ICR Explains Why You Can Trust the Bible

Every hell-bound evolutionist should read this new article at the website of Answers in Genesis (AIG). That’s the creationist ministry of Ken Ham (ol’ Hambo) — the ayatollah of Appalachia, the world’s holiest man who knows more about religion and science than everyone else. [Addendum: The title of your Curmudgeon’s post is in error. It should be “AIG Explains …” rather than “ICR Explains …”]

Their title is Can We Trust the Bible Is True? It was written by Tim Chaffey, described as “content manager for the Attractions Division of Answers in Genesis.” We don’t know what a “content manager” is, but Hambo obviously has a high opinion of Tim, and that’s good enough for us! Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis, and occasional Curmudgeonly interjections that look [like this]:

From archaeology to astronomy, evidence from many fields points to the veracity of God’s Word. Though written in several genres and three languages by approximately 40 authors with various backgrounds, writing styles, and purposes, the Bible maintains a consistent message without contradicting itself. At Answers in Genesis — the parent ministry of Answers magazine — our statement of faith declares, “The 66 books of the Bible are the written Word of God. The Bible is divinely inspired and inerrant throughout. Its assertions are factually true in all the original autographs.” Those are bold claims, but how can we be so confident?

Good question — how do they know the bible is true? Tim has the answer for us! He says:

Some people claim that the Bible is riddled with errors. [Gasp!] Their charges against Scripture generally center on scientific and historical matters, such as the age of the earth, the origin of man, and the evidence for the flood and other major events described in the Bible. [Those people are fools!] … But while we can’t examine all the Bible’s details by scientific or historical inquiry, we can investigate plenty of evidence that corroborates biblical details.

Tim has “plenty of evidence”! He tells us:

Archaeologists have located scores of buried cities located precisely where the Bible describes. Excavations have also uncovered an abundance of evidence for events and individuals mentioned in the Bible.

Egypt existed. Babylon existed. Therefore … well, isn’t it obvious? Then Tim’s article gets even more interesting:

Scientific evidence for the Genesis creation and flood accounts abound within other disciplines as well. [Wow!] Astronomical research on short-period comets in the solar system yields data consistent with the biblical timeline. Because they break down relatively fast, these comets cannot survive for millions, let alone billions, of years, as evolutionists imagine. [Amazing!] The biblical flood account is corroborated by geological evidence around the globe. [Ooooooooooooh!]

Your teachers lied to you, dear reader. Tim continues:

Anthropological investigations among ancient cultures have revealed hundreds of flood legends sharing an uncanny number of details with the biblical record. Similar legends correspond with the Bible’s account of man’s creation and fall and of Babel.

It’s not surprising that there are numerous old tales of floods, because people tend to settle on the seacoast and on river banks. Creationists have attempted to subsume them all into the Noah tale. We wrote about it once — see ICR Resolves Chaos Over Multiple Flood Myths. As for non-biblical accounts of the Fall and the Tower of Babel, we have our doubts. Let’s read on:

Biological research, particularly in the field of genetics, has shown that one “kind” of animal (such as the dog kind or cat kind) can never be transformed into another kind of animal over time because it does not possess any mechanism to acquire the necessary new genetic information to evolve into another kind. This observation that one kind does not change into a different kind and that variation is only produced within a kind matches Genesis 1, which repeatedly states that God made the animals as distinct kinds, to reproduce “after their kind.”

We won’t bother to rebut that old clunker. Here’s another excerpt:

In addition to evidence from scientific disciplines, the Bible is filled with unique proofs of being inspired by the Holy Spirit. Hundreds of detailed prophecies were written centuries before the events they accurately described. [Ooooooooooooh!]

We’ll skip Tim’s list of prophecies. Instead, you may want to read what Wikipedia says on the subject — see Bible prophecy. Tim then claims:

In addition, the central events described in Scripture — the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus Christ — have as strong historical support as any event in ancient history.

Again, no rebuttal. Here’s one last excerpt:

All these reasons and many others provide compelling evidence that the Bible is true. However, even without these supporting evidences, we should believe the Bible primarily because it is the Word of God. Since it is impossible for God to lie (Titus 1:2), the Bible must be true in all that it affirms. [Wow!] In fact, it is the Bible that reveals to us the proper grounding for knowledge: God made us in his image with the ability to learn about him and his world. And unless we base our thinking on the truths revealed by God, we couldn’t prove anything at all.

That’s enough. Now you know why we should trust the bible — because it speaks The Truth!

Copyright © 2019. 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 “ICR Explains Why You Can Trust the Bible

  1. willfpetro@gmail.com

    I’m convinced. No thinking allowed by creationists. Got it.

  2. ICR or AIG – what’s the diff! They’re both cat-dogs.

  3. one “kind” of animal (such as the dog kind or cat kind) can never be transformed into another kind of animal
    The Bible does not say that about “kinds”.
    For example, what about a crawling kind, like a caterpillar, and a flying kind, like a butterfly? How about a “clean” animal like a cow, becoming “unclean” when it is injured by a wild animal? And the BIble does not say that there is a “kind” of humans.
    As far as the “original manuscripts”, the Bible does not tell us that there were (in general) original manuscripts. It could be that the text originated in spoken word.
    1 Corinthians 7 often tells us what is written there is not the word of the Lord, but Paul’s opinion.

  4. Scientific evidence for the Genesis creation and flood accounts abound within other disciplines as well. [Wow!] Astronomical research on short-period comets in the solar system yields data consistent with the biblical timeline. Because they break down relatively fast, these comets cannot survive for millions, let alone billions, of years, as evolutionists imagine.

    How about long-period comets? They do exist, after all.

    In addition, the central events described in Scripture — the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus Christ — have as strong historical support as any event in ancient history.

    Snicker.

    If that were so, creationists would be able to point to Judean and Roman records of these events. Yet historians can’t even agree on the exact year in which Jesus was crucified (or in which he was born, either), and there is no contemporaneous record of his resurrection, and none whatever from non-Christian sources.

  5. Re “The Bible is divinely inspired and inerrant throughout. Its assertions are factually true in all the original autographs.” This is an interesting claim, since none of the original autographs exist–zero, zilch, nada. By claiming that nonexistent documents are inerrant, they basically are admitting that the documents they do have must be errant, otherwise they would claim the Bibles that we do have are inerrant (which, of course, they are not). Don’t these people think these things through?

  6. RetiredSciGuy

    ICR’s or AiG’s Timmy says,
    “Astronomical research on short-period comets in the solar system yields data consistent with the biblical timeline. Because they break down relatively fast, these comets cannot survive for millions, let alone billions, of years, as evolutionists imagine.”

    That’s exactly right — short-period comets evaporate quickly because they are relatively close to the sun. What Timmy is not telling us is that they weren’t always close to the sun — they spent most of their existence way out in the Oort Cloud, or perhaps in the Kuiper Belt, until their orbits were perturbed, causing them to fall in toward the sun. Their orbits were further modified by passing close to a planet or two, putting them into their short-period orbits. Timmy also doesn’t tell us what becomes of a short-period comet after it breaks down — it becomes a stream of meteoroids, causing the Earth’s periodic meteor showers as we pass through the streams.

    Timmy goes on:
    “Anthropological investigations among ancient cultures have revealed hundreds of flood legends sharing an uncanny number of details with the biblical record.”

    Wait a minute — how can there possibly be accounts from other cultures of the Global Flood that exterminated all other cultures, other than Noah’s? Did these “hundreds” of other cultures each have their own Noah?

  7. About original documents.
    There are people who claim that it is not the original documents, but the King James Version is inerrant. Let them argue that out with one another. There is no Bible proof text to decide this.

  8. @EricL wonders: “How about long-period comets? They do exist, after all.”
    Where you there?

    @SteveR: good point, one that’s actually used in stemmatics (aka the Lachmann Method) to approach the originals as closely as possible.

    “Don’t these people think these things through?”
    Only when it suits them. “Translations and copies do contain errors, but the originals don’t” is apologetics.

    @RSG also wonders, but not the same: “how can there possibly be …..”
    The cultural equivalent of hyper-accelerated micro-evolution.

    @TomS: gives excellent advise: “Let them argue that out with one another.”
    Totally agreed. The outcome of such an argument has exactly zero impact on my unbelief and my rejection of creacrap. However I think SteveR’s point is rather another hypocritical aspect of creacrap.

  9. It is difficult, if not impossible to recover the original for some 20th or 21st century works. Take a look at the textual tradition of Jeremiah. What about the lost works which have been cited as authorities in the Bible? What about the status of the vowel points, which which were added long after the consonantal text.

  10. Dave Luckett

    I’ve said this before, but here goes again: the quoted words are so fatuous, so transcendently illogical, so glaringly ignorant, that their idiocy should be plainly, blatantly obvious to anybody who can give them a moment’s consideration. Yet it is also undeniable that there is an audience bobbing along to them. Others here have pointed out the foolish falsities involved; the least examination will demonstrate more. The utter vacuum of all evidence; an omnipotent deity for whom some things are impossible; the kindergarten misconceptions of science; the even worse misconceptions about the text; on and on and on.

    So catastrophic a series of blunders, falsehoods and downright flat-out lies should destroy Ham’s outfit root and branch, but no. Rather, Ham prospers by doing this. That effect might be purely inadvertent, but I think not. I think it’s deliberate. Ham knows that he can prosper by picking only the lowest-hanging fruit. He doesn’t want people who are capable of thinking about anything, or could take the first steps towards a critical assessment. He certainly doesn’t want those who might be inspired to actually access evidence, either of nature or of the scriptures. Such people are trouble. The best way to avoid their attentions is to alienate them immediately.

    Thus, output like this appalling series of clunkers and brassy falsehoods is intentional. It’s a marketing tool. And the hideous but inescapable fact is, it works.

  11. @TomS: “What about …..”
    For a reliable answer you’ll need to ask a pro, which I’m absolutely not. Here is a professional introduction:

    https://www.livius.org/articles/theory/textual-criticism/

  12. @FrankB
    Thanks. It is a nice brief introduction to the history and practice of textual criticism.
    And at the end, the relationship of the method to evolutionary biology.
    It isn’t only the sciences that the creationists are ignoring.

  13. This post contains multitudes … of errors! Re “Since it is impossible for God to lie (Titus 1:2), the Bible must be true in all that it affirms.” In Genesis 1, God tells Adam and Eve that if they eat of the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil “surely they will die,” they eat and do not die. So, did God lie to them? Sure seems like it. But these bald-faced Bible-thumpers insist that God cannot lie or make mistakes or change his mind, all of which there is evidence of in their scriptures. (And please, no one should claim that Adam and Eve would have been immortal had they been obedient as the story clearly says they were banished from the Garden, not for their disobedience, but because if they went ahead and ate from the Tree of Life, they would become immortal, ergo they were not immortal.)

  14. A new level of churtzpah. ” The violently eroded rock surface called the “Great Unconformity,” caused by the initial rising of the floodwaters to cover the pre-flood land, is found across every continent.” If this refers to the Great Unconformity in the Grand Cayon, trhat puts the Flood before the mid-Cambrian. If it refers to Hutton’s unconformity at Siccar Point, however, it is much more recent; between the Silurian and the late Devonian

  15. An the list of prophesies fulfilled shows a touching naivete’ about the standard Rabbinical practice, contemporaneous with the New Testament, of back-construction: “For example, just as the Old Testament foretold, the Messiah Jesus was born of a virgin (Isaiah 7:14) in Bethlehem (Micah 5:2), as a descendant of Abraham (Genesis 12:1–3), Isaac (Genesis 17:19), and Jacob (Genesis 28:14). He was betrayed by a friend (Psalm 41:9) for 30 pieces of silver that were used to purchase the potter’s field (Zechariah 11:13). Then he was mocked and ridiculed, pierced in his hands and feet, and lots were cast for his clothing (Psalm 22:7, 16, 18). He died (Daniel 9:26) as a sacrifice for our sins and was buried in a rich man’s tomb (Isaiah 53:8–10). After a short time in the grave, he lived again (Psalm 16:10; Isaiah 53:10).”

  16. RetiredSciGuy

    @Dave Luckett:

    Wow! Perfectly stated.

  17. RetiredSciGuy

    Note to SC:

    The post’s title cites ICR, but the text states that the article written by Tim Chaffey, “content manager for the Attractions Division of Answers in Genesis,” is posted on AiG’s website. It seems the docbill picked up on this too.

  18. You’re right, RetiredSciGuy. I sometimes get them confused. I won’t change the title, but I’ll mention the blunder as an addendum to the text.

  19. Eddie Janssen

    @Steve Ruis
    I can see how apolegetics handles this one:
    1. They were immortal
    2. Than they ate an apple and God immediately punished them by becoming mortal
    3. To prevent them from becoming immortal again by eating of the other tree God puts angels with swords at Eden’s gates.

    I have not figured out yet why the second tree was in Eden at all if everyone was immortal to begin with. Maybe God is just being sadistic here.
    I am sure apolegetics can come up with a more suitable explanation.

  20. @Paul Braterman
    An interesting example of a “vaticinium ex eventu” is in Matthew 21:5, where the text of Zechariah 9:9 which in Hebrew is a parallelism, “riding on a he-ass, on the foal of she-asses” is taken as meaning that he is riding on two animals.
    Or the constructon of a story so that Jesus of Nazareth can be said to be born in Bethlehem. (Of course the famous story is generally taken to be literally true today.)
    Observe that muder:homicide::stealing:taking::lying:falsehood. God is not a murderer when he kills people, nor a thief when he takes property. Similarly, one cannot accuse God of lying when what he says is not the “truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth”. (Is it a sin of lying to tell a person intent on killing someone the wrong information? What right do the totally depraved have to all the facts in pursuit of their sinful ways?) Not to mention the Euthyphro Dilemma.

  21. @TomS, I have always particularly liked the Bethlehem Nativity example, since the entire Slaughter of the Innocents story is designed to establish a parallelism with Jeremiah 31:15. The Accordance Bible, with no sense of irony, spells it out in detail: https://www.accordancebible.com/Why-Is-Rachel-Weeping-At-Ramah-Part-3.

    But ever since I first heard the story, I’ve wondered; if God gave the Wise Men a warning not to pay their respects to Herod on the way back,why didn’t he warn them to avoid him on the way out, thus avoiding the massacre? And indeed, why was it so important for the Wise Men to visit, that they were given a special sign to guide them, even though the massacre of the innocents would be among the results?

    I have some intelligent and well informed believing Christian friends, but I have learnt the hard way not to ask them such questions

  22. @Paul Braterman
    It has long puzzled me why the astrologers of the East (I’m guessing that they were Zoroastrians) are thought by Christians to have special knowledge of the divine.
    And then there are the astronomers who try to make physical sense of the star.
    Of course, the story has become such a well-loved fixture of the Christmas season celebrations that one has to be a Grinch to express problems about it.

  23. You say potato. I say tomato. You say Hambo. I say bonobo.
    Potato, tomato! Hambo, bonobo! Let’s call the whole thing off!

  24. @docbill13512, surely you’re not suggesting that Creationists possess the same degree of playful inventiveness and resouceful lubrication of social contacts as bonobos!

  25. Y’all are overlooking one instance in which the Bible really could be trusted: the 1944 execution in the electric chair of 14-year old George Stinney in South Carolina (my emphasis):

    George Stinney was executed at the Central Correctional Institution in Columbia, South Carolina on June 16, 1944, at 7:30 p.m. At 7:25 pm, standing 5 feet 1 inch tall and weighing just over 90 lbs three police officers approached the cell where George was being held, one officer entered and pulled a screaming George Stinney out of his cell. George yelled that he didn’t want to be executed. The officers escorted him to the execution room where they placed him in the electric chair, using a bible as a booster seat because George was so small.

  26. “In addition, the central events described in Scripture — the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus Christ — have as strong historical support as any event in ancient history.” Not really, unless Tim’s referring to mythology. My understanding is that there are no contemporary, independent eyewitness accounts. Certainly, aside from the NT, there’s no other account of the resurrection. But there are plenty of Roman records of other events in Judea. To this skeptic, there’s sufficient reason to doubt that JC ever lived, but much more reason to doubt a resurrection. While ancient Greek mythology has resurrections, and the bible describes resurrections performed by prophets, the christian faith healers of today seem unable to perform this miracle. Just like they can’t cause new legs, arms or eyes to grow. Resurrections in the ancient world and today are widely rejected by scholars and science. Why accept the christian one based on such flimsy evidence? Generations of belief doesn’t make it so.

  27. “To this skeptic, there’s sufficient reason to doubt that JC ever lived.”
    Then you should doubt that Thales of Milete lived as well. But for some particular reason skeptics a la you always focus on one specific character. Makes me suspect that he plays an important role in your life, like he does in the life of eg Ol’Hambo.

  28. @Megalonyx
    BTW the 14-year-old who was executed happened to have been an African American.

  29. @Paul Braterman

    @docbill13512, surely you’re not suggesting that Creationists possess the same degree of playful inventiveness and resourceful lubrication of social contacts as bonobos!

    I actually disgusted myself writing that. However, my observation is that old Hambo probably has a bit more than 2% chimp in him!

  30. Retired Prof

    Eddie Janssen muses: “Maybe God is just being sadistic here.”

    Yeah, it fits the pattern TomS describes in the last paragraph of his comment at 9:33 am.

    For me, the stories of the deity’s horrible practical joke on Abraham and Isaac and of the relentless torture he and Satan teamed up to inflict on Job were deal-breakers. Even if I could believe such a god existed, I would refuse to worship it.

  31. Michael Fugate

    In case anyone cares – here’s Tim:
    http://midwestapologetics.org/blog/?page_id=2
    He has a Masters of Theology from Liberty U.
    He lists one of his accomplishments as playing for a national championship in college basketball. And its true – Minnesota Bible College won the National Bible College Athletic Association Championship in 2001 – no wonder he gives no details…
    https://www.postbulletin.com/picker-brothers-savor-mbc-title/article_8c2d360b-7c87-5c5f-be65-3ad8cf380cf1.html