Creationist Wisdom #868: The Bible Is True

Today’s letter-to-the-editor (it’s actually a column) appears in the Rogersville Review of Rogersville, Tennessee, population 4,420. The town was settled in 1775 by the grandparents of Davy Crockett. The title is Do you believe the Bible is true?, and they don’t appear to have a comments feature.

Unless the letter-writer is a politician, preacher, or other public figure, we won’t embarrass or promote her by using her full name — but today we’ve got an author — and a columnist. Her name is Cindy Rooy. While Googling it, we found her book at Amazon: Trusting God Through Troubles & Tears. The price is only $16.95 in paperback, and it’s a whopping 132 pages long. Hey — it’s published by WestBowPress. Their website says they’re a religious vanity publisher.

We’ll give you a few excerpts from Cindy’s letter (or column), with bold font added by us for emphasis, and occasional Curmudgeonly interjections that look [like this]. Here we go!

My son-in-law’s relative was telling me the benefits of hormone therapy, and I started chuckling. I was wondering what type of hormone therapy God gave Sarah to become pregnant at the age of 90. After explaining my smirk, her response was, “Who is Sarah?” I replied that Sarah was Abraham’s wife, as recorded in the Bible. “You don’t really believe that stuff, do you?”

Cindy says she didn’t handle that very well, but now she can. Skipping the irrelevant details of that story, she asks us:

How would you defend the Bible’s credibility?

Good question! Then she tells us how it’s done:

We know that the Bible is either completely true or else the book is unreliable. You can’t pick and choose what you want to believe. The Holy Spirit inspired forty authors to write about human and earth’s history, the gospel, and doctrinal letters, in compliance with His will. Some authors wrote about the same concepts, but in different time periods. … Diverse, imperfect people wrote without contradictions, over a 1,500-year span.

No contradictions? Cindy should never look at this article in Wikipedia: Criticism of the Bible. She continues:

Yet, what is written in the Bible and how it was comprised does little to persuade unbelievers. They want external proof. [The fools!] This is when it helps to know about the other ancient reliable documents that were discovered, separate from the Bible, which confirm the Bible’s authenticity and truthfulness. Trusted historians from that era verified biblical events. Plus, thousands of Hebrew, Greek, and Latin biblical manuscripts still exist.

What’s she talking about? Does the Iliad confirm the bible? Let’s read on:

Archeological evidence corroborates the historical accuracy of the Bible. Scripture is quite specific with names of people and places, and these same names and structures are being uncovered in new excavations. Furthermore, scientific data does not conflict, but supports biblical accounts, including the worldwide flood and creation’s “intelligent design.”

Got that? Science supports the bible! And here’s yet another argument:

The Bible’s durability is remarkable. Recorded in Matthew 24:35, Jesus prophesied that “heaven and earth will pass away but my words will never pass away.” … It’s the most distributed book of all times and yet, the most attacked.

The Chinese government has recently banned all online sales of the Christian Bible. While it’s illegal to own a Bible in Saudi Arabia, North Koreans are imprisoned and tortured for having a copy. Hitler made the Nazis burn as many as they could find. And the Bible is still available, read, and cherished. Satan uses his anti-Christian allies to try to eliminate God’s Word, but never succeeds.

Wowie — it’s gotta be The Truth! Here’s more:

If there were no truth to what the Bible says, it would not have remained in existence and people would not have risked their lives for a book’s message. Millions of people have experienced that the Bible’s principles are trustworthy. Have you discovered for yourself that the Bible is still relevant?

Well, dear reader, have you discovered it for yourself?

This is getting too long, so here’s our last excerpt:

The difference between belief in the Bible and unbelief is experience. Anyone who tests God’s words will personally realize that the Bible is truth and God’s principles are still applicable today. That personal experience is more realistic and convincing than any unbeliever’s protest.

Cindy has personal experience. What do you have, dear reader, other than a destiny in the Lake of Fire?

Copyright © 2018. 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

25 responses to “Creationist Wisdom #868: The Bible Is True

  1. Michael Fugate

    Long on assertion and short on evidence – and none of the “evidence” is even close to true. The paragraph on “science” is just plain wrong.

    If someone is willing to do die for a cause, does that make the cause true? if evil people burn your book, does that make your book true?

    Someone how going to Calvin College did her no intellectual good – maybe all the courses on science and logic were too early in the morning.

  2. Cindy Rooy asserts,
    “We know that the Bible is either completely true or else the book is unreliable. You can’t pick and choose what you want to believe.”

    Hold it, Cindy. Let’s take a closer look at your statement. You say “We know that the Bible is either completely true or else the book is unreliable.”

    Really? How do we know that? What is the basis for such a sweeping assertion? Do you really mean that if we think it would be impossible for, say, the Earth to stop rotating for a while, making one day in history longer than all others, then we shouldn’t believe in the ethics of the Golden Rule? In other words, are you saying we should throw the baby out with the bath water? Why would you want to limit the usefulness of the Bible as an ethical guide in such a way? Don’t you think it is more important to get more people following the message of peace in the words of Jesus than just those who are capable of blind, unquestioning belief?

    Which leads us to the second sentence of your assertion — “You can’t pick and choose what you want to believe.” Certainly we can. Whether I believe in the existence of a Global Flood or a six-day creation has no bearing whatsoever on whether I “do unto others as I would have them do unto me”, or “love my neighbor”.

    Your insistence on such an “all or nothing” approach to the Bible is severely limiting to the acceptance of the teachings of Jesus. Do you honestly think He would approve of your stance?

  3. Michael Fugate

    Or as Galileo is supposed to have quipped, “The Bible tells us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go.” Probably in Latin, though.

  4. Someone made a comment on the Galileo quotation in a discussion in Wikiquote. I have no idea of the reliability of it, but one can read about it here:

  5. Dave Luckett

    Retiredsciguy nailed it good. That all or nothing assertion is an offence to rational thought. Of course you can choose what parts of the Bible, or anything else, to believe, guided by reason and principle.

    What interests me is how they can possibly handle the obvious internal contradictions in the text, and even more, its occasional casual bloodthirstiness, caprice, immorality, cruelty, racism, (“chosen people”, yet) ultraviolence and falsehood. You’d think either that they shut down any critical faculty they have (or never had any to start with) or else don’t actually know what it says.

    Come to think of it, those two are not mutually exclusive. The answer could be both.

    Whatever, i don’t think it’s because they actually approve those qualities. Rather, they’re blind and deaf to them. Have they achieved that state by conscious effort? It doesn’t seem possible, but the alternative, that they are able so completely to deny reality seems to run very close to a working definition for dementia of some kind, barring only the consideration that they are usually functional in other areas. Inbuilt or acquired? Nature or nurture?

    I have no idea.

  6. Michael Fugate

    No one accepts all of the Bible, no matter what they say. Can’t understand why they keep insisting that they do.

  7. Thanks, Dave. Ten years of perfect attendance at Methodist Sunday School lo those many years ago, where the focus was ethics and not fire and brimstone, had an effect.

  8. It’s the Lake of Fire for me. Do I need to bring swimming trunks and a towel?

  9. Oooohhh! I’m punished for being a European! When clicking to the Rogersvill Review I got this:

    “We recognise you are attempting to access this website from a country belonging to the European Economic Area (EEA) including the EU which enforces the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and therefore cannot grant you access at this time.”
    Think twice before you try (if you’re American and can). The RR might directly report you to the NSA! Of course I’m confident that our dear SC has taken appropriate precautions a long time ago.

    Let me help Cindy out a bit: “scientific data does not conflict”
    And when they do (perhaps in English it’s different, but in Latin the singular of data is datum) those data are not scientific. QED.

    Let me repeat it once again: I have tested god’s words as well. So yes, I do have personal experience. Result: zilch, nada, nothing.

  10. @MF asks a question no christian should dare to answer: “If someone is willing to do die for a cause, does that make the cause true?”
    Like the members of the Waffen SS at the Eastern Front from 1941 to 1945, you mean?

    @ChrisS wants to be prepared: “Do I need to bring swimming trunks and a towel?”
    Only supernatural ones.

  11. Only supernatural ones? Uh-oh. So much for being ‘decent with modification’.

  12. Eric Lipps

    If there were no truth to what the Bible says, it would not have remained in existence and people would not have risked their lives for a book’s message.

    How about the Koran?

  13. @ChrisS – swim trunks won’t work. You’ll need a full-body wetsuit made of asbestos. Or perhaps Nomex. Normally, you would be advised to avoid asbestos because of the cancer risk, but that won’t matter — you’ll be dead anyway.

  14. Eddie Janssen

    “Scripture is quite specific with names of people and places, …”
    Well, not quite.
    What was the name of the farao who appointed Josef in his government.? Which farao expelled the Jews from Egypt?
    And what about all the unnamed women in the Bible?

  15. The author confirms all of the lies she has been told from pulpits, speaker’s platforms, and in conversations with fellow believers as well as books galore.

    many of the things claimed are true. The names of Babylonian kings show up in the Bible and lo and behold, other records confirm they were real, historical figures! (See!) But these “confirmations of “facts” actually have nothing to do with the theological underpinnings of Christianity. By glibly claiming “science or history” has confirmed events in the Bible and not specify which have been and which have not is dishonest, which should surprise no one. Dishonest aside, the writer is responsible for her own gullibility and lack of curiosity. If she were actually interested in contradictions in the Bible, she could find lists of them with even the slightest Internet search..

  16. It’s to be expected that some of the names and places in a people’s mythology are indeed correct. But the most important name for Christians has no independent, contemporary historical verification. Cindy apparently is unconcerned with the contradictions regarding his story in the 4 gospels, if indeed she’s read them cover to cover. Just more cherry-picked theology.

  17. Totally off topic: Donald the Clown has declared Trade War to pretty much the entire world. Theresa the Brexiteer tries to mediate.

    I don’t think she has a good chance, so all Brexiteers will face a dilemma: becoming the puppet of the USA or crawling back to the EU.

  18. There are “answers” to all of the difficulties which have been pointed out about the Bible.
    But there is this observation about the Bible. There is a stunning lack of agreement about what a literately interpretated infallible Bible says.
    Only when there is a consensus about
    what the Bible says is it worth the effort to examine how that corresponds with reality. For example, there is a rough concensus among Bible scholars, but that does not find any basis to doubt, for example, anything about evolutionary biology or cosmology.

  19. Too bad her self published book does not qualify for the SC collection. Sounds like it would be entertaining.

  20. skmarshall

    And don’t forget, right after Hitler burned all the bibles, he made all the Wehrmacht soldiers melt down their “Got Mit Uns” belt buckles, yessir!

  21. Who are those who claim that, without purposeful action on intelligent design, “mankind” will deteoriate?

  22. Michael Fugate

    Claiming your opponent is aligned with Hitler is fraught with difficulties. Given his hatred of Jews, it would seem Christianity’s Jewish roots would have been a problem for him. How could he support a Jewish Jesus? If he were a Christian, it would have been a very idiosyncratic Christianity. That doesn’t make him an atheist or an evolution supporter though. I can imagine him believing he could breed his way to perfection, but that isn’t evolution by natural selection, it is a form of intelligent design – there is a clear purpose, a goal in mind.

  23. I am sorry to say that anti Semitism has not been rare in Christianity for many centuries. There is enough in the Gospels to be used as a basis. Whatever H.’s true belief – if he had a true belief – many church-going Bible readers were willing to carry out the worse atrocities.

  24. Yes, eugenics is a form of ‘artificial selection’. Again, nothing Darwinian there. And we know, from passages in ‘Mein Kampf’, that Hitler was a creationist.
    I love that condescending, folksy tone she adopts in the opening paragraph, as if she pities anyone not credulous enough to believe in pregnant 90-year old women.
    It’s the same thing Ham goes in for- all this ‘…You see…’, stuff- as if he was everybody’s favourite uncle, imparting the wisdom of the elders.

  25. MichaelF doesn’t understand antisemitism: “How could he support a Jewish Jesus?”
    Simple – he supported an antijewish Jesus. He did so as early as 1922:

    “My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God’s truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter.”

    “I can imagine him believing he could breed his way to perfection”
    Rather that he should try to avoid deterioration – hence all the “pure blood” nonsense. And deterioration (for instance in the moderately popular “by natural means information only can get lost) us typically creationist.
    Evolution Theory doesn’t have any use for words like “perfect”.

    @TomS feels regret: “There is enough in the Gospels to be used as a basis.”
    Also the opposite. As christianity started out as just another jewish sect christian antisemitism only started after 70 CE, several decades after Jesus died. From then on the two remaining jewish sects, the christians and the pharisees (aka rabbinical judaism) gradually drifted away. Until christianity became state religion the competition mainly had the form of polemics; some of the better insults are antichristian, coming from rabbi’s.
    In the fourth Century CE things really got bad and especially churchfather Ambrosius, bishop of Milan, did his best to escalate the animosity.