Arguments and Rebuttals

Saying God is the cause of intelligence doesn’t tell us what caused God.

This argument is powerless. If you were walking up to the entrance of a park and saw a group of flowers arranged to spell “WELCOME TO THE PARK,” you would know they were the cause of intelligence. No sane person would argue against this by saying, “This doesn’t tell us what caused the planter of the flowers.” Life is obviously the cause of intelligence. Many secular scientists have admitted this, but they give credit to aliens from outer space instead of God. Not only does this not explain the origin of the universe, it shifts the problem of life’s origin to whom or what designed these aliens. The only plausible explanation for our existence is that we were created by an outside agent: God. We need not worry about God’s cause because everything that begins to exist needs a cause, but God is “from everlasting to everlasting” (Ps. 90:2).

An intelligent creator could have done a better job of design.

It never ceases to amaze me when atheists ignore the brilliant design of God’s handiwork, and choose to focus on little things that seem to make no sense to them. Example: “A creator wouldn’t have designed men with nipples because they serve no purpose for a man.” I have an analogy for you to think about: I’m walking through a desert, and out in the middle of nowhere, I discover an unoccupied house. I explore the inside of it and see that it has electricity, plumbing, and everything else you’d expect to find in a typical home. But then I look up and see carpet on the ceiling. It seems to serve no purpose, so I decide the house must have had no creator. That’s the kind of logic used by atheists. And who are they to tell God how things should have been designed?

A lack of evidence for evolution in the fossil record is just evidence for a rapid change.

This theory of rapid change is called “punctuated equilibrium.” I guess a fancy name like that is supposed to make it sound scientific. Ridiculous is what it is. Atheists have no unquestionable fossils to verify evolution, so they claim every organism in existence must have evolved at a rate too fast to leave behind evidence. That is faith, not science. It also reeks of hypocrisy. Atheists have said several things in the Bible were made up because there was no archaeological evidence for them. Evidence for much of what they called mythology was eventually discovered, but that hasn’t stopped them from challenging some of the things that are yet to be verified. They can’t accept anything in the Bible without evidence, yet they accept evolution without evidence.

About 98% of our gene sequences are the same as those in chimpanzees, proving a close relation.

Our gene sequences are 85% the same as those in mice, and 50% the same as those in bananas. But we’re not 85% similar to mice, and we’re certainly not 50% similar to bananas. Like many machines, biological machines are all composed of similar building materials. Evolutionists might as well say televisions and motorcycles are similar to each other based on what they are made of.

There’s no explanation for where Cain’s wife came from.

The fourth chapter of Genesis mentions Adam and Eve having two sons: Cain and Abel. Then, without explanation, Genesis 4:17 mentions Cain having a wife. Genesis 5:4 says Adam and Eve had sons and daughters, but doesn’t give names. Cain obviously married one of his sisters. The genetic lineage of Adam and Eve was perfect, allowing Cain to impregnate his sister. It wasn’t until the time of Moses that marriage between relatives was forbidden (Lev. 18:6) because the gene pool was becoming less and less able to tolerate inbreeding. Up until this time, incest was unheard of (it’s defined as sexual relations between relatives who are forbidden by law or religion to marry each other).

God hated Esau and is therefore capable of hating others.

Malachi 1:2, 3 say God loved Jacob, but hated Esau. “Hated” is a figure of speech for loving someone to a lesser degree. This same figure of speech is used in Genesis 29: 30, 31. Verse 30 says Jacob loved Rachel more than Leah, but verse 31 says Leah was unloved (a literal translation says she was hated). Deuteronomy 23: 7 makes it clear that God didn’t hate Esau since He told the Israelites not to abhor the Edomites (Esau’s descendants).

Matthew 27: 9, 10 say Jeremiah foretold the potter’s field being bought with thirty pieces of silver, when it was Zechariah who foretold this.

This prophecy was recorded in Zechariah 11: 12, 13; but Matthew says it was spoken by Jeremiah. Obviously, Zechariah recorded the words that were spoken by Jeremiah.

Jesus Said He would return within the lifetime of some of His disciples.

Matthew 16: 28 records Jesus telling His disciples, “There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of Man [Jesus] coming in His Kingdom.” Jesus was not speaking of His second coming, but of His transfiguration described in the next nine verses (Matt. 17: 1-9). Peter, James and John were the disciples who did not “taste death.” Jesus led them up on a mountain and was transfigured before them. They heard a voice coming from a cloud that said, “This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased” (v.5). Peter confirmed that Matthew 16: 28 was speaking of the transfiguration (II Peter 1: 16-18). (The transfiguration is also recorded in Mark 9: 1-13 and Luke 9: 27-36.)

Jesus told His disciples the end would come within their generation.

In Matthew 24 Jesus tells His disciples about the many signs preceding His coming and the end of the age. (These signs are also mentioned in Mark 13 and Luke 21.) In verse 34 He tells them, “This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.” There are two possible explanations for this. One is that the word “generation” refers to race, meaning Israel as a people will continue to exist until these things are fulfilled. The other explanation is Jesus meant the generation that sees these signs won’t pass away until all is fulfilled. Verses 32 and 33 seem to support this interpretation, as well as Mark 13: 28-30 and Luke 21: 29-32. Just as you know that summer is near when a fig tree buds and puts forth leaves, so should you know the end is near when you see these signs.

Jesus threw a temper tantrum by cursing a fig tree for not having fruit.

Matthew 21: 18, 19 and Mark 11: 12-14 record Jesus cursing a fig tree to never again bear fruit after finding no fruit on it when He was hungry. This wasn’t Jesus throwing a temper tantrum. He was showing His disciples that they could do anything with faith (Matt. 21: 20-22). The cursed fig tree may also have been symbolic of God’s judgment on Israel because bearing fruit was a figure of speech for doing God’s will (Luke 13: 6-9; John 15: 1, 2). Just like Israel, the fig tree looked promising, but produced no fruit.

Jesus said His twelve disciples would sit on twelve thrones in Heaven to judge the twelve tribes of Israel (Matt. 19: 28), but this is impossible since Judas betrayed Jesus and died in sin.

A man named Matthias replaced Judas and was numbered with the eleven disciples (Acts 1: 15-26), so once again there were twelve disciples to sit on the twelve thrones.

The genealogies of Jesus differ in Matthew and Luke.

Matthew 1: 1-17 give the genealogy of Joseph, while Luke 3:23-38 give the genealogy of Mary. Both were descendants of David. Although Joseph was not the biological father of Jesus, the begotten Son of God, he was the legal father. This was necessary because the heir to David’s throne had to inherit that right from His father, not His mother.

God ordered human sacrifice.

Exodus 22: 29, 30 say, “Thou shalt not delay to offer the first of thy ripe fruits, and of thy liquors [juices]: the firstborn of thy sons shalt thou give unto Me. Likewise shalt thou do with thine oxen, and with thy sheep: seven days it shall be with his dam; on the eighth day thou shalt give it to Me.” This was not a demand for human sacrifice. “The firstborn of [the] sons” were to be redeemed on the eighth day, as is evidenced by Exodus 13: 13: “And every firstling of an ass thou shalt redeem with a lamb; and if thou wilt not redeem it, then thou shalt break his neck: and all the firstborn of man among thy children shalt thou redeem.” Donkeys and humans couldn’t be offered as sacrifices, so they were redeemed. Redeeming the firstborn of Israel was a reminder that their firstborn had been spared the judgment that took Egypt’s firstborn (Ex. 11:5-7).

Now to address Leviticus 27:29, which says nothing devoted to God “shall be redeemed, but shall surely be put to death.” This speaks of something devoted as a sacrifice, because “redeemed” here is translated from a Hebrew word that means to ransom or preserve. It’s unfortunate that English Bibles also translate a different Hebrew word as “redeemed” in the previous verse, which says nothing devoted to God, “both of man and beast . . . shall be sold or redeemed” (Lev. 27:28). “Redeemed” in this verse is translated from a word that means to redeem according to the law of kinship, such as buying back a relative’s property or marrying his widow. There’s just one record of someone sacrificing a human to God (Jud. 11:29-40), but nowhere does it say God approved of it. It occurred at a time when God’s people were unfaithful to Him, a time in which “every man did that which was right in his own eyes” (Jud. 21:25).

Women in Old Testament times were executed for not screaming when raped.

Deuteronomy 22:22-27 give laws regarding punishment for adulterers in ancient Israel. Both the men and women were executed if both were willing participants (v. 22). What’s controversial is the woman was presumed guilty if “she cried not” (vv. 23, 24). We are far removed from these ancient cultures, so no one today can say with confidence that there were Jewish women back then who would have kept silent while being raped. Evidently all Jewish women in this community would have screamed. The next verses make a clear distinction between willing participants and women who were raped. “But if a man . . . force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die: but unto the damsel thou shalt do nothing. . . .” (vv. 25, 26)

Copyright © 2011, 2018