Book Review: The Ultimate Proof of Creation

Is there an ultimate proof to defending the Christian faith; an argument so logical (and Biblically based) that no rational unbeliever would reject it? After reading this book, I believe so. The author, Jason Lisle, explains that scientific evidence alone, although very convincing, is not enough to prove the reality and authenticity of God's Word to a rational thinker. A rational person will ultimately filter all scientific evidence through his worldview and shape it to his own liking - thus showing that a person's worldview is the core of the debate on origins. By explaining the steps involved in logical thinking (in the simplest way possible), Jason shows you how a Biblically based worldview is the only one that can make sense of anything: laws of logic, uniformity in nature, absolute morality, reliability of senses and memory, personal dignity and freedom, and many others. He shows that those who reject the Bible have to borrow Biblical concepts to even think about anything. There is a section in the book devoted to recognizing logical fallacies such as circular reasoning that will most likely be hidden when talking with unbelievers about the ultimate proof. To Biblically support the concept, there is a section on how apologetics were used in the Bible. At the end of the book, there are 2 chapters concerning "Answering the Critics" in which evolutionists, and old earth creationists have attempted to discredit the ultimate proof. These letters are followed by a response from Jason, answering their questions clearly, fully, and politely. Much of the points in the book are repeated throughout, making them easy to remember. As many apologetic books will do, this book will not only give you "a reason of the hope that is in you" ( I Peter 3:15) to aid in witnessing, but it will also increase your own confidence that the Christian faith is a spiritual reality to be lived out with all the heart, soul, mind, and strength.

Countering Jehovah Wittness Arguments Part 4

Part 4 of this series continues in the defense of the true deity of Christ. A popular passage that our Witness friends will bring up is Colossians 1:15-18. It says, "15 He (Christ) is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16 For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him. 17 And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist. 18 And He is the head of the body, the church, who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in all things He may have the preeminence." (emphasis added) One great thing about this passage is that the passage itself refutes the very same doctrine that Jehovah's Witnesses manage to tease out of it. Jehovah's Witnesses like to emphasize "firstborn" in this passage. Understand that they not only believe that Jesus Christ was "a" god. They also believe that He was Jehovah God's "firstborn" (first one born) son. They believe God's first creation was Jesus. The question we need to be asking is, "Does 'firstborn' have another meaning." Well, let's take a look at Genesis 41:51 and 52: "51 Joseph called the name of the firstborn Manasseh: 'For God has made me forget all my toil and all my father’s house.' 52 And the name of the second he called Ephraim: 'For God has caused me to be fruitful in the land of my affliction.' " Who is referred to as the firstborn? Manasseh is, of course. Now read Jeremiah 31:9: "9 They shall come with weeping, And with supplications I will lead them. I will cause them to walk by the rivers of waters, In a straight way in which they shall not stumble; For I am a Father to Israel, And Ephraim is My firstborn." (emphasis added) Who is the real firstborn? You can't have two firstborns.

Well, Manasseh is the first one born, but Ephraim is the brother who found favor in God's eyes and became the preeminent one. "Firstborn" can also denote preeminence. So back to Colossians 1:15-18, is Jesus really the first one born or the preeminent one? The last word of that passage describes Him as preeminent and the context clearly reveals the emphasis is on his preeminence. What about when the passage says, "the firstborn from the dead"? Jesus wasn't the first one to be raised from the dead, Lazarus was. The Witness' interpretation can't be correct. If we substitute "preeminent one" for "firstborn" in the Colossians passage, we'll see clearly that Jesus Christ was "preeminent over all creation" for "by Him all things were created" he was the "preeminent one from the dead". Jesus was the first person ever to conquer death by being raised in a glorified body; He alone is deathless. Lazarus eventually died.

If you look back to the Colossians passage, you'll see that "all" is made bold 5 times. In the New World Translation "all things" is translated "all other things". The only problem with this is that the word "other" is not in the greek text! So why does the Watchtower translate it this way? It's because their faced with this:

Jesus Christ, being a created thing himself, can't bring into existence ALL things if He himself was created.

When we take a step back and look at the big picture, we find that the Watchtower doctrines are planted in very shallow evidence and all it takes to uproot their doctrines is a Bible student who is willing to honestly examine God's word. Jesus Christ was before all things and in possessing that quality He is by default attributed preeminence over all things. Jesus Christ has to be Jehovah God!

Source: The Kingdom of the Cults by Walter Martin

Countering Jehovah Witness Arguments Part 3

Concerning the "a" god fallacy. One verse that Jehovah's Witnesses use in support of their beliefs is John 14:28. It says, " 28 You have heard Me say to you, ‘I am going away and coming back to you.’ If you loved Me, you would rejoice because I said, ‘I am going to the Father,’ for My Father is greater than I." The intention of Jehovah's Witnesses is to present in your mind, "How can Jesus BE Jehovah God if Jehovah God is greater than Jesus?" When reading this verse we have to remember that although Jesus was fully God, He was also fully human, (something that we are not capable of understanding). The Witnesses argue that Jesus being one yet at the same time separate from the Father is confusing and cannot be a Biblical doctrine. After all, "God is not the author of confusion" (1 Corinthians 14:33). True, God is not the author of confusion, but let's compare scripture with scripture. Read what 1 Corinthians 2:14 says: "But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." We cannot understand God's nature - his ways are higher than ours.

The Witnesses are exactly correct (for once) when they state that Jehovah God was greater than Jesus. He was! This is because the greek word for greater "meizon" imparts POSITION. And Jesus was in fact in a lower position than Jehovah God. We can see this in Hebrews 2:9 where it says "But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels, for the suffering of death crowned with glory and honor, that He, by the grace of God, might taste death for everyone." Jesus was most certainly lower in position than Jehovah God. If Jesus had said "My Father is BETTER than I", this would have imparted a comparison of NATURES. I should hope everyone reading this would agree that our president, Barach Obama (whether you like him or not) is GREATER in position than almost anyone else. What you wouldn't consider saying is that he is BETTER than anyone else. All humans are equal in nature but some have greater positions of authority than others. We can again refute the Witness's case against Jesus and show them that Jesus is Jehovah God "with meekness and fear" (1 Peter 3:15).

Source: The Kingdom of the Cults by Walter Martin

Countering Jehovah Wittness Arguments Part 2

As we've seen, Jehovah's Witnesses believe Jesus was only "a" god, not God the Father. Here is another series of Bible passages to refute their case: In John 8:58 and 59 we read this, "58 Jesus said to them, "Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM." 59 Then they (the Jews) took up stones to throw at Him; but Jesus hid Himself and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by." Verse 58 here is a parallel to Exodus 3:14 where Jehovah God addresses himself as "I AM" to Moses. Jesus claims the same identity as Jehovah God thus making himself one with Jehovah (John 10:30).

This presents a problem for our Witness friends. How will they avoid this one? Well, let's first answer another question: "Why did the Jews 'take up stones to throw at Jesus'?" According to Hebrew law, the Jews only had 5 legal reasons for stoning: "association with a medium" (Leviticus 20:27), "false prophesying" (Deuteronomy 13:5-10), "a rebellious son" (Deuteronomy 21:18-21), "adultery/rape" (Deuteronomy 22:21-24), and "cursing/blasphemy" (Leviticus 24:10-23). So on what ground did the Jews attempt to stone Jesus? Now understand, Jesus never broke the law, but for which violation were the Jew attempting to stone Him of? The only reasonable answer is blasphemy. Jesus literally said to them, "I am Jehovah". And this is why the Jews attempted to stone Him. In their view, Jesus was not the Messiah they had been waiting for. So we must inevitably conclude from this passage that Jesus claimed to be Jehovah God thus why the Jews took such an action as they did.

This argument presents yet another problem for the Jehovah's Witnesses. But of course, they've manage to yet again come up with a weak excuse to cling to their false doctrine of Jesus. They claim that the Jews "took up stones to throw at Him (Jesus)" not because of Jesus' claim to be Jehovah God, but because in verse 44 of the same chapter, Jesus said to them "You are of your father the devil." And this, they conclude, is why the Jews sought to stone Him.

There a number of examples that absolutely oppose this view of the situation. Logically, why didn't the Jews stone Jesus after verse 44? Why wait till verse 59? And on what ground would the Jews stone Jesus if this WAS the case - there is no ground for stoning on "offending the Jews". If we turn to Matthew 23:33, we'll find that Jesus called the Jews "serpents" and "brood of vipers" isn't this equally offensive - why didn't the Jews stone Him then? And why did the Jews attempt to stone Jesus in John 10:30-33. Read it were told why. It says "30 I and My Father are one." 31 Then the Jews took up stones again to stone Him. 32 Jesus answered them, "Many good works I have shown you from My Father. For which of those works do you stone Me?" 33 The Jews answered Him, saying, "For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy, and because You, being a Man, make Yourself God." (emphasis added) You cannot get any clearer than that. The Witnesses translate the last phrase of verse 33, "although being a man, make yourself a god." This is the "a" god fallacy and it can be treated at length by greek scholars who know what the original documents of the New Testament record and who know greek grammatical structure. They can present a better argument than someone who doesn't know greek (me).

If you read John 8:58 in the Jehovah's Witnesses own translation (the New World Translation), you'll find that they render "ego eimi" as "I have been" when it is properly rendered "I AM". They do this to change Jesus' statement to "Most truly I say to YOU, Before Abraham came into existence, I have been." (emphasis added) This is an unfaithful interpretation of the greek scriptures as I've been told by those who know greek. In John 13:19, this same greek word "ego eimi" is used and makes no sense in its context if it is rendered "I have been". It would then read like this, "Now I tell you before it comes, that when it does come to pass, you may believe that I have been He." This rendition makes no sense. "Ego eimi" cannot be rendered "I have been", it must be rendered "I am". The interpretation of John 13:19 above would be the correct rendering if Jehovah's Witnesses were faithful in their translation of the text. But surprisingly they've made it "I am [he]".

It seems apparent that the Watchtower translators distort greek words to fit their predetermined doctrines. We can learn a good lesson from the Watchtower society about how to approach the Bible: Don't come to the Bible with your neat little package of doctrines already sorted out and mold the Bible to your conformity, but rather come to the Bible ready to learn and know the truth. The belief system and environment in which we are born into often shape what we believe, but that shouldn't stop us from testing all things (1 Thessalonians 5:21) and if we realize we are wrong, being willing and humble enough to accept and embrace the things that are true.

Source: The Kingdom of the Cults by Walter Martin

Countering Jehovah Wittness Arguments Part 1

This is part 1 of a series on Christian apologetics (defense of the faith) against common Jehovah's Witness arguments. To understand the arguments presented, you must know the different doctrines of those with opposing viewpoints. In this article, we'll be dealing with Jehovah's Witnesses doctrines and BIBLE BELIEVING Christian doctrines (there's a difference). Jehovah's Witnesses have always maintained that Jesus is only "a" god, not Jehovah God (God the father), whereas Christians have. He is both fully human and fully Jehovah God. Let's take a look at John 20:24-29 where Thomas meets Jesus in the upper room. Maybe this passage will shed enough light on the subject to change some people's minds. It says,

"24 Now Thomas, called the Twin, one of the twelve, was not with them when Jesus came. 25 The other disciples therefore said to him, "We have seen the Lord." So he said to them, "Unless I see in His hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and put my hand into His side, I will not believe." 26 And after eight days His disciples were again inside, and Thomas with them. Jesus came, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, "Peace to you!" 27 Then He said to Thomas, "Reach your finger here, and look at My hands; and reach your hand here, and put it into My side. Do not be unbelieving, but believing." 28 And Thomas answered and said to Him, "My Lord and my God!" 29 Jesus said to him, "Thomas, because you have seen Me, you have believed. Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."

What we have here is a problem for Jehovah's Witnesses. You see, Thomas addressed Jesus as Jehovah God. This verse doesn't fit in with the Witnesses' view of Jesus. Jesus is only supposed to be "a" god in their interpretation of scripture, not Jehovah God. To reconcile this, they claim that when Jesus told Thomas to "reach your hand here, and put it into My side. " it frightened Thomas. And when Thomas finally realized that it was Jesus, he yelled, "My Lord and my God!" (it would be comparable to "Oh my God!" today). In other words they believe that Thomas made a statement out of shock, not a statement addressed to Jesus.

Now, does this explanation hold any water? Is the Jehovah's Witness' viewpoint verified? Well let's take a look at the kind of situation we have here IF the Witness' interpretation is to be accepted. We have a "scared out of his pants Thomas" shouting blasphemy ("My Lord and my God!") at the realization of Jesus' resurrection. But wasn't Jesus a rabbi? (He was). What is the duty of a rabbi in the presence of blasphemy? (to rebuke). Did Jesus rebuke Thomas for taking Jehovah God's name in vain? Of course not! Right afterward, Jesus says something entirely different. He says something very unexpected if the Witnesses' interpretation is in fact the correct one. If their interpretation is correct, we have Jesus blessing blasphemy.

Thomas said, "ho kurios mou kai ho theos mou". There is no way out of it in the greek text. We either have a Jesus who blesses blasphemy, or we have a Jesus who is Jehovah God. Jesus is Jehovah God!

Source: The Kingdom of the Cults by Walter Martin