Feed aggregator

Is “science” becoming modern man’s religion—even his god? How do atheist materialists, who say that matter is all there is, defend such persistent rejection of the One to whom all the evidence points? First of all, as we have seen, the very thought of “God” is hateful and is ruled out by definition. To do so is neither scientific nor rational. Atheists are not reticent in declaring this dogma and even boasting of it as being intellectually superior. But if God does not exist as the Creator of all, then who or what else established the very laws of nature that scientists look to as the only explanation for how everything functions?

Atheists who try to hide behind doubletalk about “the slow, step-wise process of prebiotic synthesis “are, first of all, deluding themselves, then others. The entire DNA manual of intricate instructions would have to be conceived and written down in words before anything living could exist. This is before the atheists’ god, natural selection, would have anything from which to “select.” Common sense and all that science has been able to observe over the centuries make it clear that matter (as Einstein said) cannot ever organize itself into information. DNA is a vast storehouse of intricate information for building every living thing, from microbes to man. It could only have been placed there by an infinite intelligence.

How Accurate Is the King James Bible (KJV) 400 Years Later?

The first thing that we can say about the King James Bible is that it is an amalgamation of the English translations that had preceded it in the sixteenth century. The tradition started with Tyndale and then proceeded through Coverdale’s Bible, Matthew’s Bible, the Great Bible, the Geneva Bible, and the Bishops’ Bible. The King James translators began with the Bishops’ Bible as their starting point, but the Bishops’ Bible itself was a conflation of the preceding century of English Bible translation.

The King James translators themselves made no attempt to conceal their indebtedness to the past tradition. On the contrary, they highlighted their oneness with their predecessors. In the preface to the 1611 edition of the KJV, we read that the translators, “far from condemning any of their labors that travailed before us in this kind, . . . acknowledge them to have been raised up of God, for the building and furnishing of his Church, and that they deserve to be had of us and of posterity in everlasting remembrance.”

We should not overlook the significance of that statement. First of all, there is exemplary humility in the translators’ attitude. Second, there is an impulse to give credit where credit is due, even though the King James translators obviously disagreed with their predecessors in many details. Third….there is an essential principle of Bible translation at stake here, namely, continuity with the mainstream of English Bible translation versus the quest for originality and novelty (a deliberate attempt not to be like previous English translations). It is a fact that producers of modern dynamic equivalent translations often make disparaging comments about the King James Bible. One might wish for more of the graciousness of the King James translators and their awareness that the grand tradition of English Bible translation is worthy to be perpetuated in many details.

Unfortunately, the almost automatic effect of seeing the facts and figures regarding the indebtedness of the King James Bible to its predecessors is to diminish the accomplishment of the KJV. We need steadfastly to resist this tendency. The King James Bible of 1611 consists of whatever is present in it, and it does not cease to exist simply because it was also in an earlier translation.

Another thing that often gets lost when we consider the indebtedness of the King James Bible to its predecessors is that the King James Bible is a refinement of the earlier translations and not simply an amalgamation of them. The translators themselves were as aware of this as they were aware of their assimilation of earlier translations, and the preface to the KJV attempts to make sure that readers will be aware of it. Here are two statements from the preface: “Yet for all that, as nothing is begun and perfected at the same time, and the later thoughts are thought to be the wiser: so if we building upon their foundation that went before us, and being helped by their labors, do endeavor to make that better which they left so good.”

We get to the heart of the 1611 King James Bible when we consider how the translators lined up on the question of literal versus free translation. Of course, the translators had no clue as to what would happen three and a half centuries after them with the advent of dynamic equivalent translation. It is all the more significant, therefore, that when left to their own designs, the translators evolved the principle of verbal equivalence—the practice of making sure that every word in the original biblical text would be represented by an equivalent English word or phrase.

The question of the accuracy of the King James Bible today is usually answered by looking only at the data that I considered in the preceding section. But quite another verdict surfaces when we place the King James Bible into the context of modern dynamic equivalent translations. Then suddenly the King James Bible zooms up on the scale of accuracy.

The reason for this is that the King James Bible is an essentially literal translation that aims to take the reader straight to what the original authors said. It is transparent to the original text. Here is a random example of the accuracy of the King James Bible as contrasted to modern dynamic equivalent translations

(James 1:18b): • “. . . that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures” (KJV).

• “He wanted us to be his own special people” (CEV).

• “And we, out of all creation, became his choice possession” (NLT).

• “. . . so that we should have first place among all his creatures” (GNB).

Which of these is the most accurate? Surprise of surprises—the KJV is the most accurate because the translators gave us the equivalent English word with firstfruits. The original text says nothing about “special people,” “choice possession,” or “first place.” It compares God’s people to one of the Old Testament Mosaic produce offerings (“firstfruits”).

Modern colloquializing translators lament that Bible translations run the risk of being further and further removed from the everyday language of people. This of course needs to be taken seriously. But an even worse problem is possible: many modern translations have moved further and further from the biblical text.

I will offer one more personal anecdote. I recently listened to a sermon based on a passage in Galatians 4 that included verse 15. The NIV from which the preacher was preaching renders it, “What has happened to all your joy?” This makes it appear that the Galatian Christians were deficient in their religious emotions. My ears perked up when the preacher wondered aloud “whether the King James Bible doesn’t say it best,” despite its archaic language. The KJV reads, “Where is the blessedness you spake of?” The Galatians were not deficient in religious emotions but had allowed their “works righteousness” to obscure the true foundation of their religious standing with God, namely, the blessedness that God conferred on them by faith in the work of Christ. An anecdote like this should serve as a caution against a facile dismissal of the possibility that the King James Bible might represent accuracy (even a superior accuracy) in our day.

Whether or not the King James is an accurate version depends partly on how we define accuracy. If we believe that the standard of accuracy is a translation’s giving us the words of the original text in equivalent English words, then the KJV shows its superior accuracy over modern dynamic equivalent translations…

[TBC: For the full text and footnotes, see:]

https://www.crosswalk.com/culture/books/how-accurate-is-the-kjv-400-years-later.html

Often, evolutionists don’t refute the actual creationist position but instead refute a silly position held by virtually no-one. This fallacy is often called ‘knocking down a straw man.’ A related fallacy, ‘weak man’, refutes an argument made by less informed people but long ago rejected by the leading proponents. For example, the biblical creationist position is that God created different kinds, each with the capacity for lots of variation. Saying that creationists deny that species change, i.e. believe in fixity of species, would be a straw man.

Sometimes the straw man is not stated explicitly but implicitly in an argument. E.g. claiming that since breeders have made many varieties of dogs, evolution is true and biblical creation is false. But this is not countering the biblical creationist argument. In fact, creationists both before and after Darwin rejected fixity of species. Fixity of species was actually pushed by Darwin’s mentor Charles Lyell, the leading promoter of long-age geology.

We have seen ‘weak man’ fallacies when an evolutionist tries to disprove creation by arguing against a real person who used an unsound argument. For example, ‘Women have one more rib than men.’ Some people really do believe this. However, CMI long ago pointed out why this is false (see CMI’s list in creation.com/dontuse). In short: amputees don’t have amputee children, and the Bible doesn’t imply otherwise.

The straw man argument can work both ways. E.g., there is certainly a place for showing up evolutionary frauds and retractions, especially to undermine their dogmatic certainty. However, CMI articles, books, and talks tend not to major on these. Rather, we want to show that even the evolutionist’s strongest case fails badly.

Bandwagon Fallacy

In 19th-century USA, a bandwagon was a wagon that carried a circus band, which attracted a crowd. Politicians decided to use bandwagons in their campaigns. The term ‘jump on the bandwagon’ became commonly used for joining a popular political campaign. Later, the term was extended to mean following the crowd or majority in any opinion. The fallacy is also called appeal to the majority or appeal to the people (in Latin: Argumentum ad populum). However, the majority is not always right.

Probably, the reason most people provide for believing in evolution is ‘most scientists are evolutionists’. But if you asked most of these scientists why they believe in evolution, most will also respond, ‘because most scientists believe it.’ In the vast majority of scientific work, evolution plays no part. Another reason is that many scientists are just unaware of the strong case for creation. Or else, the only arguments they have heard are straw man or weak man fallacies.

However, the minority can be wrong too. We should avoid the reverse fallacy of rejecting something just because a majority believes it. E.g. ‘Are you going to be a mindless conformist sheeple following the crowd?’ At CMI, we are pro-Bible, not anti-establishment for the sake of it.

Conclusion

Since Jesus is the Logos, as imitators of Christ, we should be logical. It also helps us spot many of the fallacies that evolutionists commit. Knowing that should make us more confident and accurate when we witness about the Logos.

https://creation.com/strawman-and-bandwagon-fallacies

Often, evolutionists don’t refute the actual creationist position but instead refute a silly position held by virtually no-one. This fallacy is often called ‘knocking down a straw man.’ A related fallacy, ‘weak man’, refutes an argument made by less informed people but long ago rejected by the leading proponents. For example, the biblical creationist position is that God created different kinds, each with the capacity for lots of variation. Saying that creationists deny that species change, i.e. believe in fixity of species, would be a straw man.

Sometimes the straw man is not stated explicitly but implicitly in an argument. E.g. claiming that since breeders have made many varieties of dogs, evolution is true and biblical creation is false. But this is not countering the biblical creationist argument. In fact, creationists both before and after Darwin rejected fixity of species. Fixity of species was actually pushed by Darwin’s mentor Charles Lyell, the leading promoter of long-age geology.

We have seen ‘weak man’ fallacies when an evolutionist tries to disprove creation by arguing against a real person who used an unsound argument. For example, ‘Women have one more rib than men.’ Some people really do believe this. However, CMI long ago pointed out why this is false (see CMI’s list in creation.com/dontuse). In short: amputees don’t have amputee children, and the Bible doesn’t imply otherwise.

The straw man argument can work both ways. E.g., there is certainly a place for showing up evolutionary frauds and retractions, especially to undermine their dogmatic certainty. However, CMI articles, books, and talks tend not to major on these. Rather, we want to show that even the evolutionist’s strongest case fails badly.

Bandwagon Fallacy

In 19th-century USA, a bandwagon was a wagon that carried a circus band, which attracted a crowd. Politicians decided to use bandwagons in their campaigns. The term ‘jump on the bandwagon’ became commonly used for joining a popular political campaign. Later, the term was extended to mean following the crowd or majority in any opinion. The fallacy is also called appeal to the majority or appeal to the people (in Latin: Argumentum ad populum). However, the majority is not always right.

Probably, the reason most people provide for believing in evolution is ‘most scientists are evolutionists’. But if you asked most of these scientists why they believe in evolution, most will also respond, ‘because most scientists believe it.’ In the vast majority of scientific work, evolution plays no part. Another reason is that many scientists are just unaware of the strong case for creation. Or else, the only arguments they have heard are straw man or weak man fallacies.

However, the minority can be wrong too. We should avoid the reverse fallacy of rejecting something just because a majority believes it. E.g. ‘Are you going to be a mindless conformist sheeple following the crowd?’ At CMI, we are pro-Bible, not anti-establishment for the sake of it.

Conclusion

Since Jesus is the Logos, as imitators of Christ, we should be logical. It also helps us spot many of the fallacies that evolutionists commit. Knowing that should make us more confident and accurate when we witness about the Logos.

https://creation.com/strawman-and-bandwagon-fallacies

On our website: https://www.thebereancall.org/content/question-how-can-god-accept-sinners-sinless-place
More question and answer: https://www.thebereancall.org/questionanswer

Question (From three Muslims): In Christianity, it is taught that everyone is born a sinner. If that is true, then how can God accept us in heaven [since] that is a sinless place? According to what standard are we judged worthy or unworthy to enter paradise/heaven? What is good enough? God requires sinless perfection, which we can never attain to by our works. Will He accept something less? How can He?

Response: Your question goes to the very heart of the difference between true biblical Christianity and Islam (and all other religions). The issue is God’s infinite justice in relation to man’s undeniable sin and outright rebellion against God. As the Bible says, “All have sinned [and] the wages of sin is death” (Rom:3:23For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
See All...; 6:23). Even if it were possible, living a perfect, sinless life in the future could never pay the penalty for sins of the past. Justice does not work that way.

Islam (like every other world religion, and much that calls itself Christianity) urges its followers to do good (the greatest “good” is to die in jihad) in the hope that their good deeds will outweigh their bad ones in the “last day” judgment. Of course, there is no court of law on earth that would release anyone from the penalty prescribed by the law because they had done “more good than evil.” Nor will God accept such a plea from anyone, including Muhammad. As for suicide bombers, they cannot pay for their sins by committing suicide, and especially not by killing innocent people in the process. It does not speak well for either Muhammad or Allah to make Paradise the reward for committing murder!

Jesus Christ, who is God, became a man through a virgin birth, lived a perfect sinless life (in contrast to Muhammad whom the Qur’an commands to confess his sins), and died for our sins on the cross, paying the penalty that God’s infinite justice demanded for the sins of all mankind, and resurrected from the dead. On this righteous basis, God offers a just pardon of all sins for those who believe that Christ paid that penalty and rose from the grave.

Progressing just fine?  Really. The author seemingly forgets five elementary and undeniable facts:  1) The molecular composition of even the smallest submicroscopic living things is so incredibly complex that merely to assemble the right molecules in the correct order by chance (yes, chance is all there is before “natural selection” can even begin) has repeatedly been proved mathematically to be far beyond impossible.

            2) Even if the laws of mathematics could be defied and the right molecular components were put together in the right order, from what source would they receive life? We don’t know what life is, but we know that it involves more than the right combination of molecules. The right components are still all together at the moment of death, but that mysterious spark of life is no longer present.

            3) Any living thing, without exception, must have come from something living. Things without life cannot make themselves live.

            4) As we have already pointed out, neither any part (such as the liver, kidney, blood system, eye, etc.) nor the body as a whole could be built in stages. Not only wouldn’t natural selection and survival of the fittest encourage further development, it would eliminate anything only partially formed as unfit to survive before any progress could be made.

            5) The construction of every living thing follows precise DNA instructions that demand an intelligent author—instructions that make no sense except for the building and operating of a complex and complete whole, not for piecemeal constructions of nonfunctioning parts to be put together in stages over millions of years.

For [four] centuries the Authorized, or King James, Version has been the Bible of the English-speaking world. Its simple, majestic Anglo-Saxon tongue, its clear, sparkling style, its directness and force of utterance have made it the model in language, style, dignity of some of the choicest writers for the last two centuries.

Its phrasing is woven into much of our noblest literature; and its style, which to an astonishing degree is merely the style of the original authors of the Bible, has exerted very great influence in molding the idea of simplicity, directness, and clarity which now dominates the writing of English.

It has endeared itself to the hearts and lives of millions of Christians and has molded the characters of leaders in every walk of life. During all these centuries the King James Version has become a vital part of the English-speaking world, socially, morally, religiously, and politically.”

—Ira Maurice Price (1856-1939, Baptist professor of Semitic Languages and Literatures at the University of Chicago, among the University's original faculty).

For [four] centuries the Authorized, or King James, Version has been the Bible of the English-speaking world. Its simple, majestic Anglo-Saxon tongue, its clear, sparkling style, its directness and force of utterance have made it the model in language, style, dignity of some of the choicest writers for the last two centuries.

Its phrasing is woven into much of our noblest literature; and its style, which to an astonishing degree is merely the style of the original authors of the Bible, has exerted very great influence in molding the idea of simplicity, directness, and clarity which now dominates the writing of English.

It has endeared itself to the hearts and lives of millions of Christians and has molded the characters of leaders in every walk of life. During all these centuries the King James Version has become a vital part of the English-speaking world, socially, morally, religiously, and politically.”

—Ira Maurice Price (1856-1939, Baptist professor of Semitic Languages and Literatures at the University of Chicago, among the University's original faculty)