Apologetics And The Bible

Apologetics And The Bible

Apologetics And Evolution

One of my past topics of interest has been apologetics as it pertains to the Bible. One of the most interesting facets has always been the reliability of the Scriptures- Is what we have really what the Disciples wrote- is what we have really what Moses, etc. wrote?

Over the years spanning about 150 years many ideas have been put forth to refute the authenticity of portions. There is one common thread that runs throught practically all arguements against this authenticity.

The idea called “the argument from silence”. What this means is since we haven’t found it, it does not exist therefore any claimm to its existence is false.

Many of the arguments against Christianity came out of the late nineteenth century, really an unfair time for such arguments to take hold and convince people that the Bible is untrue because archaeologic activity of the Middle East at this time was really just getting started.

What is interesting is that this questioning of the authenticity if the Bible parallels the development of the hype of evolution. Here are some of the then poplular arguments against Christianity:

1. Pentateuch. The Mosaic authorship was taken away and refuted. It was commonly believed that the Mosaic Books were part of an oral tradition. The higher critics could not believe that early man could develop such a complex system of law. There was no proof that such things existed. There were no early writings found that dated to Moses’ time.
2. Luke. It was believed at one time that Luke was totally unreliable as a historian. There were many many details in his book that at the time were thought to be wrong. They went against what was actually thought at that time.

3)The Greek language. The written text of the Bible was found to be a type of Greek that was unknown at the time. Many called it “The Holy Spirit Greek” because there were no other documents in the world that used the same language. Many thought this suspect.

No. 1 has been totally refuted especially with the findings of the Ebla tablets with extremely complicated laws and abundant evidence to support advanced civilizations with highly formed written languages- extremely complex (as a matter of fact, languages don’t get more complex, they get simpler with time). (Not to mention the “Creation Tablets”) The apeal to an oral tradition is fallacious and anachronistic.

No 2 has been totally refuted and Luke is now highly respected as a historian ranking among the best. His details have have proved to be incredibly accurate and helpful.

No. 3 of course has been refuted. It is now known there were two basic styles of Greek the classical and colloquial with the Bible being written in the colloquial. Many extrabiblical writings have been found to support the Bible.

There’s a lot more and if anyone is interested I’d be glad to continue. BUT….. where does all this lead us? What does all this mean ?

It is known that at the time of Darwinian Evolution the total verdict was not in- paleontoligically speaking. As far as the fossil record was concerned, there was no evidence to support Darwin’s theory. A few chance bones and the like were found but nothing substantial. But yet Darwin insisted that gradualism explained the development of all living things and he banked on the future discovery of fossils to support his idea.

The world had finally abandoned the Bible because of the lack of evidence but what they did was accept another idea in its place even tho’ it lacked the evidence to prove it entirely right or wrong.

What we see is the use of a double standard. The argument that was used to refute the Bible on one hand was not used with equal weight when applied to evolution. This type of hypocrisy still exists today.

So where are we now? Both have been given the same amount of time to prove whether or not they are right or wrong. Evidence-wise which has come out better? Hands-down it is the Bible. Evolution on the other hand has become more and more muddled as time passes. In fact, scientifically speaking, evolution had the upper hand because technology was at that time just experiencing the “doubling effect” of scientific knowledge.

Altho’ at the time it was unfair to disbelieve in the Bible because nobody had found anything to prove it (mainly because nobody had LOOKED) it was not unfair to challenge it. The Bible has been shown to accurately reflect the times and the people since then.

As far as evolution is concerned every new find poses more and more problems rather than answers. Creationists are more and more justified in asking the same questions that were posed to them concerning the Bible. The “argument from silence” becomes an irrelevent point. Where is the evidence? It ain’t there!!

Gary Futral