plain statements of scripture for you, instead of just acknowledging a minor slip of the pen by a human being. You sound a lot like the people that try to say that the days of creation in Genesis aren’t literal 24 hour days… “it says he was 42, but let me explain why it doesn’t mean he was literally 42.” It is my opinion, but you are fighting an unnecessary battle here.

    As I have said, minor misprints still occur in today’s KJV Bibles, that doesn’t mean you throw the whole thing out. It’s like getting a fax… you don’t have the original, but you can see that the transmittal process is reliable and trust the Lord enough to know that you still have His Word. It still changes people like Duane, Alfred, H. Bosma, and the like into Christ-loving, born-again believers to this very day, by the power of the Holy Spirit.

    have a good weekend, SH

  30. Stephen Holshouser October 8, 2010 at 1:16 pm #

    To the atheists;

    To any opened minded skeptic that is really in search of the truth, the Bible and Christianity will check out logically, historically, and scientifically. Many people just like you have hated God, Christians, and the Bible and even set out to disprove them and ended up as true believers themselves. Consider the stories of Josh McDowell, Lee Strobel, Gen. Lew Wallace, Simon Greenleaf (professor of law at Harvard), the Apostle Paul.

    When was the last time that you actually asked God, “please, Lord, open my eyes to the truth if I really am blinded to your presence.”? Have you ever done that? What do you have to lose by this? Try it! Ask Him and genuinely look for His response! Acts 17:24-28.

    with your well-being in mind and praying for you, SH

  31. David McCrea October 8, 2010 at 4:16 pm #

    Mr. Haley:

    The folks who reviewed and exonerated the Climategate scientists were themselves AGW believers.

    It was as if a criminal defendent was also serving as his own judge and jury. The entire review was rigged from the start.

    AGW is further proof that science is not incorruptible. The political agenda (i.e. hide the decline) and intended wealth redistribution from wealthy to poor countries was the force driving the supposed science.

  32. Mark James October 10, 2010 at 5:01 am #

    Hi Duane,

    I have yet to see a so called, contradiction, in the Bible that can’t be resolved either by a careful examination of the historical evidence or by simply understanding the traditions and politics of the time.

    The historical evidence for the death of Herod the Great comes from Josephus, who wrote that Herod died after a major lunar eclipse. There was a partial eclipse in 4 BC and this has been used by historians to give the 4 – 5 BC date for his death. But there was a total (major) lunar eclipse at the end of 1 BC, so it is more likely that Herod died in early 1 AD (there was no year 0). Quirinius was governor in 6 AD but there is also archaeological evidence that he was governor twice, the first time being earlier. This would mean that there is no contradiction.

    The confusion over the death of Jesus is easy to explain. The Gospel accounts tell us that Jesus had to be buried quickly, because the next day was a Sabbath, and that He rose again after the Sabbath. If you assume that the Sabbath referred to was a Saturday, then Jesus was in the tomb two nights and one day. But Jesus was crucified on the feast of Passover and the day after Passover is always a Sabbath no matter what day of the week it is. If He was buried before this Sabbath and resurrected after the Saturday Sabbath then a Wednesday Passover would give 3 days and 3 nights in the tomb. No contradiction.

    Jewish time started from daybreak but, contrary to what you claim, Roman time started at midnight. If Mark was using Jewish time and John using Roman time then the 6th hour in John’s Gospel would be 6am and the 3rd hour in Mark’s Gospel would be 9am. Jesus could have been with Pilate at 6am and crucified by 9am. No contradiction. It is also possible that John was referring to the 6th hour of Jesus’ ordeal (like the TV program 24 counts the hours from the beginning of the action). Again, no contradiction.

    Can I guarantee that these explanations are absolutely correct? No I can’t, I wasn’t there at the time. But I would suggest you take another look at this book that you are trying to discredit, it really is quite amazing.

  33. Nigel McNaughton October 10, 2010 at 4:20 pm #

    Julie bizarrely said “unlike YOUR propaganda, OUR science is NOT paid for by tax dollars.”

    So CSE isn’t a charitable organization that gets tax benefits? Answers in Genesis? Your Church?

  34. Jeff Brace October 10, 2010 at 9:32 pm #

    @ Charles

    I guess if it makes you feel better fine. Liars covering for liars is far from investigation though.