You could split with somebody. Alrighty, guys, we're going to get started. Andres, do you mind just closing that door, too, brother? Thank you. We are going to get started. All right, well, let's just refresh our memory a bit here. In this course, we're discussing a foundation for knowing truth, and our aim is to show that The Christian worldview, the worldview that we gather from the pages of the Bible, does not rest on a set of hasty, strung together assumptions. But our worldview is grounded in claims that are rooted in and have been tested, rooted in history, rooted in fact, and have been tested and tried. And this is not a class on how to prove the Bible is God's word. But it is a class on why you can trust the Bible and why it's only rational to do so. How it's only rational to do so. So last week we discussed the historical accuracy of scripture. We were considering a sampling of historical archaeological evidence for some pretty remarkable claims that the Bible makes. But while we only scratch the surface, I hope you were able to get at least a sense of the fact that we're not dealing with mere mythology when we begin studying the Bible. To think otherwise is really to be ignorant of either the Bible or mythology or perhaps even both. Skeptics once insisted places like Ur or Nineveh or Ai were all mythical places. and characters like the Hittites we read about in the Bible or King David or Belshazzar. These were mythical characters. And they even looked at events like Cyrus releasing the Jews to return to their homeland. in Israel, and they looked at that and said, that's all mythical. This is the things that minimalists wrote off. Remember, minimalists are those who say, we're not going to take the Bible seriously until it proves otherwise. So the burden of proof is all on the Bible. And, you know, we still have had hundreds of archaeological finds that have now corroborated what the Bible has said, and still there remains a strong bias against the Bible. At least what the Bible itself tells us is that this is going to remain to be the case. Sinners are always going to choose to not believe God. They're going to choose not to surrender themselves to the God who made them. And so it shouldn't surprise us that as more discoveries and history and archaeology confirm the Bible, Sinners are still going to find ways of rejecting it. They're not going to be pleased. Now, one of the things we should expect of any text that makes the ultimate claim for itself One thing we should expect from any text that claims to come to us from God is that it should be accurate, right? It should at least get right the simple facts of everyday life. And if we can't trust it in facts about the physical world, why should we trust it about its claims in the spiritual realm? And so we're dealing here with some of this criteria of how the Bible is reliable or trustworthy, and we're dealing with some of these historical things. And today, I want to lean into this more, though, by examining the Bible's integrity when it comes to its own logical consistency and its relationship to science and its moral integrity. OK, so before we get into that one, we just have a quick word of prayer. Father, thank you for this morning. We do ask for your help. You would guide us into truth and that you would give us understanding. I pray that you would guide my lips as I intend to speak and give me clarity of thoughts. And we pray that this could be a learning experience that we could grow to better appreciate your word by understanding it better in relation to even how it's been attacked and maligned. And Father, I pray that you would better prepare us to help some who have very distorted views of the Bible. Give us wisdom and give us the ability to give a skill to truthfully and honestly Answer these that malign your word in this way. Father, for your glory, we ask it in Jesus name. Amen. You might say the point of this lecture is really that the more we learn about the Bible, the more we learn we can trust it. The more we learn about the Bible, the more we learn we can trust it. And this is because when all the facts are in, the Bible stands without error. Well, therein is the challenge. We don't have all the facts, do we? Or the facts are not always so obvious to us. But I want to encourage you that as we simply get into understanding the Bible better or whatever it is that seems to conflict with the Bible, I believe we will find that we can trust the Bible all the more. So our examination of the Bible today will follow a three-step approach. First thing we're going to do is examine the integrity of the Bible with relation to its own internal consistency. You might say we're going to study first the logical integrity of the biblical text. Some people will insist that the Bible is riddled with contradictions. How many times have you heard that? The Bible is full of contradictions. We've probably all heard that. Maybe somebody here has said that before. And I've heard pastors say, well, if someone claims that the Bible is full of contradictions, all you got to do is what? Just say, show me one. Like that's a knock me down response. And I would say that that is the best place to begin because you do want to make sure you're dealing with an actual misunderstanding their mind. You know, don't just take their word for it. You know, take them up on that. Make them show you, ask them to show you a situation where the Bible has a contradiction. But don't be surprised if they take you up on your offer. They may show you more than one situation in the Bible that they believe is a contradiction. And in my own experience, I've had plenty of people answer this challenge. And so you need to be aware there are some tricky ones out there. And I want you to pay attention to everything we're going to discuss here, because I do think it's practical. I do think it will come in use it sometime. I do think you're going to need it. When someone does identify what they claim is a logical contradiction in the Bible, their issue can typically be resolved in one of five ways. Some, again, alleged contradictions. would fall outside of these five categories, but these five are the most common. And so for starters, one way skeptics abuse the Bible's intent is assuming approximations are false or contradictory. That's how they come to believe the Bible is got a logical contradiction because they assume approximations are false or contradictory. This might occur with comparing numbers in the Bible. If you read the Old Testament, you'll realize the Bible often gives us rounded numbers. Or it might occur when comparing statements in the Bible like the statements of Jesus in the gospel or statements that are made like Peter's confession of Christ will come to mind. It's not going to be worded identical in each of the gospels. Or, for example, here the New Testament scholar Bill Mounts shows us how Jesus' statement to the paralytic man, get up, take your mat, and go home. He shows us how this is worded differently in Matthew, Mark, and Luke's Gospels. It's worded differently in the Greek at least. Nevertheless, this is not a contradiction because what is intended is an accurate approximation of what Jesus said. They all mean the same thing. the Latin terms for this is ipsissima vox as opposed to ipsissima verba. The Bible gives us the very voice of what was said rather than always the very words. The very words ipsissima verba would mean that something is being quoted verbatim. This would be critical in perhaps some legal situations, but the very voice, ipsissima vox, means that something is being paraphrased. You're getting the idea, the true sense of what was said, not necessarily the exact words. And so when someone shows you what they claim is a contradiction, just ask yourself, is this just an approximation? Because approximations are not errors when approximation is all that's intended. or all that's needed for that matter. A second way skeptics will abuse the Bible's intent and a claim that is containing a contradiction, a logical contradiction, is assuming divergent accounts must be contradictory. Assuming divergent accounts must be contradictory. We run into this sort of thing when comparing the four New Testament Gospels. Probably the most classic example involves asking, how many angels We're actually present at the tomb of Jesus. You'll have Mark tell us, Mark 16, 5, there was one man, Matthew, tells us there was one angel. Luke records there were two men. John records that there were two angels. So skeptics have claimed the Gospels clearly contradict each other because their accounts are clearly divergent. That is, they are dissimilar. But any attorney or investigator can tell you that when comparing testimony, dissimilarity does not necessarily mean a contradiction. If the Gospels were perfectly identical in the way they reported all details and all their testimony, we would be inclined to think that they were simply copying off one another and that was all that was going on. This was just a conspiracy, a conspiring together. So actually, the dissimilarity, a divergence between testimony is actually helpful. It actually lends more credibility to the witnesses, providing that you can reconcile that testimony, right? The question is, can we reconcile these dissimilarities or not? If we cannot, then we're left with a contradiction. But this situation here, as with any in the Gospels, can be reconciled. The fact that Mark and Luke describe men rather than angels has to do with the fact that they're telling you these angels appeared as men, and that agrees with what the Old Testament, almost most of the Old Testament references angels appearing on earth, they're referenced as men. Of course, if there were two angels, then it's also correct to say there were one present, and the fact that Mark and Matthew only mentioned there was one, while Luke and John mentioned there was two, has to do with the fact that the latter are focusing on the speaker, the one who is speaking, the one who spoke. The former are not. This is in literature what's called spotlighting. Dr. Michael Lincona has written a book comparing much of what's going on in the Gospels and their dissimilarities, such as in a case like this, to Plutarch's lives. And it's something you call spotlighting in literature. It's not at all implying a contradiction. It's just drawing attention to one of the characters and not mentioning the others isn't to say that that person wasn't there or present at the scene. It's just you're spotlighting the one who's speaking. So this is a popular example of something skeptics think is a knockdown argument. There you have it. The Bible's contradicting itself, but it's not difficult to reconcile these divergences. A third way skeptics abuse the Bible's intent is neglecting to note literary devices. neglecting to note literary devices. For example, in Genesis chapter 6, verses 5 and 6, we read that the Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And the Lord regretted, there's a key word, that he had made man on the earth and it grieved him to his heart. Similar statements are made elsewhere, like Jonah 3.10, when the Lord saw what they did and how they turned from their evil way, God relented. That's actually the same word in the Hebrew, nakam, that we just saw in Genesis 6. The Lord relented of the disaster that he had said he would do to them and did not do it. The claim is that God cannot be sovereign, omniscient and immutable, that is unchangeable, if he's here said to be changing his mind about something. And on the surface, that might appear like a logical contradiction. The problem is, This is a very superficial way of reading the Bible or any literature for that matter. When the Bible mentions that God shelters his people under his wings, we do not interpret this to mean that God has literal wings like a bird. No, these are literary devices. They poetically describe God in a way we humans can relate to or appreciate. without aiming to be so theologically or technically precise. In other words, when the Bible says that God regretted that he had made man, it's describing God in human terms so we can appreciate this fact. God was deeply grieved. If you go on and read what Moses goes on to report, and it grieved him to the heart. That's the sense of what he's conveying there. But statements about God's regret then are not intended to be any more theologically precise than statements about his having eyes, ears, hands, arms, feet, wings, and so on. This is poetry. If that doesn't make sense, just take up poetry for a bit. Just do some study into literature. And I believe you very quickly will learn that the best way of describing reality is not always using scientific technical precision. A fourth way skeptics abuse the Bible's intent is forgetting that only the original text is inerrant. Forgetting that only the original text is inerrant. When we discussed the Bible's preservation, we discussed how that God gave the originals to man without error. But this act of God never guaranteed that copies of the original would be without any errors themselves, let alone copies of copies of copies. Let me show you an example of a copyist error in the Old Testament, and I'll have to show you from an older English translation like the King James, because the modern translations have reconciled this. 2 Kings 8, verse 26 in the King James version says, two and twenty years old. was Ahaziah when he began to reign and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. Second Chronicles 22 to a parallel account in the King James says 40 and two years was Ahaziah when he began to reign and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. Clearly talking about the same individual and what's going on here. Excuse me. How old was Ahaziah when he began to reign 22 or 42? Well, Ahaziah could not have been 42 when he began to reign because that would make him a couple of years older than his father when he died. So he was not older. He could not be older than his father. All right. So the number 42 cannot be correct. There are at least a couple of different ways we can explain this. But I believe the best explanation is to recognize this is an actual copyist error in the Hebrew text, the Masoretic text. You see, the Hebrews used letters for numbers. We do know that. For instance, the Hebrew letter Mem represented the number 40, while the Hebrew letter Kaf represented the number 20. And so many Bible scholars believe that early Hebrew scribes were using these letters for numbers in this passage, 2 Chronicles 20-2, and Most of our and you could see it's not difficult to when you look at these numbers on the screen, it's not difficult to conceive how one might be mistaken for the other. Most of our ancient translations, including the Greek, Syriac and Arabic versions, have 22 instead of 42 in Second Chronicles. So this is not a proof that the Bible contradicts itself, that there was any contradiction in the originals into what God gave his prophets. It's only proof that copyist errors do exist. But again, the fact that we can reconcile such a discrepancy only goes to show the Bible is not itself at fault here. And the fact that we can reconcile it only goes to thank God for the providence of his preservation in copies that we can reconcile these errors that way. A fifth way skeptics abuse the Bible's intent is by ignoring the author's original context. And this one is probably a catch-all. I mean, this one is very common. Most times, when someone's comparing what is said in the Bible in one place and arguing that it contradicts what is stated in another place, they're simply mistaking They are mistaken because they're simply not reading the biblical authors in their original context. For instance, the famous 19th century scholar F.C. Bower once claimed the Bible was hopelessly at odds with itself. He believed that Peter and Paul even developed two different brands of Christianity. And today, skeptics write books arguing the same thing. They think this is a knockdown argument against Christianity. Bauer looked at Galatians 2, where Paul rebukes Peter to his face for acting contrary to the gospel of grace and pandering to the Judaizers' legalistic demands. And from this conflict, this confrontation that Paul has with Peter, Bauer imagined that Paul was playing on a different team than Peter, James, and John. They're wearing different uniforms. They're playing against each other. And he interpreted James 2 then, where James says faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead. He interpreted that as a direct attack on Paul's emphasis on faith alone. The problem with this is that this is a very unfair way of interpreting anyone. You might snip a comment I made to someone saying apologetics does not matter and I'm saying that very adamantly. And you may compare that with statements I'm making to you in a class like this. Hence the class, right? Apologetics does matter. And you say, look, there's a contradiction. You're contradicting yourself until I'm allowed to explain when I said apologetics didn't matter. I was talking to someone who claimed apologetics is the way that we persuade Americans to receive Christ. And he said, no, this does not undermine the work of the Holy Spirit or replace the work of the Holy Spirit. No, no, no. As I said when we studied hermeneutics a year or two ago, I'll say it again. Context is king. Context is king. All communication, meaningful communication hinges on context. Are we justified by faith or by works? Well, given Paul's context, here, like this passage I've listed up there, Romans 4, 5, and 6, here in Paul's context, he's explaining the basis by which God justifies sinners. And the answer is unequivocally, faith alone, without the works of the law. It's all of God's grace. But given James' context, in James chapter 2, He's explaining the kind of faith by which God justifies sinners. And the answer is only a living faith. Look, if God gives you faith that justifies you, he's going to give you a living faith, not a dead faith. And James is showing us that the faith that justifies is a living faith. It's not a dead confession, but it's a faith visibly alive because you can see it bearing fruit. Paul wouldn't disagree with that at all. And we could look at other passages like Philippians 2.12 to reconcile that. It is faith alone that saves, but the faith that saves is never alone. So this is not a contradiction. You just have to read these authors in context. Please carefully examine the context whenever someone hands you what they claim is a logical contradiction in the Bible. And obviously, to exhaustively show the Bible's logical integrity would require us to go through the Bible in its entirety, and we can't do that here in this time frame all now. But I've tried to show you that where skeptics claim the Bible is inconsistent is only due to a misunderstanding or abuse of some sort And basically, the more we learn about the Bible, the more we learn we can actually trust it. So if you have questions about a particular case or situation, you can always ask. But next, let's consider the scientific integrity of the Bible, the scientific integrity of the biblical text. Does it matter that the Bible is scientifically accurate? Is that even of any significance to us? Well, it sure does matter. Jesus told Nicodemus in John 3, 12, if I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how can you believe if I tell you heavenly things? There again is that argument from a lesser to a greater. If the Bible gets it wrong when it comes to the physical world, why can we trust it in the spiritual realm? Because Christians can believe that the Bible is written revelation from the same God who created the physical world. Christians should expect that this ancient document will still hold integrity when examined against the claims of modern science. Now, science is not infallible, as we're going to see, and changes and sometimes gets things wrong. But we should expect that when all the facts are in, when all is said and done, the Bible is going to agree with the way the natural world works, because the same God that gave us the book of scripture gave us the book of nature, as Francis Bacon, often considered the founder of modern science, observed. So we should only expect that the Bible is going to be accurate in scientific matters. This discussion does matter. And I want to briefly expose five errors people make that prevent them from recognizing the Bible's scientific integrity. First, scorning the Bible's premodern origins. People scorn the Bible's premodern origins. There's just a strong prejudice you will encounter. many postmoderns hold against the Bible, and that is they think that the Bible is somehow less credible because it's ancient. It was written by men at a time when people didn't understand all of the physics and what was involved, all the intricacies of nature involved in thunder and lightning and rain. But let me say this, first of all, that the age of the Bible should not count against its reliability. That's part of what's called an ad novum fallacy. Something isn't right just because it's new. Something isn't wrong just because it's old. Truth doesn't expire with time. And closely related to this first error is a second, where skeptics will assume the Bible gives us a God of the gaps. So here's a second way skeptics believe the Bible is in conflict with science. Assuming the Bible gives us a God of the gaps. Now, a God of the gaps is a God, a said God, that conveniently fills in the gaps of our understanding. When we don't understand something, we just say, oh, God did it. This is how much of the ancient world thought, right? At least this was how the sort of gods the ancient Greeks believed in. Because they didn't know what lightning and thunder was, they concluded, well, this is God. And the gods are angry. And the ancients had a god for just about every natural phenomenon you could think of. This sums up the way they thought about God. It was a god of the gaps. God explaining what I don't understand. But this is not at all the way the Bible approaches the subject of God, to simply write off everything that we don't understand or can't explain as God did it. Oxford mathematician John Lennox explains the God of the Bible is not the God of the gaps. He is the God of the whole show. He is the God of the bits of the universe we don't understand and the bits we do. We might just observe that Genesis does not begin with the statement in the beginning God created the bits of the universe we don't understand. We don't yet understand. No, it says in the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. That is a Hebrew merism for all things. So the Bible is not giving us at the very outset. It's informing you the Bible is not giving us a God of the gaps, but the God of all creation, even the God that makes science itself possible. This is why when Isaac Newton discovered the law of gravity, he didn't see this as one less reason to believe in God. Rather, he understood this to mean he better understood the God who designed this world to operate in the way that it does. And our appreciation for God only deepens as we more deeply understand the world he has made. Science doesn't give us less reason to believe in God, it gives us more reason to praise him for his handiwork, Psalm 19.1. At the same time, all scientists, well, let me say this first of all, okay. As a Christian, I readily agree with atheists who critique a God of the gaps. They are right that such a God is no explanation at all. That's just a cop-out. We don't, the Bible doesn't give us a God like that. At the same time, all scientists need to recognize that science itself cannot explain everything. There are things beyond science's ability to understand, and this is itself hard to understand. Lennox himself, when he wrote this book called Science Cannot Explain Everything, no, Can Science Explain Everything? And he asks, why is water boiling? He says, I may say that heat energy from the gas flame is being conducted through the copper base of a kettle, and it's agitating the molecules of the water to such an extent that the water is boiling. Or I may say that the water is boiling because I would like a cup of tea. And Lennox explains, we see at once that both of these explanations are equally rational. They each make perfect sense, but they are very different. The first is scientific, and the second is personal. And so science, for all its explanations of how things works, does not contradict. It's not in conflict with explaining who God is and what he has done. You're just simply exploring more of the mysteries of how God has done what God has done. Now, I need to move on here. Understand the God of the Bible is not a God of the gaps that's increasingly swallowed up by science. He's a God who works all things after the counsel of his own will, Ephesians 1, 11. A third error by which skeptics conclude the Bible is in conflict with science is demanding the Bible speak as a science text. demanding the Bible speak as a science textbook. There are generally two ways skeptics demand the Bible speak as a science text. First, they demand the Bible speak with technical, scientific precision using technical, scientific language. But does the Bible really have to be scientifically precise? Does it really have to be? When the poet Emily Dickinson says, I'll tell you how the sun rose. We don't fault her for not being scientifically precise. We know that the sun doesn't really rise. Okay. We understand her aim is not scientific precision, but beauty. Dr. Norman Geisler observes the Bible is written for the common person of every generation and it therefore uses common everyday language. The use of observational non-scientific language is not unscientific. It is merely pre-scientific. The scriptures were written in ancient times by ancient standards, and it would be anachronistic to superimpose modern scientific standards upon them. However, it is no more unscientific to speak of the sun standing still, Joshua 10, 12, than to refer to the sun rising, Joshua 1, 16. Meteorologists still refer to the times of sunrise and sunset. I think it's Dr. Norman Geisler that also said you wouldn't expect if you were watching a Shakespearean play, you wouldn't expect one of the actors to be wearing a wristwatch. But people have this very anachronistic, weird understanding when it comes to the Bible that it's not to speak to its own original time. So both Christians and non-Christians should not approach the Bible as if its language were intended to be scientifically precise by modern standards. The other way skeptics fault the Bible for not being scientific enough is they demand the Bible answer all the mysteries of science that we would like to know. And so this challenge concerns the Bible's subject matter and scope in relation to science. In explaining why they reject the Bible, the American Humanist Association claims that despite all the prayers and rituals and other religious activities performed throughout the centuries, the frequency and severity of plagues did not diminish until scientific hygiene made its appearance. And the argument they're advancing, if I give you more of the context, is that if the Bible truly were God's word, then surely it would tell us how to prevent disease and or cure disease. But can we really be so sure? Is that really a standard, a criteria for knowing whether or not this book is the revelation of God? Such demands really beg the question, why are there germs and disease in the first place? Of course, that's a question science cannot answer, but the Bible claims our world is cursed on account of our sin, on account of our rebellion to God. And exploring and cultivating the earth, as God commanded us to do, is one way of mitigating the effects of this curse. But my point is, the Bible's explanation for why there's disease in the first place would also explain why there's no cure for disease given in the Bible. Death is the inescapable reality for all of us, whether it comes by disease or not. And if we're really wanting a cure, well, God has made that available for us in Christ. If you don't like that, if you don't like the Bible's answer, and you want to keep on demanding that God give you a comprehensive guide, his own comprehensive guide to science, well, that's your problem. But you can't say the Bible's irrational for not supplying all that you demand it to. A fourth error that leads skeptics to say the Bible is in conflict with science is misunderstanding the nature and limits of science itself. misunderstanding the nature and limits of science itself. I could think of a couple prominent examples. One would have to do with miracles. Because the Bible is full of miracles, some skeptics have said the Bible must be in conflict with science wherever it records miracles happening, as if science has proven that there's no such thing as miracles. But how could anyone prove that miracles can never happen? We already know that miracles are not something that we can replicate in a laboratory. If we could, they wouldn't be miracles. So how could someone then prove that miracles can never happen? At any rate, the question of miracles really goes back to the question of God. If a miracle working God exists, then miracles can happen, even if they don't happen in our world repeatedly and predictably, even if most miracle claims by many, most people in the world are proven to be false and have no grounding in history. That does not undermine the miracle claims of the Bible that all have to do with God's plan of redemptive history. When God uses a miracle in the Bible, it is always to accent something unusual, something particularly special. That's why he's doing a miracle. He wants to draw your attention to what he's doing in redemptive history. And of course, skeptics who won't acknowledge the possibility of God's existence won't acknowledge the possibility of miracles. For instance, the virgin birth of Christ can never happen in their world. Because only God could explain something like that ever happening. Well, yeah, that's the point. But the fact is, modern science actually shows us the universe itself began at some point in the distant past. And how did this happen? By a miracle no less greater than the virgin birth. If there's no God, then you're left with nothing created something that gave rise to everything. And if you ask me, this would be the ultimate virgin birth miracle of miracles. And yet it's somehow more believable to believe that there's a, you know, everything just came out of nothing than that there's a higher intelligence involved, orchestrating everything, giving purpose to everything. I mean, yeah, give me a break. Many times it's not miracles so much as the Bible's account of origins. that provokes many to say the Bible's in conflict with science. So here's another example that I would share, because many Americans believe the Bible's account of origins has been discredited by Darwinian evolution. The Darwinian narrative, they will say, proves the Bible account of origins isn't true. Once again, this involves a misunderstanding of the nature and limits of science itself, perhaps the nature of the Bible itself. But I'll say a couple, just a couple things here. First, while many, Christians included, speak of science as though it were synonymous with fact, we need to be honest and humble enough to admit that science is constantly evolving, and that what we understand today about the natural world may be somewhat different than what we understand of it tomorrow. Just study the history of science, and you'll see that scientists are not infallible. Even a so-called scientific consensus is not infallible. Theories change with new discoveries. And this is why, in his own day, Augustine wisely recognized that Christians should not tie their theology to the science of the day, lest when the science of the day be shown to be wrong, perhaps, some will also toss out theology with the old science. I'm just saying when it comes to discussing origins, we should at least admit not all the evidence is in. We need to be wise, we need to be patient, we need to not go beyond, be more dogmatic than we should be, I guess what I'm trying to say. Secondly, say what you will about creationism and intelligent design, there is an unfair bias in our secular culture. In a 2005 landmark case, Kitzmiller versus Dover, this case set a precedent that the teaching of intelligent design in the US public schools is said to be unconstitutional. Why? Because the idea is fundamentally religious and not scientific. That's the prejudice of our times, that if you want to believe that there's an intelligent designer behind everything, even if you think that happened through evolutionary process or not, they're going to say that that's a religious claim. But if you want to say it all came from nothing, that's a scientific claim. Actually, it's no more religious, and when you understand worldview and what we've been looking at, it's no more religious to believe there is an intelligent design behind the universe than to deny there is an intelligent design behind it. Both are fundamentally worldview commitments. And it's sad that a godless worldview can be considered neutral. But this is a, if you read Charles Taylor, the Canadian philosopher who has well documented the blindness our culture has to its own secularity. They just assume it's neutral. You understand this. You see, people are like fish in the water. They don't realize what water is, because they're in it all the time, right? But they are a product of their culture, their own worldview. Now, lastly, let me just add that as a general rule, I don't think it's necessary or even helpful to debate origin science with nonbelievers. I don't think it's useful or helpful. I'm saying as a general rule. to debate origin science with non-believers who reject a literal six-day creation. Rather than this becoming a real stumbling block, you can neutralize the issue by simply acknowledging not all Christians believe in a literal six-day creation week. And that's just being honest. to the situation. Confront the skeptic rather with the fact that however the universe came into being, all Christians are agreed, it came into being by God. And that is something that the skeptic does not agree with, hence a lot of their issues, a lot of their problems. And so I, just in personal experience, I have seen this become, this debate about origin science, become an unnecessary stumbling block, sidetracking people from what really matters. And I know some, let the fundamentalists take up stones and stone me, I'm speaking from experience, what I have seen, and I'm not saying that this is a way to operate in every case, but I think this is a general principle that is helpful most of the time. All right, now a fifth, error that leads skeptics to say the Bible's in conflict with science is ignoring the Bible's amazing insight on many scientific issues. People do ignore the Bible's insights on many scientific issues. I can't spend time here. I won't. The Bible, though, has confirmed many facts that were long ago, or sorry, I should say science has confirmed many facts that were long ago revealed in the Bible, such as the fact about the universe having a beginning. There was once a scientific consensus, if you want to use that term loosely among skeptics, that the universe was eternal. It just always existed. And now they recognize time, space, matter had a beginning. Well, Genesis 1, 1 got that right. Genesis 1 also gives us the law of biogenesis, that like produces after like. Things produce after their own kind. The first and second law of thermodynamics can be derived from Genesis 2.1 or Psalm 102, 25 and 26. Or the idea that the earth floats in space is stated in Job 26.7. He hangs the earth on nothing. In several different places, you have the hydraulic cycle described, like in Psalm 135.7 or Amos 9.6. Leviticus 17.11 indicated blood is the source of life. And if medicine had only paid a bit more attention to this, along with the Bible's instruction on hygiene and quarantine in the Levitical laws, that alone would have prolonged many lives. The Bible has also inspired many discoveries. For instance, Matthew-Mary, is considered the father of oceanography. He noticed the expression in Psalm 88 about the paths of the sea, went looking for these paths, and discovered a network of currents in the oceans, wrote a text that's still in use today for oceanography. And there are other stories like that. So without approaching the Bible as though it were a science textbook, we should take it for what it says. We should take it seriously, down to the details, and recognizing that the Bible holds integrity when held up to modern science. Again, there's a lot we don't understand about science. So we have to be hasty to make premature conclusions there. We don't have all the facts. No scientist does. So be careful with those theories. But the Bible still stands today in the 21st century. It's still rational to believe it. And there are many grand scientists, Nobel Prize winners, who believe the Bible. Just a counterexample to some kind of thing skeptics will say out there about the Bible. being absolute craziness when it comes to science. Finally, let's just consider briefly the moral integrity of the Bible. The moral integrity of the Bible. We will probably have to pick up next week's discussion by concluding the material from this lecture, and that's fine. But let's at least try to give you the main idea here. One of our culture's greatest problems with the Bible has to do with the challenges to the Bible's moral integrity. And this is certainly one of the most sensitive challenges that is raised to the Bible. So we need to be sensitive when we're replying to people again in these areas. We want to consider why they may be raising this challenge to us. It may not be they're simply looking for some kind of a logical explanation. But in answering this sensitive challenge, let me just show you this challenge typically comes to us in one of four forms. First, some will claim the Bible's immoral because of how men have used the Bible to do great evil in history. Secondly, some will show you they will claim that the Bible's immoral because of how God has allowed evil and suffering in this world. Thirdly, they will claim the Bible's immoral because of how God has punished evil so severely. And lastly, They will claim the Bible is immoral because of how God has restricted human freedom, condemning independence from His will. Let me just briefly explain these and respond to them. And mind you, I have to give you soundbite answers, so don't expect me to be deep or comprehensive here. The first moral challenge to the Bible has to do with how men have used the Bible to do great evil. Many blame the Bible for evils committed by the church, even an apostate church. They blame the Bible for the Inquisition, the Crusades, and any exploitation conducted by the Roman Catholic Church. They blame the Bible for Europe's colonization of other countries and slavery because these things were sometimes said to be done in the name of Christ. Well, how do we answer? Don't blame the Bible on account of evil men who have abused it. The Bible is not to blame for how evil men have abused it. This is a fallacy. It's called guilt by association. The Bible is not to blame for how other people have used it or rather abused it. History shows that sinners will use anything to obtain their selfish desires. Man will use anything, religion, irreligion, Christianity, atheism. Whatever is marketable, whatever can manipulate people, cult leaders, sinners have done this. Should it surprise us that the very words of God then would be twisted and abused against his intent? This is only what we should expect from a sinful world. The second moral challenge to the Bible has to do with how God has allowed evil and suffering in this world. And how many times have we heard somebody say, if God is so good, how can he allow evil and suffering? Or why did God allow the first humans to fall into sin? Or better yet, why did God allow an angel to become the devil in the first place? And how do we answer? Well, here's a soundbite answer. When you know everything there is to know, you may then be in a position to judge whether what God has done is good or not. Otherwise, You're not judging with all the facts. Tim Keller put it this way. If you have a God great and transcendent enough to be mad at because he hasn't stopped evil and suffering in the world, then you have at the same moment a God great and transcendent enough to have good reasons for allowing it to continue that you can't know. Indeed, you can't have it both ways. If God is big enough to blame for everything, then he's big enough he doesn't have to explain himself to you. He's big enough that you don't understand him all right now. And yes, you find yourself in the position as not God where you do have to trust him. If that sounds like a cop out to you, it is rational in everything else the Bible is claiming. We know only the smallest fraction of what is to be known. How are we in the place to judge God? The third moral challenge to the Bible has to do with how God has punched evil so severely. We could think of many examples. The great flood in Genesis 6, or God's judgment upon Sodom and Gomorrah, or his judgment upon the Canaanites, or probably most notorious of all, his sentence of the wicked to eternal destruction in hell. And we'll have to pick up on this one next week. I think this one just deserves some deeper discussion. But here's a soundbite answer. Only when you understand your own sin, only when you understand the gravity of your own sin, will you understand the justice of God. The only reason we dare to think God unjust is because we don't see our sin the way he sees it. That's for certain, even the atheist skeptic who doesn't believe the Bible could at least say, yeah, I don't see my sin the way that God sees it. Well, we can agree on that, but that's at least a starting point. It's because the Bible would have us know we don't see our sin the way God sees it, that we don't share his view of justice. But maybe we should explore that more. We will, Lord willing, we can get into that more next week. A fourth moral challenge to the Bible has to do with how God has restricted human freedom. How has God restricted human freedom? He condemns me trying to be independent from His will. Well, how many Americans will despise Christianity as immoral because they say your Bible condemns people doing what they want with their bodies and that is just in their mind Irreprehensible. That is, in their mind, so incredibly repressive. That kind of a God is a tyrant. He is despotic. He must be immoral. I want nothing to do with him. Well, however difficult this may be to accept, this really isn't difficult to understand. So I'm just going to say it. We were created to serve God. Not ourselves. As Revelation 4.11 says, worthy are you, our Lord and God, to receive glory and honor and power, for you created all things, and by your will they existed and were created. That's the Bible answer. And this is why life and all creation works best when operating according to the Creator's laws. He designed it. Just look at what our world's doing, going against the way of God. The way of the transgressor is hard. Now, again, there's more we could say here. I'm having to be concise. But I'm hoping to show you here that the Bible's integrity does not diminish as we examine it against logic, science, and morality. The more we learn about the Bible, studying its context and why it's saying what it's saying, and exploring even its claims that are most controversial and most hated in our culture. When we explore those claims, the more we learn about them, the more we learn they are rational claims. And the more we learn about the Bible, the more we learn we can trust it. And so perhaps next week we can begin with a case study regarding the Bible's moral integrity. I realize I'm having to be really concise here at the end for time's sake. But then, Lord willing, what we intend to do is also examine the Bible's remarkable character, the character and quality of its testimony as a document. All right, let's pray. Father, thank you for this time again that we've had, and we pray that you would help us to remember these things. And as we interact with people that come at your word from all kinds of directions, disbelieving it, hating it. Father, give us grace with gentleness and reverence, Lord. Give us grace to be able to respond in a way that is helpful, in a way that is true to the facts. And I pray that you would use the truth that we share with others to work in their hearts in Jesus name. Amen. Amen. God bless you. You're dismissed.