https://youtu.be/fMJB2u7_xBA

Why School?—March, 2019

published by: https://raymondk12.org/why-school-march-2019/

According to Wikipedia, “A school is an educational institution designed to provide learning spaces and learning environments for the teaching of students under the direction of teachers. Most countries have systems of formal education, which is commonly compulsory.”

Why?

I am not trying to be a smart aleck. Like most Americans, my gut reaction to the question “What is the purpose of school?” would be something similar to “To prepare them for the rest of their life.” However, in a world that is changing so quickly, is that even possible? I recently read that Buckminster Fuller created a “knowledge-doubling curve” to show how fast the amount of knowledge in the world doubles. It is shown below:

In other words, the knowledge available to humankind in 1985 was 64 times what was available in 1 AD. Please note that time to double has shortened dramatically; from 1500 years, to 250 years, to 150 years, etc. This is what is known as an “exponential trajectory.” Since this chart was first published, IBM has estimated that in 2001, knowledge was doubling every 1-2 years. Currently, they estimate knowledge doubles every 11-12 hours. With the increasing “internet of things”, big data and the continued advancement of science, we are assured we will be continuing on this path.

Knowledge Half-life

At the same, the half-life of much knowledge is decreasing at an exponential rate. What does that mean? This term refers to the amount of time it takes for knowledge to lose half of its value; in other words, what we knew to be true is either no longer true or out-dated. Science, technology, research and development, marketing, etc. are all short “half-life” fields. Information that 10 years ago was useful for 12 months, might only be valuable for 6 months today.

Knowledge Tsunami

The message is very clear: if knowledge is doubling exponentially and the half-life of much knowledge is decreasing significantly, we should expect a “knowledge tsunami” and an “undertow” of outdate knowledge clutter that can weigh us down.

For schools, this means being selective in what we teach, teaching timeless knowledge and focusing on how to find knowledge, rather than simply trying to “cram it in.” For society, it may mean adjusting how we think schools should be designed and what outcomes they should seek.

References:

http://bit.ly/2HhchgO

http://bit.ly/2ENrUem

http://bit.ly/2TyrhNP

Stories of fait1

by Kyle Butt, M.Div.

Evolutionary scientists claim humans and dinosaurs could not possibly have co-existed.

They insist that dinosaurs lived millions of years before humans arrived on the scene. Yet the available historical and physical evidence proves that dinosaurs and humans lived together only a few thousand years ago (see Lyons and Butt, 2008). One proof of this fact is the abundance of “dragon legends.” These legends, from all over the world, describe creatures that match many of the dinosaurs and flying reptiles in the fossil record (pp. 13-45).

The evolutionary attempts to explain away the similarities between dinosaurs and the creatures historically labeled as “dragons” fail completely. For example, in the Zhucheng, China area, over 50 metric tons of fossils have been collected, with thousands more fossils still in the ground (Cha, 2010). Dinosaur fossils are so plentiful that paleontologist Xu Xing said they “can even be found in some farmers’ private courtyard areas next to their houses” (2010). Local residents have been “digging up ‘flying dragon’ bones for use in medicinal concoctions for generations” (2010, emp. added). Residents have long associated the dinosaur fossils with the ancient creatures known as “flying dragons.”

It is no mere coincidence that descriptions of dinosaurs and flying reptiles match the ancient descriptions of dragons. As Daniel Cohen stated: “No creature that ever lived looked more like dragons than dinosaurs. Like the dragons, dinosaurs were huge reptiles…. It sounds as though the dragon legend could have begun with dinosaurs” (1975, pp. 104,106). The Bible clearly states that God created all creatures, both flying reptiles and dinosaurs, as well as humans, on days five and six of Creation. The repeated references to dinosaur fossils being connected to dragon legends adds historic evidence to the convincing case that dinosaurs and humans co-existed in the past and were not separated by millions of years.

REFERENCES
Cha, Ariana (2010), “China Spends Billions to Study Dinosaur Fossils at Sites of Major Discoveries,” The Washington Post, January 26, [On-line], URL: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/25/AR2010012503035_pf.html.

Cohen, Daniel (1975), The Greatest Monsters in the World (New York: Dodd, Mead, & Company).

Lyons, Eric and Kyle Butt (2008), The Dinosaur Delusion (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press).

Copyright © 2010 Apologetics Press, Inc. All rights reserved.

For catalog, samples, or further information, contact:

Apologetics Press
230 Landmark Drive
Montgomery, Alabama 36117
U.S.A.
Phone (334) 272-8558

Apologetics Press

We are happy to grant permission for items in the “Creation Vs. Evolution” section to be reproduced in part or in their entirety, as long as the following stipulations are observed: (1) Apologetics Press must be designated as the original publisher; (2) the specific Apologetics Press Web site URL must be noted; (3) the author’s name must remain attached to the materials; (4) textual alterations of any kind are strictly forbidden; (5) Some illustrations (e.g., photographs, charts, graphics, etc.) are not the intellectual property of Apologetics Press and as such cannot be reproduced from our site without consent from the person or organization that maintains those intellectual rights; (6) serialization of written material (e.g., running an article in several parts) is permitted, as long as the whole of the material is made available, without editing, in a reasonable length of time; (7) articles, excepting brief quotations, may not be offered for sale or included in items offered for sale; and (8) articles may be reproduced in electronic form for posting on Web sites pending they are not edited or altered from their original content and that credit is given to Apologetics Press, including the web location from which the articles were taken.

by  Dave Miller, Ph.D.

[Editor’s Note: This article is taken from Appendix 1 of the author’s book The Quran Unveiled.]

The science of textual criticism is a field of inquiry that has been invaluable in ascertaining the original reading of the New Testament text. Textual criticism involves “the ascertainment of the true form of a literary work, as originally composed and written down by its author.”1 The fact that the original autographs do not exist,2 and that only copies of copies of copies of the original documents have survived, has led some falsely to conclude that the original reading of the New Testament documents cannot be determined. For example, Mormons frequently attempt to establish the superiority of the Book of Mormon over the Bible by insisting that the Bible has been corrupted through the centuries in the process of translation (a contention shared by Islam in its attempt to explain the Bible’s frequent contradiction of the Quran). However, a venture into the fascinating world of textual criticism dispels this premature and uninformed conclusion.

The task of textual critics—those who study the extant manuscript evidence that attests to the text of the New Testament—is to examine textual variants (i.e., conflicting readings between manuscripts involving a word, verse, or verses) in an effort to reconstruct the original reading of the text. What has this field of inquiry concluded with regard to the integrity and genuineness of the Bible?

IS THE OLD TESTAMENT STILL RELIABLE?3

If there are scribal errors in today’s manuscript copies of the Old Testament, many wonder how we can be certain the text of the Bible was transmitted faithfully across the centuries. Is it not possible that it was corrupted so that its form in our present Bible is drastically different from the original source?

The accuracy of the Old Testament text was demonstrated forcefully by the discovery of the Dead Sea scrolls. Prior to 1947, the oldest Hebrew manuscripts of significant length did not date earlier than the ninth century A.D. However, when the Dead Sea scrolls were found (containing portions of all Old Testament books except Esther), this discovery pushed the record of the Old Testament text back almost 1,000 years. These copies were produced sometime between 200 B.C. and A.D. 100. One scroll found in the Qumran caves was of particular importance. It was a scroll of the book of Isaiah, which had only a few words missing. What was amazing about this scroll is that when it was compared to the text of Isaiah produced 900 years after it, the two matched almost word for word, with only a few small variations. In commenting on this comparative reading of the two texts, A.W. Adams observed:

The close agreement of the second Isaiah Scroll from the Dead Sea with the manuscripts of the ninth and tenth centuries shows how carefully the text tradition which they represent has been preserved…. We may therefore be satisfied that the text of our Old Testament has been handed down in one line without serious change since the beginning of the Christian era and even before.4

Amazingly, a comparison of the standard Hebrew texts with that of the Dead Sea scrolls has revealed that the two are virtually identical. The variations (about 5%) occurred only in minor spelling differences and minute copyists’ mistakes. Thus, as Rene Paché noted: “Since it can be demonstrated that the text of the Old Testament was accurately transmitted for the last 2,000 years, one may reasonably suppose that it had been so transmitted from the beginning.”5

Even within the various passages of Scripture, numerous references to copies of the written Word of God can be found. A copy of the “book of the law” was discovered in the Temple during the days of King Josiah (c. 621 B.C.), thus demonstrating that Moses’ writings had been protected over a span of almost 1,000 years (2 Kings 22). Other Old Testament passages speak of the maintenance of the Holy Writings across the years (Jeremiah 36; Ezra 7:14; Nehemiah 8:1-18).

During Jesus’ personal ministry, He read from a scroll of Isaiah in the synagogue at Nazareth, and called it “Scripture” (Luke 4:16-21)—a technical term employed in the Bible for a divine writing. Jesus endorsed the truth that the Old Testament Scriptures had been preserved faithfully. Even though Jesus read from a copy of Isaiah, He still considered it the Word of God. Hence, Scripture had been preserved faithfully in written form. Furthermore, even though Jesus condemned the scribes of His day for their many sins, never did He even intimate they were unfaithful in their work as scribes. Indeed, Jesus gave approval not only to copies, but even to translations (e.g., the Septuagint) of the Old Testament by reading and quoting from them.

One of the great language scholars of the Old Testament text was Dr. Robert Dick Wilson. A master of over 35 languages, Wilson carefully compared the text of the Old Testament with inscriptions on ancient monuments. As a result of his research, he declared: “We are scientifically certain that we have substantially the same text that was in the possession of Christ and the apostles and, so far as anybody knows, the same as that written by the original composers of the Old Testament documents.”6

IS THE NEW TESTAMENT STILL RELIABLE?

What about the integrity of the New Testament? One may say unhesitatingly and confidently that the uncorrupted preservation of the New Testament has been thoroughly established. In evaluating the text of the New Testament, textual critics work with a large body of manuscript evidence, the amount of which is far greater than that available for any ancient classical author.7 As of 2018, the number of Greek manuscripts—whole and partial—that attest to the New Testament stands at an unprecedented 5,874.8 This figure does not include the other sources of evidence such as the superabundance of patristic citations and ancient versions. The best manuscripts of the New Testament are dated at roughly A.D. 350, with perhaps one of the most important of these being the Codex Vaticanus, “the chief treasure of the Vatican Library in Rome,” and the Codex Sinaiticus, which was purchased by the British from the Soviet Government in 1933.9 Additionally, the Chester Beatty papyri, made public in 1931, contain eleven codices (manuscript volumes), three of which contain most of the New Testament (including the Gospel accounts). Two of these codices boast a date in the first half of the third century, while the third is slightly later, being dated in the last half of the same century.10 The John Rylands Library vaunts even earlier evidence. A papyrus codex containing parts of John 18 dates to the time of Hadrian, who reigned from A.D. 117 to 138.11

Other attestation to the accuracy of the New Testament documents can be found in the writings of the so-called “apostolic fathers”—men who lived from A.D. 100 to 550, and who often quoted from the New Testament documents.12 Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Tatian, Clement of Rome, and Ignatius (writing before the close of the second century) all provided citations from one or more of the Gospel accounts.13 Other witnesses to the authenticity of the New Testament are the Ancient Versions, which consist of the text of the New Testament translated into different languages. The Old Latin and the Old Syriac are the most ancient, being dated from the middle of the second century.14

The fact is, the New Testament enjoys far more historical documentation than any other volume ever known. Compared to the 5,700+ Greek manuscripts authenticating the New Testament, there are only 643 copies of Homer’s Iliad, which is undeniably the most famous book of ancient Greece. No one doubts the text of Julius Caesar’s Gallic Wars, but we have only 10 copies of it, the earliest of which was made 1,000 years after it was written. We have only two manuscripts of Tacitus’ Histories and Annals, one from the ninth century and one from the eleventh. The History of Thucydides, another well-known ancient work, is dependent upon only eight manuscripts, the oldest of these being dated about A.D. 900 (along with a few papyrus scraps dated at the beginning of the Christian era). And The History of Herodotus finds itself in a similar situation. “Yet no classical scholar would listen to an argument that the authenticity of Herodotus or Thucydides is in doubt because the earliest MSS [manuscripts—DM] of their works which are of any use to us are over 1,300 years later than the originals.”15 Thus Bruce declared: “It is a curious fact that historians have often been much readier to trust the New Testament records than have many theologians.”16 Even as far back as 1968, Bruce Metzger, longtime professor of New Testament language and literature at Princeton, stated: “The amount of evidence for the text of the New Testament…is so much greater than that available for any ancient classical author that the necessity of resorting to emendation is reduced to the smallest dimensions.”17 Truly, to have such abundance of copies for the New Testament from within 70 years of their writing is nothing short of astounding.18

In one sense, the work of the textual critic has been unnecessary, since the vast majority of textual variants involve minor matters that do not affect doctrine as it relates to one’s salvation. Even those variants that might be deemed doctrinally significant pertain to matters that are treated elsewhere in the Bible where the question of authenticity and originality is unobscured. No feature of Christian doctrine is at stake. As Ewert noted: “[V]ariant readings in our manuscripts do not affect any basic teaching of the NT.”19 Old Testament scholar Gleason Archer wrote in agreement:

In fact, it has long been recognized by the foremost specialists in textual criticism that if any decently attested variant were taken up from the apparatus at the bottom of the page and were substituted for the accepted reading of the standard text, there would in no case be a single, significant alteration in doctrine or message.20

Nevertheless, textual critics have been successful in demonstrating that currently circulating New Testaments do not differ substantially from the original autographs. When all of the textual evidence is considered, the vast majority of discordant readings have been resolved.21 One is brought to the firm conviction that we have in our possession the New Testament as God intended.

The world’s foremost textual critics have confirmed this conclusion. Sir Frederic Kenyon, longtime director and principal librarian at the British Museum, whose scholarship and expertise to make pronouncements on textual criticism was second to none, stated: “Both the authenticity and the general integrity of the books of the New Testament may be regarded as finally established.”22 The late F.F. Bruce, longtime Rylands Professor of Biblical Criticism at the University of Manchester, England, remarked: “The variant readings about which any doubt remains among textual critics of the New Testament affect no material question of historic fact or of Christian faith and practice.”23 J.W. McGarvey, declared by the London Times to be “the ripest Bible scholar on earth,”24 conjoined: “All the authority and value possessed by these books when they were first written belong to them still.”25 And the eminent textual critics Westcott and Hort put the entire matter into perspective when they said:

Since textual criticism has various readings for its subject, and the discrimination of genuine readings from corruptions for its aim, discussions on textual criticism almost inevitably obscure the simple fact that variations are but secondary incidents of a fundamentally single and identical text. In the New Testament in particular it is difficult to escape an exaggerated impression as to the proportion which the words subject to variation bear to the whole text, and also, in most cases, as to their intrinsic importance. It is not superfluous therefore to state explicitly that the great bulk of the words of the New Testament stand out above all discriminative processes of criticism, because they are free from variation, and need only to be transcribed.26

Writing over one hundred years ago in the late 19th century, and noting that the experience of two centuries of investigation and discussion had been achieved, these scholars concluded: “[T]he words in our opinion still subject to doubt can hardly amount to more than a thousandth part of the whole of the New Testament.”27 This means that 999/1000th of the text of the New Testament is the same today as when it came from the pens of the inspired writers. The miniscule portion that remains uncertain (1/1000th) consists of trivial details that have no material effect on matters of faith or doctrine. J.I. Packer, Board of Governors Professor of Theology at Regent College in Vancouver, British Columbia, summarized the facts: “[F]aith in the adequacy of the text is confirmed, so far as it can be, by the unanimous verdict of textual scholars that the biblical text is excellently preserved, and no point of doctrine depends on any of the small number of cases in which the true reading remains doubtful.”28 Indeed, again in the words of textual scholar F.F. Bruce: “By the ‘singular care and providence’ of God the Bible text has come down to us in such substantial purity that even the most uncritical edition of the Hebrew or Greek…cannot effectively obscure the real message of the Bible, or neutralize its saving power.”29 Therefore, the charge alleged by Muslims (and Mormons), that the Bible has been corrupted in transmission, is completely false.

THE QURAN COMPARED

Anyone who has taken time to investigate the manuscript evidence that exists for ascertaining the original state of the Bible knows that we have the Bible in its near-original condition—a claim that has not been established for the Quran. The attention given to ascertaining the original state of the Quranic text pales in comparison to that given to the Bible in general, and the New Testament in particular. As John Gilchrist observed:

[T]here is no translation of the Qur’an to compare with translations of the Bible such as the Revised Standard Version or New American Standard Version. These were done by committees of scholars and the result has been a remarkably consistent and accurate rendering of the original. Every well-known translation of the Qur’an has been the work of an individual and, to one degree or another in every case, the value of the final product is tempered by the presence of the author’s own personal convictions and interpretations.30

Of course, unsubstantiated claims are made for the transmission of the Quran: “[A]ll Muslims agree that the Quran is the verbatim revelation of God. They also agree about its text and content; that is, no variant texts are found among any of the schools.”31 The fact that Muslims claim unanimity of opinion regarding the purity of the Quranic text does not prove that the Quran has been exempt from the peculiar attribute of textual variation to which all documents from history are subject.

Ironically, the Quran itself offers both implicit and explicit endorsement of the integrity of the biblical text—at least in its condition at the time the Quran arose in the early seventh century:

And believe in that which I reveal, confirming that which ye possess already (of the Scripture), and be not first to disbelieve therein, and part not with My revelations for a trifling price, and keep your duty unto Me. Confound not truth with falsehood, nor knowingly conceal the truth…. Enjoin ye righteousness upon mankind while ye yourselves forget (to practice it)? And ye are readers of the Scripture! Have ye then no sense?…. O Children of Israel! Remember My favour wherewith I favoured you and how I preferred you to (all) creatures (Surah 2:41-42,44,47).32

Or do they say, “He has forged it”? Say: “Had I forged it, then can you obtain no single (blessing) for me from Allah. He knows best of that whereof you talk (so glibly)! Enough is He for a witness between me and you! And He is Oft‑Forgiving, Most Merciful.” Say: “I am no bringer of new‑fangled doctrine among the Messengers, nor do I know what will be done with me or with you. I follow but that which is revealed to me; I am but a Warner open and clear.” Say: “Do you see? If (this teaching) be from Allah, and you reject it, and a witness from among the Children of Israel testifies to its similarity (with earlier scripture), and has believed while you are arrogant, (how unjust you are!). Truly, Allah does not guide a people unjust.” The Unbelievers say of those who believe: “If (this Message) were a good thing, (such men) would not have gone to it first, before us!” And seeing that they do not guide themselves thereby, they will say, “This is an (old,) old falsehood!” And before this, was the Book of Moses as a guide and a mercy: and this Book confirms (it) in the Arabic tongue; to admonish the unjust, and as Glad Tidings to those who do right…. “O our people! We have heard a Book revealed after Moses, confirming what came before it” (Surah 46:8-12,30).33

Say: “O People of the Book! do you disapprove of us for no other reason than that we believe in Allah, and the revelation that has come to us and that which came before (us), and (perhaps) that most of you are rebellious and disobedient?…. If only they had stood fast by the Law, the Gospel, and all the revelation that was sent to them from their Lord, they would have enjoyed happiness from every side. There is from among them a party on the right course: but many of them follow a course that is evil. O Messenger! proclaim the (Message) which has been sent to you from your Lord. If you did not, you would not have fulfilled and proclaimed His Mission. And Allah will defend you from men (who mean mischief). For Allah guides not those who reject Faith. Say: “O People of the Book! You have no ground to stand upon unless you stand fast by the Law, the Gospel, and all the revelation that has come to you from your Lord.” It is the revelation that comes to you from your Lord, that increases in most of them their obstinate rebellion and blasphemy. But you do not grieve over (these) people without Faith. Those who believe (in the Qur’an), those who follow the Jewish (scriptures), and the Sabians and the Christians,—any who believe in Allah and the Last Day, and work righteousness,—on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve (Surah 5:59,66-69; cf. 2:62).34

And if thou (Muhammad) art in doubt concerning that which We reveal unto thee, then question those who read the Scripture (that was) before thee. Verily the Truth from thy Lord hath come unto thee. So be not thou of the waverers (Surah 10:95).35

These verses from the Quran provide confirmation of Muhammad’s belief in the accuracy of the Law and the Gospel (cf. Surah 87:18-19; 6:155-158). They even appeal to a Jew, contemporary to Muhammad, who verified that the Quran confirmed the Scripture that preceded it. Indeed, the Quran claims to be in unison and harmony with, and complementary to, previous Scripture (the Bible).

The underlying thought in all of these Quranic verses is that the Quran is to be accepted, reverenced, and obeyed every bit as much as the previous Scriptures (i.e., the Bible). These verses are worded in such a way that they assume the legitimacy and acceptability of the Bible. The Quranic criticism directed against Jews (and Christians) is not that they corrupted their Scriptures (cf. Surah 7:169-170). Rather, they are criticized for not concluding that Muhammad and the Quran were the confirmatory sequel to the previous revelations of Jews and Christians. In fact, when the Jews insisted to Muhammad that they had been given sufficient knowledge by means of the Torah—an admission made by the Quran itself [“Again, We gave the Scripture unto Moses, complete for him who would do good, an explanation of all things, a guidance and a mercy, that they might believe in the meeting with their Lord” (Surah 7:155)]—Muhammad responded with a new surah: “[I]f all the trees in the earth were pens, and the sea, with seven more seas to help it, (were ink), the words of Allah could not be exhausted” (Surah 31:27).36 If the Quran endorses the integrity of the Bible, and we have in existence manuscripts of the Bible that predate the Quran, then the accuracy and authenticity of the Bible stands vindicated—not only by the voluminous manuscript evidence—but even by the Quran itself.

To repeat: We can know that the Bible has been transmitted accurately through the centuries. The Bible is, in fact, the Word of God.

ENDNOTES

1 Sir Frederic Kenyon (1951 reprint), Handbook to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans), second edition, p. 1.

2 Philip Comfort (1990), Early Manuscripts and Modern Translations of the New Testament (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House), p. 4.

3 Portions of this section are drawn from Wayne Jackson (1989), “Was the Old Testament Transmitted Faithfully?” Apologetics Press, http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=105&article=1140.

4 Sir Frederic Kenyon (1939), Our Bible and the Ancient Manuscripts (London: Eyre and Spottiswoode), pp. 69,88.

5 Rene Paché (1971), The Inspiration and Authority of Scripture (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans), p. 191.

6 Robert Dick Wilson (1929), A Scientific Investigation of the Old Testament (New York: Harper Brothers), p. 8.

7 David Ewert (1983), From Ancient Tablets to Modern Translations (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan), p. 139; Kenyon, 1951, p. 5; B.A. Westcott and F.J.A. Hort (1964 reprint), The New Testament in the Original Greek (New York: MacMillan), p. 565.

8 Michael Welte (2019), personal e-mail, September 17, Institute for New Testament Textual Research (Munster, Germany), http://www.uni-muenster.de/NTTextforschung/.

9 F.F. Bruce (1960), The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans), revised edition, p. 20.

10 Ibid., p. 21.

11 Ibid., p. 21.

12 Ibid., p. 22.

13 Donald Guthrie (1990), New Testament Introduction (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press), p. 24.

14 Bruce, p. 23.

15 Bruce, pp. 20-21.

16 Ibid., p. 19.

17 Bruce Metzger (1968), The Text of the New Testament (New York, NY: Oxford University Press), p. 86.

18 Norman Geisler and Ronald Brooks (1990), When Skeptics Ask (Wheaton, IL: Victor Books), pp. 159-160.

19 p. 145.

20 Gleason Archer (1982), An Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (Grand Rapids: Zondervan), p. 30, emp. added.

21 Metzger, p. 185.

22 Sir Frederic Kenyon (1940), The Bible and Archaeology (New York: Harper), p. 288.

23 pp. 19-20.

24 Dabney Phillips (1975), Restoration Principles and Personalities (University, AL: Youth In Action), p. 184; L.L. Brigance (1870), “J.W. McGarvey,” in J.W. McGarvey (1962 reprint), A Treatise on the Eldership (Murfreesboro, TN: DeHoff Publications), p. 4.

25 J.W. McGarvey (1956 reprint), Evidences of Christianity (Nashville, TN: Gospel Advocate), p. 17.

26 p. 564, emp. added.

27 Ibid., p. 565, emp. added.

28 J.I. Packer (1958), “Fundamentalism” and the Word of God (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans), 1976 reprint, p. 90, emp. added.

29 As quoted in Packer, pp. 90-91.

30 John Gilchrist (1986), Muhammad and the Religion of Islam, http://answering-islam.org.uk/Gilchrist/Vol1/index.html.

31 Seyyed Hossein Nasr (2003), Islam (New York: HarperCollins), p. 8, emp. added.

32 Translation by Mohammed Pickthall (n.d.), The Meaning of the Glorious Koran (New York: Mentor), emp. added.

33 Translation by Abdullah Yusuf Ali (1934), The Qur’an (Elmhurst, NY: Tahrike Tarsile Quran), ninth edition, emp. added.

34 Ibid., emp. added.

35 Pickthall, emp. added.

36 Cf. Martin Lings (1983), Muhammad (Rochester, VT: Inner Traditions International), p. 78.

Copyright © 2019 Apologetics Press, Inc. All rights reserved.

We are happy to grant permission for items in the “Inspiration of the Bible” section to be reproduced in part or in their entirety, as long as the following stipulations are observed: (1) Apologetics Press must be designated as the original publisher; (2) the specific Apologetics Press Web site URL must be noted; (3) the author’s name must remain attached to the materials; (4) textual alterations of any kind are strictly forbidden; (5) Some illustrations (e.g., photographs, charts, graphics, etc.) are not the intellectual property of Apologetics Press and as such cannot be reproduced from our site without consent from the person or organization that maintains those intellectual rights; (6) serialization of written material (e.g., running an article in several parts) is permitted, as long as the whole of the material is made available, without editing, in a reasonable length of time; (7) articles, excepting brief quotations, may not be offered for sale or included in items offered for sale; and (8) articles may be reproduced in electronic form for posting on Web sites pending they are not edited or altered from their original content and that credit is given to Apologetics Press, including the web location from which the articles were taken.

For catalog, samples, or further information, contact:

Apologetics Press
230 Landmark Drive
Montgomery, Alabama 36117
U.S.A.
Phone (334) 272-8558

Apologetics Press

Tulsa County Jail.  

Jim Pinkston and Francisco Davila teach three days each week and Zeth Parkhurst one, They teach in the men’s pods. Several ladies go to the women’s pods every Wednesday, Thursday and Friday for the last eight years, to teach. Zeth is teaching with Jim each Wednesday and teaching the hearing impaired. We have baptized 296 of our students this year (men, women, Hispanic). Finally we are going to be allowed to add a few helpers. The Jail has not allowed a training class for a long time. We have 3 that are preparing for the training by getting there applications in.

Back to the ladies: 

We have ladies teaching New Life Behavior lessons in all three ladies pods at Tulsa County Jail each week. They rotate lessons every thirteen weeks. Carol Siling, Elaine Russell, and Theresa Hawkins teach. Jan Upton helps when she can. Elaine is the coordinator for the women. Many ladies are being changed by the Gospel because of these ladies.

Dick Connors Correctional Center.  

Jim Pinkston preaches at Dick Connors three evenings each month. He has taught there since 1990.  Jim Carmichael teaches every Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday mornings and preaches when Pinkston cannot, and every fourth Sunday Evening on the minimum side with a total of 15+ visits a month.  Jim Carmichael teaches a total of 5 – 7 apologetics courses, and is developing a new course designed to teach evangelizing utilizing permissive and apologetics in the prison system. Jim is now an assistant volunteer Chaplain at Dick Connors.

Jim Carmichael also prepares the correspondence courses for grading, and mailing. We have several volunteers that come every other Tuesday evening to the church building to help us grade papers. 

Worship services, Elaine Russell, Jim’s wife Jean, Jim & Jody Carmichael, Jake Schweikhard and Patrick Murphy help and Booker leads singing when he can. We go to the Minimum Security unit on the first and forth Sunday nights for services and to the Medium Security (behind the walls) on the first and third Tuesday nights for services. Seven of our students have been baptized this year that we know of.

Correspondence. 

40 packages of 6 to 7 lessons mailed too many prisons in Oklahoma. With a total of close to 400 students. Every two weeks = 260 lessons x 2 = 520 per month or 6,240 per year. As of March 29, 2019 we have 169 active students. Many of these are people we studied with at Tulsa and Creek County Jail and have gone on to prison or were transferred from one prison to another. This is one way we keep up with our students as they are moved from prison to prison. Elaine Russell & Carol Siling send lessons to ladies who were former students at Tulsa County Jail who have gone to a prison or gone home. On the second and fourth Tuesdays evenings we have a group that meets to grade and get these lessons ready to mail. This is one place we can use some help. We meet at 6 PM in the office area of the new church building.

John H. Lilly Correctional Center.  The Park  CR group is helping a man go there and carry on the Celebrate Recovery program every Saturday.

Re-entry program. (Hope City) houses up to eight men right now. Mark Clayton is the onsite manager.  In the last several years over thirty men have been helped and are closer to Jesus because of the Hope City ministry. Two of these men have their own businesses today and employ several ex-offenders.

Advisory Board.  The board is made up of eight men and one woman:  James Ivy (deacon over ministry), Ken Williams, Gary Medley, Mark Clayton, Randy Milam, Kevin Neiman and Elaine Russell.  Jim is the recruiter for the applicants.  The board decides who is approved to enter the reentry program.  They go by a set of guidelines approved by the Elders. The board also oversees the operation of the program.

Rogers County Jail.  

Mike Hawkins started a great jail ministry a few years ago and has been very successful teaching there. God just keeps growing this ministry along with the others.

Future Plans. 

To continue with the programs that are now successful and just see where God leads us in 2019. Jim Carmichael joined Jim Pinkston about the first of 2018. He will be learning how the whole ministry works and be prepared to take over when Jim cannot continue.

This ministry originated with Marvin Phillips at Garnett Church of Christ in 1989.  Elaine Russell brought it to Park Plaza in 2007 where Mitch Wilburn, Terry Finch and James Ivey began working with the ministry in 2007-2008, then Jim Pinkston came on board in 2010 part time for 2 years then full time after that. Jim took the leadership position in 2012. Jim started doing Prison Jail ministry in 1984 by working with Ralph Hunter and Bud Tibbles.

Baptisms from this work

2010                            94

2011                            109

2012                            139

2013                            259

2014                            406

2015                            382

2016                          398

2017                          348

2018                          474

2019                          296

Total                          3097 Since 2010 That we know of. Six of these were at DCCC.

To put this in perspective, is 1597 more than we had at the new Park location the first Sunday we met there.

The main help we need is your prayers and support and we could use some help on second and fourth Tuesday evenings grading. We start at 6 PM at the office area in the new church building.  We furnish everything you need to help with this.

We now have a website for our prison ministry

Impossible without your support.

“Jesus did it again!!!”

Thank you Jesus

Bryon Sullivent wrote a book entitled Life, Another Four Letter Word. He started by describing it as My True Story of Abuse, Addiction, Prison and Freedom. Our Prison Ministry has offered it free to any inmate. I believe we have at least two or more copies in every prison in Oklahoma and many other places. This has touched many lives and given many men and women hope again.  We have received many letters telling how this book has helped them have hope in Jesus. What a blessing to be a part of this. We have given away 600 books and have 200 more on order.

SOME EXHERTS FROM LETTERS WE RECEIVED FROM INMATES WE BAPTIZED A FEW YEARS AGO AT TULSA COUNTY JAIL AND DICK CONORS PRISON  

• Jim I hope this letter reaches you at a time of health and happiness. I want to thank you and express my gratitude for your ministry. You provide hope for people in a time and place of perceived hopelessness. Your weekly classes gave me the strength, support, and encouragement that I needed to survive a year and one half in the Tulsa County Jail. Brent
• Brent was in our classes at David L Moss Correctional Center for one and one half years. He received a fairly long sentence. But is using his time in prison to teach others about Jesus and the new way to live. A fine Christian man now that he has accepted the way of the Lord.
• Just a few lines to say hello and that all is well, and to answer your letter. Was so good to hear from you I was a little surprised, but overtaken by joy. It is good to be thought of. This place is ok but very different from what I thought it would be. They sure have a lot of rules here and are very serious about one keeping them. I have no problem following the rules. They also have a couple of good Church Services that I have been to. I also plan to attend the one tomorrow. I am also attending a couple of bible studies. I have to keep my ears open because they are full gospel Church. But they are still good Christians seeking the truth. No Church of Christ. But the baptized are here but most of all the Lord is here. So tell everybody I will be ok. I don’t know how long I will be here, everyone says not long. So I am just carrying on as the Lord says to do. Tell Elaine, Booker and Patrick and the rest all is good. God bless all and remember Philippians 4:13. Love Bruce.

• Bruce was a student of ours at DCCC for over 25 years. I had the privilege of baptizing him over 20 years ago. He was transferred to a minimum security prison to prepare for going home. God has changed him to a really fine Christian Man. He led our singing at the services when Booker could not be with us. PRAISE GOD FOR HIS MERCY AND COMPASSION.

There are more but these let us know that Gods word is so powerful. Also learning how it affected others helps those who otherwise have no hope.   

JESUS DID IT AGAIN!!!!!!!!!!

By Eric Hovind| Beginner, Creation News Articles

Whenever the worldview of evolution is questioned, the topic of carbon dating always comes up. Here is how carbon dating works and the assumptions it is based upon.

How Carbon Dating Works

Radiation from the sun strikes the atmosphere of the earth all day long. This energy converts about 21 pounds of nitrogen into radioactive carbon 14. This radioactive carbon 14 slowly decays back into normal, stable nitrogen. Extensive laboratory testing has shown that about half of the C-14 molecules will decay in 5,730 years. This is called the half-life. After another 5,730 years half of the remaining C-14 will decay leaving only 1⁄4 of the original C-14. It goes from 1⁄2 to 1⁄4 to 1⁄8, etc. In theory it would never totally disappear, but after about 5 half-lives the difference is not measurable with any degree of accuracy. This is why most people say carbon dating is only good for objects less than 40,000 years old. Nothing on earth carbon dates in the millions of years, because the scope of carbon dating only extends a few thousand years. Willard Libby invented the carbon dating technique in the early 1950s. The amount of carbon 14 in the atmosphere today is about .0000765%. It is assumed there would be the same amount found in living plants or animals since the plants breath CO₂ and animals eat the plants.

Since sunlight causes the formation of C-14 in the atmosphere, and normal radioactive decay takes it out, there must be a point where the formation rate and the decay rate equalizes. This is called the point of equilibrium. To illustrate: If you were trying to fill a barrel with water but there were holes drilled up the side of the barrel, as you filled the barrel it would begin leaking out the holes. At some point you would be putting it in and it would be leaking out at the same rate. You will not be able to fill the barrel past this point of equilibrium. In the same way the C-14 is being formed and decaying simultaneously. A freshly created earth would require about 30,000 years for the amount of C-14 in the atmosphere to reach this point of equilibrium because it would leak out as it is being filled. Tests indicate that the earth has still not reached equilibrium. There is more C-14 in the atmosphere now than there was 40 years ago. This would prove the earth is not yet 30,000 years old! This also means that plants and animals that lived in the past had less C-14 in them than do plants and animals today. Just this one fact totally upsets data obtained by C-14 dating.

The carbon in the atmosphere normally combines with oxygen to make carbon dioxide (CO₂). Plants breathe CO₂ and make it part of their tissue. Animals eat the plants and make it part of their tissues. A very small percentage of the carbon plants take in is radioactive C-14. When a plant or animal dies, it stops taking in air and food so it should not be able to get any new C-14. The C-14 in the plant or animal will begin to decay back to normal nitrogen. The older an object is, the less carbon 14 it contains. One gram of carbon from living plant material causes a Geiger counter to click 16 times per minute as the C-14 decays. A sample that causes 8 clicks per minute would be 5,730 years old (the sample has gone through one half-life) and so on.

The Assumptions of Carbon Dating

Although this technique looks good at first, carbon-14 dating rests on at least two simple assumptions. These are, obviously, the assumption that the amount of carbon 14 in the atmosphere has always been constant and that its rate of decay has always been constant. Neither of these assumptions is provable or reasonable. An illustration may help: Imagine you found a candle burning in a room, and you wanted to determine how long it was burning before you found it. You could measure the present height of the candle (say, 7 inches) and the rate of burn (say, an inch per hour). In order to find the length of time since the candle was lit, we would be forced to make some assumptions. We would, obviously, have to assume that the candle has always burned at the same rate, and assume an initial height of the candle. The answer changes based on the assumptions. Similarly, scientists do not know that the carbon-14 decay rate has been constant. They do not know that the amount of carbon 14 in the atmosphere is constant. Present testing shows the amount of C-14 in the atmosphere has been increasing since it was first measured in the 1950s. This may be tied in to the declining strength of the magnetic field.

In addition to the above assumptions, dating methods are all subject to the geologic column date to verify their accuracy. If a date obtained by radiometric dating does not match the assumed age from the geologic column, the radiometric date will be rejected. The so-called geologic column was developed in the early 1800s over a century before there were any radio- metric dating methods. “Apart from very ‘modern’ examples, which are really archaeology, I can think of no cases of radioactive decay being used to date fossils.”¹ Laboratories will not carbon date dinosaur bones (even frozen ones which could easily be carbon dated) because dinosaurs are supposed to have lived 70 million years ago according to the fictitious geologic column. An object’s supposed place on the geologic column determines the method used to date it. There are about 7 or 8 radioactive elements that are used today to try to date objects. Each one has a different half-life and a different range of ages it is supposed to be used for. No dating method cited by evolutionists is unbiased.²

The Wild Dates of Carbon Dating

A few examples of wild dates by radiometric dating:

• Shells from living snails were carbon dated as being 27,000 years old. ³
• Living mollusk shells were dated up to 2,300 years old. ⁴
• A freshly killed seal was carbon dated as having died 1,300 years ago. ⁵
• “One part of the Vollosovitch mammoth carbon dated at 29,500 years and another part at 44,000.” ⁶
• “Structure, metamorphism, sedimentary reworking, and other complications have to be considered. Radiometric dating would not have been feasible if the geologic column had not been erected first.”⁷
• Material from layers where dinosaurs are found carbon dated at 34,000 years old.⁸

2 Peter 3:15 Yourself with these Resources

Thousands…Not Billions eBook by Dr. Don DeYoung

Evolution Handbook by Vance Ferrell

1. Ager, Derek V., “Fossil Frustrations,” New Scientist, vol. 100 (November 10, 1983), p. 425)
2. (Bones of Contention by Marvin Lubenow; Scientific Creationism by Henry Morris)
3. Science vol. 224, 1984, pp. ,code>58-61
4. Science vol. 141, 1963, pp. 634-637
5. Antarctic Journal vol. 6, Sept-Oct. 1971, p. 211
6. Troy L. Pewe, “Quaternary Stratigraphic Nomenclature in Uniglaciated Central Alaska,” Geologic Survey Professional Paper 862 (U.S. Gov. Printing Office, 1975) p. 30
7. E. O’Rourke, “Pragmatism vs. Materialism in Stratigraphy,” American Journal of Science, vol. 276 (January,1976), p. 54
8. Reginald Daly, Earth’s Most Challenging Mysteries, 1972, p. 280

Share This Article, Choose Your Platform!

FacebookTwitterLinkedInPinterestEmail

About the Author: Eric Hovind

Eric Hovind grew up immersed in the world of apologetics and following college graduation in 1999, he began full-time ministry. President and Founder of Pensacola-based organization, Creation Today, Eric’s passion to reach people with the life-changing message of the Gospel has driven him to speak in five foreign countries and all fifty states. He lives in Pensacola, Florida with his wife Tanya and three children and remains excited about the tremendous opportunity to lead an apologetics ministry in the war against evolution and humanism.

Related Posts

For the original article go to:

Just how old is the Earth?

Here are fourteen natural phenomena which conflict with the evolutionary idea that the universe is billions of years old. There is not enough space here to give the full evidence for each… if truly interested just go to:                                                             where each is explained in detail.

________________________________________

Spiral galaxy NGC 1232 in constellation Eridanus (photo courtesy of European Southern Observatory).

Here are fourteen natural phenomena which conflict with the evolutionary idea that the universe is billions of years old. The numbers listed below in bold print (usually in the millions of years) are often maximum possible ages set by each process, not the actual ages. The numbers in italics are the ages required by evolutionary theory for each item. The point is that the maximum possible ages are always much less than the required evolutionary ages, while the Biblical age (6,000 years) always fits comfortably within the maximum possible ages. Thus, the following items are evidence against the evolutionary time scale and for the Biblical time scale. Much more young-world evidence exists, but I have chosen these items for brevity and simplicity. Some of the items on this list can be reconciled with the old-age view only by making a series of improbable and unproven assumptions; others can fit in only with a recent creation.

1. Galaxies wind themselves up

   too fast.

The stars of our own galaxy, the Milky Way, rotate about the galactic center with different speeds, the inner ones rotating faster than the outer ones. The observed rotation speeds are so fast that if our galaxy were more than a few hundred million years old, it would be a featureless disc of stars instead of its present spiral shape.

2. Too few supernova remnants.

Crab Nebula (photo courtesy of NASA)

According to astronomical observations, galaxies like our own experience about one supernova (a violently-exploding star) every 25 years. The gas and dust remnants from such explosions (like the Crab Nebula) expand outward rapidly and should remain visible for over a million years. Yet the nearby parts of our galaxy in which we could observe such gas and dust shells contain only about 200 supernova remnants. That number is consistent with only about 7,000 years worth of supernovas.4

3. Comets disintegrate too quickly.

According to evolutionary theory, comets are supposed to be the same age as the solar system, about five billion years. Yet each time a comet orbits close to the sun, it loses so much of its material that it could not survive much longer than about 100,000 years

4. Not enough mud on the sea floor.

Rivers and dust storms dump mud into the sea much faster than plate tectonic subduction can remove it.

Each year, water and winds erode about 20 billion tons of dirt and rock from the continents and deposit it in the ocean. deposited the present amount of sediment within a short time about 5,000 years ago.

5. Not enough sodium in the sea.

Every year, rivers and other sources dump over 450 million tons of sodium into the ocean. calculations that are as generous as possible to evolutionary scenarios still give a maximum age of only 62 million years. Calculations for many other seawater elements give much younger ages for the ocean.

6. The earth’s magnetic field is decaying too fast.

Electrical resistance in the earth’s core wears down the electrical current which produces the earth’s magnetic field. That causes the field to lose energy rapidly.

At that rate the field could not be more than 20,000 years old.20

7. Many strata are too tightly bent.

In many mountainous areas, strata thousands of feet thick are bent and folded into hairpin shapes. This implies that the folding occurred less than thousands of years after deposition.

8. Biological
   

   material decays too fast.

Natural radioactivity, mutations, and decay degrade DNA and other biological material rapidly. Measurements of the mutation rate of mitochondrial DNA recently forced researchers to revise the age of “mitochondrial Eve” from a theorized 200,000 years down to possibly as low as 6,000 years.

9. Fossil radioactivity shortens geologic “ages” to a few years.

Radio Halo

Radiohalos are rings of color formed around microscopic bits of radioactive minerals in rock crystals. They are fossil evidence of radioactive decay.26 “Squashed” Polonium-210 radiohalos indicate that Jurassic, Triassic, and Eocene formations in the Colorado plateau were deposited within months of one another, not hundreds of millions of years apart as required by the conventional time scale.27 “Orphan” Polonium-218 radiohalos, having no evidence of their mother elements, imply accelerated nuclear decay and very rapid formation of associated minerals.28,29

10. Too much helium in minerals.

Uranium and thorium generate helium atoms as they decay to lead. A study published in the Journal of Geophysical Research showed that such helium produced in zircon crystals in deep, hot Precambrian granitic rock has not had time to escape. Though the rocks contain 1.5 billion years worth of nuclear decay products, newly-measured rates of helium loss from zircon show that the helium has been leaking for only 6,000 (± 2000) years. This is not only evidence for the youth of the earth, but also for episodes of greatly accelerated decay rates of long half-life nuclei within thousands of years ago, compressing radioisotope timescales enormously.

11. Too much carbon 14 in deep geologic strata.

With their short 5,700-year half-life, no carbon 14 atoms should exist in any carbon older than 250,000 years. Yet it has proven impossible to find any natural source of carbon below Pleistocene (Ice Age) strata that does not contain significant amounts of carbon 14,

12. Not enough Stone Age skeletons.

Evolutionary anthropologists now say that Homo sapiens existed for at least 185,000 years before agriculture began,  many of the supposed eight billion stone age skeletons should still be around (and certainly the buried artifacts). Yet only a few thousand have been found. This implies that the Stone Age was much shorter than evolutionists think, perhaps only a few hundred years in many areas.

13. Agriculture is too recent.

The usual evolutionary picture has men existing as hunters and gatherers for 185,000 years during the Stone Age before discovering agriculture less than 10,000 years ago.35 Yet the archaeological evidence shows that Stone Age men were as intelligent as we are. It is very improbable that none of the eight billion people mentioned in item 12 should discover that plants grow from seeds. It is more likely that men were without agriculture for a very short time after the Flood, if at all.36

14. History is too short.

According to evolutionists, Stone Age Homo sapiens existed for 190,000 years before beginning to make written records about 4,000 to 5,000 years ago. Prehistoric man built megalithic monuments, made beautiful cave paintings, and kept records of lunar phases. Why would he wait two thousand centuries before using the same skills to record history? The Biblical time scale is much more likely.