AIG: The Bible’s Divine Origin Is Undeniable

This may be one of the strangest things we’ve ever seen from Answers in Genesis (AIG), the creationist ministry of Ken Ham (ol’ Hambo) — the Australian entrepreneur who has become the ayatollah of Appalachia, famed for the infamous, mind-boggling Creation Museum.

Look what we found at the AIG website: Wasn’t the Bible Written by Mere Men? It was written by Bodie Hodge, who has a master’s degree in mechanical engineering from Southern Illinois University. He wisely gave up his engineering career to become a speaker, writer, and researcher for AIG. Here are some excerpts from Bodie’s article, with bold font added by us and his scripture references omitted:

I had the opportunity to speak to a student-led club at a government school a couple of years ago. At the end of the lecture, I began answering questions the students had. Even though there was a very negative tone coming from many of the questioners, I remained courteous in each response. … At the end, one statement came up that I didn’t get to respond to. The bell rang and out they ran. I really wish they had brought this up sooner so I could have responded to the claim that the Bible was written by mere men.

[…]

When it comes to the authorship of the Bible, of course men were involved — Christians would be the first to point this out. … In fact, it is estimated that over 40 different human authors were involved. So this is not the real issue. The real issue is whether God had any involvement in the authorship of the Bible. Let’s think about this for a moment. When someone claims that the Bible was written by men and not God, this is an absolute statement that reveals something extraordinary.

What’s so extraordinary about it? Bodie probably wouldn’t hesitate to say that mere men wrote all the other ancient texts, including those believed by other religions to be sacred. Here comes his explanation:

It reveals that the person saying this is claiming to be transcendent! For a person to validate the claim that God did not inspire the human authors of the Bible means he must be omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent!

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! Bodie is, in effect, saying that one who questions the claim of divine authorship by pointing out that the bible was written by mere men has the burden of proving that God wasn’t involved. But that’s totally backwards. It’s always the one who makes a claim who has the burden of proof, and in this case the claim is divine inspiration for the bible. If there were any validity to Bodie’s way of handling skepticism, then an infinite number of nonsensical claims could be asserted — about invisible aliens, ghosts, demons, etc. — and such claims must be accorded the status of truth unless someone can disprove them.

Bodie then explains what it means to be omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent, after which he says:

So the person making the claim that the Bible was merely written by men alone is claiming to be God, since these three attributes belong to God alone. This is a religious issue of humanism versus Christianity. People who make such claims (perhaps unwittingly) are claiming that they are the ultimate authority over God and are trying to convince others that God is subservient to them.

Aaaargh!! According to Bodie, a wretched creature like you, dear reader, has no business challenging his claim that the bible was divinely inspired. If you dare to ask: How do you know that? you are outrageously blasphemous and claiming that you are divine. Neat argument, huh? Wouldn’t it be fun to have a debate with someone like that?

Bodie then offers some questions a true believer can put to the skeptic, in order to challenge the skeptic’s (imaginary) claim to being omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent. It’s really helpful advice. After that he has even more advice, this time for the less intelligent among his drooling followers:

If you are not sure you can remember these types of questions, then remember that you can always lead the person down the path by first asking an easier question such as, “How do you know that God was not involved?”

Two can play the advice game. Your Curmudgeon herewith offers a response to that question: You’re a freakin’ fruitcake! But don’t take that seriously, dear reader. Yes, the temptation might be overwhelming, but that’s yet another reason why one should never get into a debate — or even a conversation — with a creationist.

Bodie isn’t done yet. His next argument is one we’ve encountered before from AIG — see, e.g., Creationism and Logic. It’s their claim that logic itself comes from the bible, so any attempt to be logical is actually an affirmation of everything in the bible. Bodie says:

Other responses [to the divine inspiration skeptic] include undercutting the entire position by pointing out that any type of reasoning apart from the Bible is merely arbitrary. So the person trying to make a logical argument against the claims of the Bible (i.e., that God inspired the authors) is doing so only because he or she is assuming (though unintentionally) the Bible is true and that logic and truth exist! It is good to point out these types of presuppositions and inconsistencies.

That’s about all Bodie has to say, although his essay is a long one. If you want to spend more time studying his argument, then by all means click over to AIG and enjoy yourself. Hey — you may even find yourself convinced!

Copyright © 2015. 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

31 responses to “AIG: The Bible’s Divine Origin Is Undeniable

  1. I suggest that one read chapter 7 of 1st Corinthians. Paul, the human author, makes a point that some of what he writes is not of the Lord.

    There are several places where the Bible cites an authority for what is written, where that authority is not a divine source.

    That should be enough to question that every word in the Bible has a divine source.

  2. That’s just about the craziest thing I’ve ever read. With illogic like that, it’s fortunate for the rest of us that Bodie left the engineering field. It’s amazing to think he could get a degree in the first place.

    I don’t suppose it occurred to Bodie (or Ham, for that matter) that if a skeptic would be transcendent to claim the Bible was written by men, it would be just as true for the person claiming it was written by God!

    So, Bodie and Ham, how do you KNOW God wrote the Bible? WERE YOU THERE? Are you “omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent”?

    Of course, there is no way to convincingly “prove” who wrote the Bible. But just following the logic points to men (not women) as the authors, and it was written for the purpose of controlling the thoughts and actions of others.

  3. Burden of Proof isn’t a concept the AIG folks seem to understand.

  4. WondrousTermagant

    This is the strangest and most delusional article that I think I’ve ever read. I’m an alien. SO YOU THINK YOU’RE GOD TO QUESTION ME!!!!!!!!!!!!

  5. Right on, Brother Bodie! It’s up to the State of Kentucky to PROVE that old Hambo is going to discriminate in hiring because were you there? Or, will you be there. Or something.

  6. Steven Thompson

    Retiredsciguy, the writers at AiG grasp your point, of course. They try to downplay this (e.g. asking how we would know that Shakespeare’s plays are not divinely inspired, instead of asking how we would know that the Koran or the Bhagavad Gita — both of which claim to be — are not), but at heart, they are content to default to epistemological nihilism — evidence means nothing, nothing can be known for sure, so it’s every bit as reasonable to insist that the Bible (as they, not, e.g. geocentrist creationists or old-Earth creationists, understand it) is absolutely correct as it is to insist that one’s views ought to conform to so-called “evidence.”

  7. If one assumes that God wrote the Bible, and that God is omniscient, omnibenevolent, omni-everything, how does that lead us to trust everything in the Bible? (I will not dwell on how can we trust modern translations, or the integrity of the manuscripts. Let us assume that the KJV is the word of God.)
    What right do we have to expect God to tell us the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? After all, we are all fallen creatures who do not deserve anything from God.
    God can kill us, without that being murder; can take our property, without that being theft. If God tells us, for our own sake, something which we, miserable creatures that we are, cannot but misunderstand, who is there to say that that is a lie?

  8. Two thoughts. 1) I was under the impression formal logic originated with the Greeks. While Aristotle lived in the 300s BCE, I don’t think he contributed to the Hebrew bible. 2) If this is one of the engineers involved in the design of Hambone’s ark of the park, it’s another reason to stay away from it! Oh, and as a special bonus: 3) I agree with those who beat me to it — this is one of the most delusional articles I’ve ever read.

  9. abeastwood says: “this is one of the most delusional articles I’ve ever read.”

    But how do you know it’s delusional? Are you omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent?

  10. So can’t the same be claimed for the koran, scientology, astrology, and any other group that says their authors and their writings were divinely inspired?

  11. DavidK: indeed, and not just religious works, I suppose. After all, Shakespere and War and Peace and many others are much better writing than any of the religious babble I’ve seen, so they have far better claims to being divinely inspired!

  12. Hodge betrays a complete ignorance of christian history.

    His sad hodgepodge of a straw god lacks the crucial parameter that the christian deity decided to limit it’s own omniscience during the time of the councils of Nicea in order to preserve any meaning in it’s subjects existence.

    So creating an omniscient entity to attack is self defeating before the fact, the fathers of christianity rejected his premise long ago.

  13. michaelfugate

    It is no different than ol’ Hambo’s “were you there” mantra.

  14. Doesn’t AiG keep a “List of Arguments Creationists Shouldn’t Use”? Well, Hambo, this is one that surely merits inclusion.

    Besides, most of us regulars here at The Curmudgeon’s blog ARE omniscient, if not also omnipresent and omnipotent. We might not be transcendent, but we are transparent. No hidden agendas here. We just want to help the world understand the true nature of reality.

  15. Bodie then offers some questions a true believer can put to the skeptic, in order to challenge the skeptic’s (imaginary) claim to being [God] … “How do you know that God was not involved?”

    To which the skeptic can readily answer,
    Luke 4:12 (and :13!)
    Deuteronomy 6:16
    Matthew 4:7

  16. Arrgh! May I beseech the Great Hand to change “must of us regulars” to “most of us regulars”? (There goes my claim to omniscience.)

    [*Voice from above*] It is done. Your humility is appreciated.

  17. Even though there was a very negative tone coming from many of the questioners…

    I’m guessing that the “negative tone” Hodge perceived in some of the questioners is because those were the ones asking actual, you know… questions.
    And this:

    So the person making the claim that the Bible was merely written by men alone is claiming to be God, since these three attributes belong to God alone.

    is easily answered by SC’s test. What’s the difference between someone making that claim and usurping his god’s place and him usurping, say, Allah’s place if he (Hodge) claims Mohammed wasn’t divinely inspired?

  18. That god exists is the mother of all presuppositions. It’s amazing that creationists would even bring up presupposition in a debate. They are hanging out over the abyss on that one.

    As to the bible being divinely inspired, what about parts of the bible added since it was originally written. The story of the prostitute who was about to be stoned – the one where Jesus says “he who is without sin may cast the first stone”, was a later addition to John. None of the earliest texts contain it. It doesn’t appear in the text until sometime in the 4th century. So… was it a divinely inspired cleric or scribe who inserted it? Did God just forget it when he was dictating the original gospel? Skeptical minds want to know.

  19. Ed says: “That god exists is the mother of all presuppositions.”

    Yet another who thinks he’s omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent.

  20. My dear deceased grandmother, from whom I hope I did not inherit my brains, believed that the King James Version was the only acceptable Bible because it is common knowledge that God dictated the Bible in English!

  21. Genesis, chapter 6:
    1 And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,

    2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.

    Er . . . the sons of God?

    That passage poses a real problem for Biblical literalists, which is why they almost never mention it. When they have to address it, they toss literalism out the window and hem and haw about the need to interpret it, which they never do with the six-days-of-creation fable.

  22. Charles Deetz ;)

    So does AIG make every staff member write something for the blog? Did Hodge the engineer who joined AIG for the free rides on the ropes course (and lied on his statement of faith) suddenly find himself tasked by the ayatollah of Appalachia with a writing assignment. One night, on deadline and halfway thru a six pack of Natural Light, Hodge squeezed out something with so much circular logic that he knew the boss would be both confused and impressed. The next day after gaining approval, he would swing from the highest of ropes, where no one can hear him, laughing at the gullibility of ole Hambo.

  23. Charles Deetz ;)

    Decided to see what the AIG faithful think of this steaming piece of prose on Facebook, where people can comment directly on their drivel: 566 likes, 48 comments, 315 shares. I scrolled thru the comments which seemed to uniformly parrot the title of the article.

    Exactly one commenter referenced the article or the author in any way, and this is her comment: “I don’t see how Hodge’s points would really be useful in a discussion.” Everyone else ‘yep, goddidit’ without reading a thing. Scrolling thru the shares, it looks like everyone else did the same thing. Absolutely mindless.

  24. I discovered this article by Hodgie Podgie (or whatever his name is) before I found it referenced here as well. My first thought was, “Is he SERIOUS?” If I were to say, “I don’t believe there are unicorns frolicking about on the far side of the moon”, he would presumably answer: “How can you know? Are you transcendent and omniscient?”

    If I ever met him face to face, I would produce a piece of paper with the words, “The religion of AiG is worthless nonsense. Yours truly, God.” Perhaps he would deny that this is a valid revelation, claiming that I simply wrote it myself.

    Which I would readily admit, but then I was INSPIRED BY GOD to write it! So the question is not whether a mere man (that is, I) wrote it, but whether God was somehow involved in the writing. How can my esteemed opponent know this is NOT a revelation from God? Why, it clearly says “Yours truly, God” at the end! Who can possibly deny what God has inspired me to write, without being omniscient and transcendent?

  25. Let’s adapt Blowie Splodge’s assertion slightly:

    “People who [claim that the Bible was authored by mere men] claim that nature can be probed (perhaps unwittingly) are claiming that they are the ultimate authority over God nature and are trying to convince others that God nature is subservient to them.”

    There you are. Now the brain-dead absurdity is smack-in-the-mouth obvious.

  26. You should be informed about there being a whole system of Presuppositional Apologetics

  27. Thanks, TomS. I didn’t know that form of foolishness had a name. It’s true, of course, that anyone can announce anything — regardless of what it is — as his fundamental, non-negotiable axiom, and then go on to construct a philosophy based on that foundation. But the universe doesn’t care what we think; it is what it is and it does what it does, even if we think it isn’t and doesn’t. If your axioms result in a belief system that is out of sync with reality, you have two options: revise your axioms or revise reality. The former is usually easier.

  28. SC: “If your axioms result in a belief system that is out of sync with reality, you have two options: revise your axioms or revise reality. The former is usually easier.”

    Please incorporate this in your masthead! It is a perfect, concise statement of what your blog is all about.

  29. retiredsciguy says: “Please incorporate this in your masthead!”

    Yeah, I like it too, but the software only allows one “tagline,” and I don’t want to change the one I have. I’ll think of something.

  30. Looking forward to it!

  31. “Yet another who thinks he’s omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent.”
    The arrogance! The only one who’s omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent is our dear SC and then only regarding this nice blog.