AIG Proves the Bible Is True

Prepare yourself for an intellectual thrill, dear reader. Your mind is about to be enhanced by the creation scientists at Answers in Genesis (ol’ Hambo’s online ministry).

Your guide on this adventure is Mike Matthews, who is editor in chief of Answers magazine — that’s Hambo’s in-house vanity journal, which is peer-reviewed by creation scientists. It was founded by ol’ Hambo himself. Their “About” page says:

The purpose of Answers magazine is to illustrate the importance of Genesis in building a creation-based worldview, and to equip readers with practical answers so they can confidently communicate the gospel and biblical authority with accuracy and graciousness.

With a prestigious position like editor in chief of such a respected and influential journal, you know that Matthews is a solid thinker. His article is: Part One: The Ultimate Proof — Can We Prove the Bible Is True? This is what you’ve been waiting for all your life. It’s very long, so we can only give you a few excerpts, with bold font added by us and scripture references omitted:

You’re sharing the gospel and out of the blue you’re asked, “How do you know the Bible is true?” How would you answer?

[…]

While the Bible doesn’t give a cookie-cutter, one-size-fits-all formula for defending itself, it does give us all the guidelines we need.

We know you’re excited. Let’s read on:

God tells us in bold terms the root problem. It’s not the nonbelievers’ view of the Book; it’s their view of the Author. All people already know God because He is clearly seen in His creation, and His moral law is also written on their hearts. But they “suppress,” or hold down, the truth in unrighteousness because their proud hearts are rebellious and they do not want to submit to the truth … It’s not a matter of evidence; they just don’t want to be convinced. So it is a mistake to proceed as though the main problem is a lack of knowledge. Your hearers have a heart problem. They have rejected the God of the Bible even before they begin to consider whether His Word could be true.

Yes, dear reader, deep down you already know The Truth, don’t you? Matthews continues:

How do you break through the darkness? It’s not enough to demolish their wrong beliefs by cold, hard logic. Blind men cannot see the truth except with new sight given by the Holy Spirit. Thankfully, God’s Spirit is already at work convicting sinners of their unbelief, using His Word as His primary tool. By relying on the Scripture’s own claims, rather than your wisdom or clever arguments, God empowers His words to convict [sic] hearts and point them to Christ.

[…]

Yet God does not demand blind faith. Our faith is reasonable. In fact, it is the only logical and reasonable choice available to mankind. And explaining that simple fact is the secret to a biblical defense of the Bible.

A biblical defense of the bible may seem a bit circular, but don’t quit yet. Here’s more:

Even though lots of other evidences confirm the Bible (and you should discuss them), your conversations aren’t likely to get very far unless you address the deeper question: “How do you know anything is true?”

[…]

Even secular logicians recognize this problem. Every philosophical system must start with presuppositions — starting points or assumptions — that cannot be proven from anything more basic, but are accepted up–front as the foundation for all subsequent reasoning.

He’s talking about axioms. Science begins with certain axioms — they’re so deeply imbedded in the scientific method that they’re rarely mentioned. One is logic. We must accept the validity of Aristotelian logic as an axiom, because logic underlies all our intellectual efforts. Without it, for example, contradictions would be acceptable. Therefore if logic is out … then it’s in. Life without logic is great, isn’t it?

Axioms can’t be proved, but something that is truly axiomatic must be accepted. Without logic we’d be unable to recognize false conclusions, and without free will (another axiom), we couldn’t reject false conclusions. Other fundamental axioms of science are the validity of sensory evidence (augmented by the evidence of our instruments), without which we have no verifiable information, and the existence of objective reality, which is the source of the information we obtain from our senses.

Let’s see what axioms Matthews is talking about:

The Bible claims to be this ultimate standard of truth, the “Word” given by the Almighty Creator God [reference to an AIG article]. Most people point to one of three standards: their own personal opinion, public consensus, or great moral literature. But that is not an option if the Bible is true.

Whoa! Where are the axioms of science? Matthews doesn’t even mention them. He says:

An appeal to any other standard, such as the opinions of people, automatically means you must reject the Bible as your ultimate standard. Don’t miss this point; it’s worth repeating!

Lordy, lordy. We’re in big trouble! Moving along:

Since we must appeal to some ultimate standard, the next question is how to determine the right one. One — and only one — logical solution is available.

Can you guess where this is going? No need to guess, here it comes:

The standard itself must be “self-attesting” and “self-authenticating.” In other words, it must speak for itself and defend itself in such a way that it (1) passes all its own standards of truth and (2) gives a foundation for successfully interpreting all other claims to truth.

Even before modern logicians recognized this limitation to every logical argument, God’s Word had already acknowledged and solved it. Jesus Christ, as the Son of God, said, “I am the truth” and “God’s word is truth”. Jesus claimed to define what truth is, and He said God’s Word is the ultimate judge of truth. No truth exists apart from Him.

We don’t know how to argue with that, so let’s proceed to another excerpt:

Your hearers won’t find an alternative that comes close to matching the biblical God, no matter how hard they try. But you don’t have to belabor this point. (They could spend many lifetimes searching!) A positive proclamation of the reasonableness of the Christian faith is enough to highlight the shortcomings of alternative worldviews.

If you’re not yet convinced, consider this:

The Bible repeatedly claims to be God’s Word, the ultimate source of all truth, and it rejects all other claimants. The Bible offers no neutral ground, which is the only reasonable demand from a source that claims to be the truth above all others. The Scripture also says it was inspired by a God who sees everything, knows everything, communicates perfectly, and always tells the truth. In fact, He strongly desires to share the truth. So choosing such an ultimate standard is not arbitrary!

This is a very long article (and it’s only Part One), so we’ve been forced to skip a lot. Be sure to read it all so that you don’t miss anything important. We’ll give you only one more excerpt, from the end:

Since all people are blinded sinners, they resist the truth and refuse to believe even the most obvious evidences, assuming they just don’t have enough information to prove you wrong. You will end up talking in circles.

Based on the Bible’s own example, you should point them to the only true ultimate standard, the Bible’s own claims about itself. Ultimately we trust the Bible, not because we can prove it from other sources but because we trust the One who made us and then gave us His Word.

So there you are. Now that you’ve heard from the editor in chief, we know you’re going to get a subscription to Answers magazine. And while we’re on the subject of self-attesting standards, we’ll close with something you’ve seen here before:

Self-Proving Truth Certificate

Everything written by the Curmudgeon in this blog is true. The presence of this Certificate is your proof. Our logic is undeniable.

Copyright © 2014. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

24 responses to “AIG Proves the Bible Is True

  1. “You will end up talking in circles.” He says it himself! I wonder if he knows what a tautology is?

  2. Let’s see if I’ve got this right: the evidence that a collection of bronze age myths that were cribbed from earlier myths is true is that the myths claim they are true. There must be a flaw in that logic somewhere; perhaps I’ll think of it after another glass of Scotch.

  3. Richard Simons

    The author of ‘The Water Babies’ also insists that every word is true, therefore it is only because we are suppressing the knowledge in our hearts that we do not see plump little babies happily living in quiet streams.

  4. So why do bible-believing heliocentrists allow their acceptance of modern science influence their understanding of the motion of the Earth, contrary to every bible-believer before modern science?

  5. There is only one thing to say about the knuckle-dragging droolers that roam the halls of AiG: They are barking mad.

    And Ol’ Hambo is laughing all the way to the bank. I have this vision of Hambo and Smeagol Gollum snuggled up together and repeating that lovely mantra . . . my Precioussssssss . . .. . . .as Hambo caresses the golden ring and strokes it with Gollum’s bony fingers tracing close behind . . Hambo and Gollum looking deeply in each others’ eyes hoping to see a new way to fleece the Little House on the Prairie crowd that provides their sustenance.

  6. Stephen Kennedy

    @TomS

    For all of Hambo’s fulminating against what he calls “compromising” Christians such as theistic evolutionists, when the situation demands it Hambo is also a compromiser of a literal genesis. The bible nowhere gives any indication that the Earth orbits the Sun but contains numerous passages that taken literally can only be describing a geocentric cosmology.

    I think the reason that Hambo does not embrace geocentrism, which is no more absurd than claiming the Earth is only 6,000 years old, is because there is a history of a confrontation between religion and science over geocentrism vs, heliocentrism that dates back to Galileo and the judgment of history is that Galileo science) was proven right and now, except for a few real wackos, the Heliocentric theory, while not necessarily correctly understood by everyone, is accepted, and geocentrism is considered to be synonymous with ignorance. Hambo knows that if he promoted geocentrism he would look ridiculous even to the morons who support him now.

    There has never been a confrontation between science and religion over the age of the Earth that is as celebrated as the Galileo affair with a clear historical judgment as to who was right and who was wrong. So currently claiming that the Earth is only 6,000 years old does not automatically make you publicly look as ridiculous as claiming the Earth is the center of the Universe does. Hambo knows his audience will accept a young Earth but not geocentrism and he acts accordingly, and pretends he does not see the hypocrisy of his calling theistic evolutionists compromisers of god’s word for accepting the Big Bang theory while himself embracing the equally unbiblical doctrine of Heliocentrism.

  7. Dr. Kennedy correctly observes: “So currently claiming that the Earth is only 6,000 years old does not automatically make you publicly look as ridiculous as claiming the Earth is the center of the Universe does.”

    We who live in the rational world, and especially those among us are scientists, must work diligently to make the Hambo and Hambo-like charlatans the caricatures of ridiculous nonsense that they are for promoting the crazy idea of a 6,000 year old universe. I like to point out to my creationist neighbors that to believe that the universe is 6,000 years old is the equivalent error of thinking that the distance from New York City to Los Angeles is 17 feet. Some of them blink, and I hope they at least start to think.

    Those whose minds have been irreparably damaged by creationism don’t know how to think, but some of them may have a few working neural synapses left.

  8. “Since all people are blinded sinners (including those writing for AIG), they resist the truth and refuse to believe even the most obvious evidences…”

    Sounds reasonable.

  9. Mike Matthews engages in a sweaty bout of prolix biblical onanism and ejaculates—

    “It’s not enough to demolish [unbelievers’] wrong beliefs by cold, hard logic. Blind men cannot see the truth except with new sight given by the Holy Spirit.”

    The irony is so cold, hard and thick one could use it for an anvil to forge a few Occam’s razors with which to Colombian-necktie logic. Still and all, it’s true that some holy spirit of the single malt variety can, when imbibed in sufficient drams, give new sight…

  10. It’s like listening to a bunch of 10 yr olds argue about the rules to Dungeons and Dragons. They can really get into it, but at the end of the day it’s just a fantasy game.

  11. Our SC, I promise I will not read that article even if there is more he is saying.
    For anyone to tell us the bible is true because it is true throws logic out of the window. Here is a person who has quit being reasonable

  12. @Stephen Kennedy his calling theistic evolutionists compromisers of god’s word for accepting the Big Bang theory while himself embracing the equally unbiblical doctrine of Heliocentrism.

    I’d suggest that there is nothing unbiblical about the Big Bang. I recall some Bible-readers welcoming the Big Bang as defeating the then-common assumption of an eternal universe. Even reading the Big Bang as “there was light”.

    I’d so far as to say that there is nothing unbiblical about species being related by descent – it would have been an anachronism even to mention species, and we are told nothing about “kinds”.

  13. Most actual bible scholars – the people who study the bible and it’s history rather than apologetics – disagree with Ham. His position is not only at odds with science and objective reasoning, it is at odds with the authorities in his own field.

    To Ham’s credit, he is at least straightforward about his reasoning – circular though it might be. He doesn’t lie about it like the Discoveroids.

  14. docbill1351

    Poor old Hambo is a mere piker in Grifterville. Hambo’s pitiful sideshow museum and money-grubbing “petting zoo” project are NOTHING to the $600,000 PER WEEK that Joel Osteen pulls in at his “church” in Houston. That’s just offerings. Add to that book sales and all the other superstitious merchandise and you’ve got one very fat cat laughing all the way to the bank! Truly, money for nothing and the chicks are free.

  15. “Your hearers won’t find an alternative that comes close to matching the biblical God, no matter how hard they try.”
    Ah, this is great. Here I have the alternative: science! Compare how the world looks like today with the world as it looked like 200 years ago (yup, Curmy, not long after Hume died). The conclusion is inevitable: science has had a bigger impact than religion ever did.
    Dear Matthews, as soon as the biblical research of your very own AIG shows up with something similar to to internet (which you use yourself), airplanes and mass destruction weapons I’ll begin to consider your presuppositions.

    “The Bible offers no neutral ground”
    I agree! Because of what I wrote above any scientific textbook beats the Bible anytime the two contradict each other.

    “You will end up talking in circles.”
    Which is exactly what Matthews does. How nice he confirms that he is the one who resists the truth, not me.

  16. Mike Matthews has far bigger failings than being wrong: he’s boring.

  17. anevilmeme: “It’s like listening to a bunch of 10 yr olds argue about the rules to Dungeons and Dragons. They can really get into it, but at the end of the day it’s just a fantasy game.”

    The perfect analogy! So good, it bears repeating — “It’s like listening to a bunch of 10 yr olds argue about the rules to Dungeons and Dragons. They can really get into it, but at the end of the day it’s just a fantasy game.”

    I happen to have a 10 yr. old grandson who is deeply into D&D, and can fully appreciate the parallel.

  18. Fortunately Ol’ Hambo himself never is boring. He criticizes Bryan College for not being creationist enough:

    http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/blogs/ken-ham/2014/04/21/did-eve-come-from-adam-or-an-ape-woman/

    Some highlights:

    ” I need to state that even if a college takes a stand on a literal Adam and Eve, that does not necessarily mean they also stand on six literal days of creation, a young earth (and universe), or stand against evolution of the various kinds of animals and plants.”
    Take that!

    “Sadly, the BioLogos Foundation has infiltrated the church with compromise teaching on Adam and Eve that undermines the authority of Scripture—and the gospel message.”
    Ouch!

  19. Waldteufel @4

    Must resist urge to write fan fiction. Must resist urge to write fan fiction. Must resist urge to write fan fiction. Must resist urge to write fan fiction.
    Must resist urge to write fan fiction. Must resist urge to write fan fiction.

    All work and no play, makes Jack a dull boy.

    Rule 34 prepare to be violated…..

  20. anevilmeme writes> “It’s like listening to a bunch of 10 yr olds argue about the rules to Dungeons and Dragons.”

    Some of those 10 yr olds have been arguing for 40 years now.

    Rando writes> “Rule 34 prepare to be violated…..”

    Not here, this is a family blog. 😉

  21. TA: “Some of those 10 yr olds have been arguing for 40 years now.” [About D&D]

    Hereby nominated for the Best Line of the Year award.

  22. Everything you read is true. You are reading this. Therefore it’s true.

    My brain hurts…

  23. Actually, rather than children arguing over a role playing game, creationists are more like cavemen arguing over how an FM radio works. They don’t have even a glimmer of a clue, but they are really certain anyway. In fact, the one with the most certainty invariably ends up as the winner of such arguments.

  24. @RSG: Technically, I was 13. 😉