Dr. Kent Hovind's Creation Seminar 7: Question and Answers, part d

Seminar 7 Questions and Answers, part d

(this seminar was given in 2005)

(some parts of the originally given seminar appear removed in the latest English DVD release of this,
that what is presented here is the unedited version)

The question I get by atheists sometimes when I do debates, and I've done, 99 professors I have debated now. They'll say: “Now, doesn't the Green River Formation in Wyoming prove that the earth is millions of years old?” There's a good article in one of the old Creation magazines. I recommend that magazine. I disagree with a couple of things in them; but, you know, I disagree with everybody about something, except me. But it's really good, from Australia. They have a good article about the Green River Formation, if you want to read that. Go to answersingenesis.org, you can get their website, or the magazine, about $22.00 a year, I think.

The Green River Formation is a layer of rock in Wyoming that contains possibly hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of finely stratified layers. Well, if you go to our museum, you can get that little glass thing with two pieces of glass and different colors of sand in between. You flip it over, and it makes dozens and dozens of layers in a matter of a few seconds.

Well, when they dig through the Green River they'll say, here is a picture of the Green River Formation, they'll say that each of these different layers is a different season, and they go by the pollen.

They say a certain pollen is produced by trees in the spring, a different kind of tree produces pollen in the fall, and if you look at these layers, it's got a spring/fall, spring/fall, spring/fall, maybe a million times. They call them annual layers because of the pollen.

Well, the truth of the matter is, all those things would sort very rapidly, just like the thing in our museum does, sorts things very rapidly. There are only two densities of colored sand in there, black and white; but it will make, you know, 40 layers in a few seconds; multiple layering, massive layering forms quickly. If you dig through this Green River Formation, you find layers of ash in there, from apparently a volcanic eruption. As they drill down through the ash, they count the number of layers between the two ash layers. The number of layers of Green River Formation. And there's up to 35% difference in two different places. You drill one hole, you got 100 layers; you drill another hole, you only got, you know, 60 layers. Why would that be, if those layers are really annual rings then they should be consistent throughout the whole thing, and it simply is not. So get the article from Creation magazine. If somebody ever says to you that the Green River Formation proves that the earth is millions of years old. It does not.

And I get asked the question, maybe you've heard the question: “What about the Mars rock, is there really life on Mars?”

Like this article, you know: “Are we really Martians?” There was a television program on when I was a kid called, My Favorite Martian. It was kind of like ‘Bewitched’, one of those kinds of programs, you know. The idea that there has been life on Mars has been around for decades. Here is Percival Lowell's picture, here showing him thinking about, oh boy, he said: “That Mars seems to be inhabited is not the last, but the first word on the subject.” Back a hundred years ago, he said there might be life on Mars because of the canals.

Well, the Mars Rover went up there. They send, I don't know how many went up threre, quite a few failed, you know. Good proof against evolution. But, they sent this machine up, multi-billion dollar machine. It landed on Mars, tested the soil, and could not even find a trace of a germ on Mars. Now Walt Brown says in his book, In the Beginning, if there is anything found on Mars, and there may be bacteria found on Mars, he says (he predicted that), it came from earth during the Flood when the fountains of the deep broke open. He says, he does all the physics, and he's a physics professor. He said there would be enough pressure of 10 miles (16 km) of rock pushing down on water to shoot things into orbit from earth, that would then float around for, you know, a few hundred, a few thousand years, until they happened to get caught in a gravitational pull of whatever. He thinks there might be stuff on Mars, and it would have come from planet earth. Now, I don't know if that's true or not, but a pretty convincing argument he makes for it. But “there have been 35 missions to Mars. Two thirds were complete or partial failures.”

Lots of money we have spent trying to prove life on Mars.

What's the purpose? Well, I think the whole purpose of the space program anymore is to prove evolution. They're trying desperately to prove God didn't do it. And if they can find life some place else, well then that's proof, you know, for evolution, in their mind.

This little rock you see a picture of here, sample ALH84001,0. This was the rock that they said proved that there was life on Mars. Now this rock was actually found near the South Pole. On that rock there is a little wiggly line right there in the red circle. That little line they said looks like a fossilized bacteria. This is under a microscope, extremely highly magnified. They said: “See that's proof that there is life on Mars, because here is a fossilized bacteria.”

Well, in the first place, Mars is quite a ways from the earth, ok? I mean, quite a way from the earth. The closest they ever get in their orbits is about one-half an astronomical unit (AU), or about 45 million miles (75 million km). That's the closest it ever gets to us. If we shrank all the planets down to the size of tomatoes, and earth was an average four-inch (10 cm) tomato, Mars would be a two-inch (5 cm) tomato. It's about half the diameter of earth. And the closest it ever gets in its orbit would be about a third of a mile away at that scale. They say something hit Mars and knocked that rock over to earth. Think about it. I want you to shoot a two-inch tomato, so that a piece of it splatters a third of a mile, and lands on a four-inch tomato. I think you're asking for..., obviously there should be some evidence of something hitting Mars that hard, like maybe a dent, you know. There ought to be something to indicate it get blasted that hard to shoot something that far. But I don't buy the Mars rock at all.

Well, basically what happened, NASA was trying desperately to get their grant money through Congress. Congress was not about to vote for 20 bazillion more dollars for NASA to go look for, you know, life on Mars.

So what really was happening was, they said: “Guys, you,ve got to find something important in this rock so that we can tell the people we've got to have more grant money.” And Jonathan..., we hear this radio program and oftentimes read these articles, you know. The hidden agenda was always: “Send more money for more research, you know. If only we had more money, we could do...” It was in just about every article in all these science magazines. As soon as the announcement was made about the Mars rock, the grant money was released.

Congress voted: “Yes, let's give NASA 40 bazillion dollars,” ok. A few months later, they studied the rock more and said: “Oh, that's not a bacteria, that's actually a crystal, a carbonate crystal; a naturally forming substance. Ok, we're sorry, folks, we'll keep looking. But thanks for the grant money.” Of course, they didn't return it after that. It is just simply a carbonate crystal that forms naturally on rocks. The Bible says Eve is “the mother of all living.” (Gen. 3:20) I do not believe that there is life on other planets. There is no evidence at all of any life on any other planet, except right here on earth.

Question that frequently comes up is: “What about theistic evolution? Couldn't God used evolution?”

The God that would use a process by evolution would be cruel, wasteful and retarded.

Jacque Monod, a Nobel Prize winner said: “Natural selection is the blindest, and most cruel way of evolving new species and more complex organisms... The struggle for life and elimination of the weakest is a horrible process, against which our whole modern ethics revolts. An ideal society is non-selective, where the weak is protected, which is the opposite of the so-called natural law.”

He said: “I am surprised that a Christian would defend the idea that this is the process which God set up, to have evolution.” I am surprised too that anybody would say, God used evolution. What kind of God do they have anyway?

He's mean, that's for sure. Philosopher David Hull said: “Whatever the God implied by evolutionary theory and the data of natural history may be, he is not the Protestant God of waste not, want not. He is not even the awful God portrayed in the book of Job. The God of Galapagos is careless; he is wasteful; he is indifferent; he is almost diabolical.”

So this is not the God of the Bible. And I would have to agree. Charles Darwin in his book said: “...from the war of nature, from famine, from death, the most exalted object we are capable of conceiving, the production of higher animals follows.”

You see, in evolution, billions of things have to die in order to make the process work. One animal evolves a little better than the rest; the rest of them have to die or the new improved genes are swamped back into the gene code, they're lost. But there are people who teach, you know, theistic evolution.

The Bible says God's way is perfect. He made it right the first time. So I do not believe God would use evolution to get us here, for several reasons. I think they are talking about a different God, ok. This is not the character of the God of the Bible. The God of the Bible doesn't do things that way, ok. The Bible says He made everything “by His Word” (Heb. 11:3), and it was perfect, and “He made it all in six days.” The Bible's real clear, “and He rested on the seventh day.” (Ex. 20:11) And He “finished His works from the foundation of the world.” (Heb. 4:3) So the Bible clearly teaches six days of Creation, rested The Seventh Day. Over and over it calls it the seventh day (Heb. 4:4, Gen 2:2), and the Bible says real clearly that “man brought death into the world” (Rom. 5:12, I Cor. 15:21-22). If theistic evolution is true, then death brought man into the world. Or death was here before man arrived, and the Bible says clearly man brought death into the world. And the Bible says “we were made in God's image” (Gen. 1:26-27). So if the original created man was some kind of, you know, animal that slowly evolved, then what does God look like? You know, is He a baboon?

Everything about evolution is backwards to the Bible. Every single thing. Nothing matches. You can look at the chart there, and see, everything is backwards. The Bible says: “Man brought death into the world.” Evolution says: “Death brought man into the world.” The Bible says: “God created man.” Evolution says: “Man created God.”

Does evolution match the Bible? Absolutely not! It is a heresy to teach that God used evolution, and a heresy is something against the clear teaching of Scripture. And I think there are people who are heretics today. [Webster 1828 def.

] I debated Hugh Ross, Reasons to Believe. He's written several books. I've got several of them right here: Creator and the Cosmos, Creation and Time, The Genesis Solution. He's a very nice man, a very smart man and probably sincere, and probably really honestly loves the Lord in His own way. I do think he has a different God than I do, and I suspect that he probably is not a Christian in the Biblical sense. He's got a mental acceptance of Christ, but not repentance and faith. That's just my theory.

These four things right here; ham, chicken, ribs, and turkey. What do they all have in common? Well, they're all meats, they're all edible, and they all have bones in them. You have to learn early in life to eat the meat and spit out the bones, or you're going to choke on something, ok. That's just the way life is. If you don't learn that as a kid, you are going to die pretty early. And there are some good things you can learn, even from the heretics. They teach things, they've got some really good teaching in there. But you'd better spit out the bones. When I debated Hugh Ross, I asked him all kinds of questions, and we've got the whole thing. The John Ankerberg Show taped it for us. And John Ankerberg now is a believer that the earth is billions of years old. And he is a friend of mine, nice guy, but I think that is pure heresy to teach that.

In Ross's book Genesis Solution, right here, here's his testimony. He was a teenager reading through the Bible. He said: “Eighteen months later, I arrived at Revelation 22. (In other words: “I finished the Bible.”) During those months, I read every passage and failed to discover anything I could honestly label as an error or contradiction. Some parts I had trouble understanding, but that didn't bother me. I understood enough, just as I understood enough physics and astronomy to trust what I was learning in my university courses.” He was studying astronomy, and he became an astronomer in Canada, ok, a PhD in astronomy. Now at the bottom he says: “With some more delays and more than a little wrestling with personal pride, I did make a transfer of trust inviting God, the Creator of the vast cosmos, to be my God, the Master of my destiny, through Jesus Christ, His Son.”

Now does that mean he got saved? I don't know. It looks to me, from what he still believes that he has a mental acceptance of Christ. He is like I would consider a Catholic bishop or pope who probably is very sincere, very dedicated, and just simply doesn't understand repentance and faith. This is more of a mental acceptance rather than a real salvation experience, I think. I hope I'm wrong.

I don't know who's going to heaven and who's not. I'm not saying he's going to hell. But I suspect he's not a Christian in the Biblical sense, ok. I have a whole series. I debated Hugh Ross for three hours, and then we made a variety of post-debate comments, and that's all on available on our video series about the Hugh Ross debate. There's a great book by Jonathan Sarfati about Hugh Ross's heresies. Now Sarfati is a brilliant guy. He lives in Australia, and I love reading his stuff. I think he's wrong on a couple of things, you know. Certainly, his thinking about the King James is wrong, but we can deal with that some other time.

It's possible to believe in God and still not be saved. James 2:19 says: “...the devils believe, and tremble.” They believe, but they are not saved. They have a head knowledge, but not a heart knowledge. Matthew 7 (v. 20): “Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter the kingdom of heaven,” ok. Not everybody who claims they're a Christian, really is. Ok, what about some of the other religions? I think theistic evolution probably would be a false religion as opposed to a branch of Christianity. But there are quite a few other religions.

I want to cover a lot of this on our College Class, so I am going to skip most things for now. I won't cover them all now, just a few of the highlights. But in our College Class in the 200-series we will cover a lot of other religions. I mean there are a lot of religions out there.

Who's right? Well, obviously, the independent Baptists are right, you know. When you get done climbing the mountain of truth, that's, you know, find that they are sitting there all along. Did you figure that out yet, Derrick? That the independent Baptists are the ones that are right? You are not there yet, you are still climbing? Still climbing, ok. I'm not against other religions, I'm simply for truth and against error. And if the Catholics teach something that is right, I'll say: “Yea, you're right.” If my mother teaches something that is right or wrong, I'll say: “Yea, that's right, that's wrong.” You don't ever want to get committed to a denomination or committed to any one thing other than truth. So I'm for truth, and against error. And the Bible says in Ephesians that you have to be careful about being “carried away with every wind of doctrine.”

When religions differ on things, somebody must be wrong. Of course maybe they're both wrong, but at least one of them has to be wrong, ok, if there is a difference. So, “He that cometh first in his own cause seemeth to be just,” it says in Proverbs. And a young person, the first time they hear somebody talk about a religion, they say: “Oh well, that sounds good.” Well you'd better search it out.

I remember the first time I heard the teachings of the Jehovah's Witnesses. I was a brand new Christian. I got reading some of their stuff and said: “Wow, that seems right,” till I studied it: “Wow, that's not right.” See that's the danger for any young person can be trapped, because the first time you hear something: “Oh wow, that sounds good.” You'd better really search it out. We had, here on staff, one of the guys had a book that he was giving out, you know, to everybody, and it sounded really good. But it was written by some of the heretics of the first century. I said: “Whoa, you'd better really study this out.” It seems right at first until you say: “Oh, wait a moment. Is that true?” It's interesting, if you read Genesis 27 (v. 22-23), Jacob and Esau, you know, how Jacob tricked his father. The father went by the feeling instead of by the word. He said: “You sound like Jacob, but you feel like Esau. So he gave him Esau's blessing.” The reason he got tricked is precisely because he went by the feeling. The Mormons will tell you they know they're right, because when they prayed about Mormonism, they got a burning in the bosom. They got a feeling of “Oh, wow, this feels right.” Well, just kneeling down and praying to anything will give you that burning feeling. Ah, just the reverence of kneeling down and praying to this rock doesn't mean it's right, ok. And that's their whole thinking. It's all based on feeling. A lot of the charismatics do the same stuff. You know, they have this feeling. “Oh, wow, I just feel like I should do this.” We have a demonstration in the science center about that. You blindfold the person on the chair that spins. Any of you ever done that thing? Sit down there and you're blindfolded, and they spin you around. Within 30 seconds, you feel like you're not spinning; even though you still are. And then when you stop the person, they feel like they're turning the other way, even though they're not turning at all. And that's how pilots crash their planes, because they go by their feelings and not by “What does the gauge say?” So, I am not anti any other religion. I'm simply for truth, and for the Bible, and against error. So keep that in mind. And you got to be careful about going on feelings.

“What about the Sabbath?” Well, I get asked probably every week. I get books sent to me. I've got a whole section of our library by probably every book ever written by any Seventh Day Adventist. And they're all trying to convert me over to being a Seventh Day Adventist. And they send me all kinds of stuff and don't send me any more. I've already got them all, ok. I don't need any more. I've got lots of books, all the books by Ellen G. White, E. G. White, who wrote, and who was the prophetess of the Seventh Day Adventist Church. I'm not anti-Seventh Day Adventist. I've spoken at some of their churches. And there's a lot of good folks, who love the Lord, are genuinely saved, going to heaven, as much as I am.

Well, what is the truth about the Sabbath? Are we supposed to, you know, rest on the seventh day? Is that the day of worship? Or the day of rest? Or what is the truth about the Sabbath? Well, Nehemiah chapter 9 (v. 13-14), it says: “Thou camest down upon Mount Sinai and spakest with them from heaven and gavest them right judgments, true laws, good statutes, and madest known unto them Thy holy Sabbath.” Wait a minute, this is Nehemiah talking about the time Moses received the Sabbath from God. That's 2,500 years after the creation. See, I don't have Moses even on that chart, but 2,500 years after the creation, God made the Sabbath known to Moses. You mean for 2,500 years, for more than a third of human history, nobody kept this? Apparently so. He revealed it to Moses.

He said in Exodus 16 (v. 29): “See that the Lord hath given you the seventh day. Every man abide in his place. Don't go out of your house on the Sabbath Day.” Well, if that's really one of the laws for the Sabbath, then you can't have a Seventh Day Church that meets someplace, because everybody's going out of their house to get there, right? You talk about a “Sabbath Day's journey” in Acts, chapter 1 (v. 12). Jesus traveled on the Sabbath, ok. What is he doing out of his house? The Bible says: “Remember the Sabbath..., in it thou shall not do any work. Don't you do it, nor your son, nor your maid servant, nor the stranger.” (Ex. 20:8-10) Not only can you not work, you can't make anybody else work. Which means, if you really want to honor and obey the Sabbath according to Scripture, you cannot work, and you can't make anybody else work, which means you cannot use any utilities, because if you are using the city water, the city lights, the city gas, you're making somebody work. If you're watching TV, you're making somebody work on the Sabbath. If you go out to eat, you're making somebody work. You can't do that. So, he rested the seventh day. The Bible says if they “worked on the seventh day,” Exodus 31 (v. 14-15) they were to “be put to death.” So you got to kill people that work on the Sabbath. It's punishable by death.

Exodus 31 (v. 12-13, 16-17) is a key passage on this. “The Lord said unto Moses, Speak thou unto the children of Israel, saying, my Sabbaths ye shall keep; it is a sign between me and you; the children of Israel shall keep the Sabbath.” I mean it's right there in Exodus 31. It's pretty clear, the Sabbath was for the children of Israel. I'm Norwegian. God made some strange rules for the children of Israel, because they were to be a peculiar people. People were to look at them and say: “Wow, that's strange. What's different about you guys?” And they were to be a testimony to the world. But he didn't command all the world to keep this. He said the children of Israel shall keep the Sabbath. So it's pretty clear in Exodus 31. Exodus 35 (v. 3) says: “Ye shall kindle no fire...,” which means you couldn't start your car. Don't they run on internal combustion? You know, you're starting a fire, so if you really want to keep the Sabbath, you can enjoy yourself. I've never met anybody, anybody who keeps the Sabbath, never met one person, ok. “The elders of Israel,” He said in Ezekiel 20 (v. 3), He says: “I gave them my Sabbath to be a sign between me and them.” (Ez. 20:12) The Sabbath is for the children of Israel, again it tells us in Ezekiel, chapter 20.

“Jesus was on the Sabbath Day going through the corn. He plucked the corn, because they were hungry, and then they ate it.” (Matt. 12:1) First of all, what's He doing out of His house? And what's He doing working on the Sabbath Day? Did He not keep it? The Bible says in Mark chapter 2: “The Pharisees said, Why do you do that on the Sabbath that which is not lawful? ... And He said that Sabbath was made for man, not man made for the Sabbath.” What's He doing out of His house and what's He doing working on the Sabbath? Jesus said in Mark 3 (v. 4-5): “It's lawful to do good on the Sabbath Day, to save life, and they got angry at Him for His answer.” And people today get angry at me, because I don't keep what their idea of the Sabbath is. I say: “Look, I keep every day as holy.” I work seven days a week for the Lord. My whole life is soaked up into God's work. I do nothing else. This is it. Some people say: “Do you keep the Sabbath?” Oh yeah, and Monday and Tuesday and Wednesday. I keep them all, yes, I keep them all, ok. Jesus went outside on the Sabbath. He took His disciples with Him. What's He doing making them sin? He picked corn, He healed people. He got angry at the hypocrites, He's not resting and being refreshed, that's for sure. He's getting angry at the hypocrites on the Sabbath. (Mark 2:23.28, Mark 6, Luke 6)

There's a book that I don't know that I can highly recommend. But I recommend it, if you can read past Peter Ruckman's rude, crude, crass, mean-spirited technique of writing. Adam, you know all about that. He's got some brilliant logic in here. It's $2.00 for the book. We offer it. We don't sell it on the web site. We don't advertise it, but if you want more info, he's got brilliant logic, and real abrasive. I think unnecessarily so. But it's good logic on why he's not a Seventh Day Adventist. If you want to get that, you can get it. So if you want to keep the Sabbath, you just enjoy yourself.

But it's interesting in Romans 13 (v. 8-10), he listed some of the commandments: “Owe no man anything but to love one another. For this, thou shalt not commit adultery, thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not steal, thou shalt not bear false witness, thou shalt not covet. And if there be any other commandment (like the Sabbath), it is briefly comprehended in this saying, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.” He didn't list the Sabbath here in Romans 13. “The first day of the week, ...the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews.” (John 20:19) And I know there is arguments back and forth of which day we're supposed to meet on. I don't care, ok.

Most churches meet on Sunday. I don't think they call it a day of worship, though some do. It's the day that they meet. The Sabbath was not designed to be a day of worship, it was designed to be a day of rest. You worship God all seven days, you rest one, that's all. If you want to rest Saturday, that's fine. So the first day of the week the disciples came together to break bread. It's a New Testament tradition that they met on the first day of the week. (I Corinthians 16 (v. 2): “On the first day of the week let everybody lay by in store, come bring your tithes and offerings,” and that's when most churches meet, ok. “Let no man judge you in meat or drink or holy days or the Sabbath.” Don't let anybody tell you you are wrong on that.

Ok, people say: “Well, didn't the pope accept evolution?” Yes, they have several times. The popes have accepted evolution, and many people have gotten upset. There have been at least three or four, I think, articles about the popes have accepted evolution as a fact.

This Catholic nun saids: “People who believe this creation myth which is unscientific and not in the Bible, despite what they say, haven't really studied theology.”

I don't know how a nun can be that dumb. If you don't think the creation story is in the Bible, what is she reading? Ok.

By the way, if you want to do some interesting study, read the 10 Commandments in Exodus chapter 20 (Ex. 20:1-17, Deut. 5:6-21). And then go to any Catholic church and say: “Hey, do you have the 10 Commandments?” - “Oh yeah,” and they'll give you a copy of them. They left out the second one about don't make a graven image. Their 10 Commandments skip Commandment number 2. And they take commandment number 10 and split it into two commandments to make nine and ten. “Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife; thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house;” which really was one commandment. Why wouldn't they want the real one in there that says don't make a graven image? Because their churches are full of graven images, ok.

So, back in the 1400s, if you committed certain sins, you could pay money to the priest and be absolved, get your sins forgiven. Here is the list of what they had to pay to get out of their sin:

That's..., what's a way to describe that? Stupid? Is that the best way to describe that? Ok. I'm not anti-Catholic, ok. I'm for truth; I'm against error. Thát is error to say that paying money pays for your sins. And it's error to say burning a candle pays for your sins. And it's error to say to the priest: “Father I have sinned, you know, and would you please absolve me of my sins.” That's error. The Bible says the blood of Jesus Christ cleanseth us from all sin – nothing else. So I'm not anti-Catholic. I'm simply for truth and against error. Keep that thought in mind.

Here is a picture of the pope kissing the Koran. The Catholic Catechism in our library out here. You can read it for yourself, some of the things they believe are pretty interesting. They say in the Catholic Catechism 841: “The Church's relationship with the Muslims,” is “The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, ...the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God...”

There is an excellent little bitty comic book called The Prophet you can get from our ministry, it's like $2.00 or something like that, by Jack Chick. He goes through the history of the Muslim Church and how they started. Very few people realize it was the Catholics that started Islam. They started the whole religion purposely to try to get the Holy Land back for the Catholics. They build up the Islam, they funded Mohammed, they trained him, they send a Catholic nun out of the monastery. They said: “We want you to come out of your convent. Go find a young promising Muslim, marry him, and train him to raise up an army of Arabs to go take back the Holy Land for the Mother Church.” Quite an interesting story if you want to read about that. It started to work but then it failed because the Islam got so big. They said: “Well, forget you are a Catholic, it is not what we want.” And nowadays Muslims, which is now 10-20% of the world population, Islam; I don't think most of them know that they really started of as a front for the Catholic Church.

So let's cover just a little bit on Muslims. Ask the Muslims: “How do you know Mohammed was a prophet?” They'll say: “Well, he had a mole on his back.” Holy moley... That's how you know he was a prophet, because he's got a mole on his back? I've got a mole on my back; got one right here on my cheek. Man, I must be a double prophet. I've got two moles. Albergy, do you got any moles? Yes..., wow, let's get down worship Albergy. In one of the Muslim verses, it says Mohammed asks the question: “When I am dead and buried in the ground and go back to dust, is that all? What will happen to me?”

Mohammed himself had no clue if he was going to heaven. This verse in the Koran says: “When he reached the setting of the sun, he found it set in a pond of murky water.”

Would that be scientifically accurate to say that the sun sets in a pond of murky water? No, I would say the earth turns around and the sun, you know, appears to go around the earth. This is not scientifically accurate. The Koran has loads of scientific errors. It's not a holy book.

“Allah commands any person who leaves Islam or encourages others to do so, should be seized and slain.”

There are over 100 commands in the Koran to kill people who won't convert. Anybody who won't convert has to be killed. And I see Bush and these guys saying, you know, we're trying to bring democracy in Iraq. The problem with Iraq is their religion. They are being taught every couple days in the synagogue you've got to kill anybody who won't convert. And there probably are millions of Muslims who don't like this, and they don't want to do that, but in order to be a good Muslim, you have to kill anybody else who won't become Muslim. That's the rules, ok. Islam is a religion where God requires you to send your son to die for him. The Bible is where God sent His Son to die for you. Exactly the opposite, ok.

If you study the history of Jerusalem and the problems with Islam, it's phenomenal. Keep in mind they both come from the two sons of Abraham. Abraham, if he wouldn't have gone down to Egypt, and got that Egyptian girl, and had that one baby, Ishmael, we wouldn't have this whole problem, because all the Arabs come from Ishmael. And the price of gas would not be over two bucks if it hadn't been for Abraham and Hagar. It would probably be more if the Jews had control of all of it; they like money too.

The Romans and Byzantines, you know, trampled the city of Jerusalem. Chuck Missler [www.khouse.org] has all kinds of stuff on Jerusalem and the problems they've had with Islam over the years. It's been “trampled down by the Gentiles.” (Luke 21:24) The Bible says: “I will make Jerusalem a cup of trembling unto all people.” (Zech. 12:2) We've got a ton of stuff in the College Class CSE 200 series about Islam.

One of the books we sell in our bookstore, (and I don't get off into every single religion there is, but Islam is a growing powerful religion, and you need to study it) is this little booklet: Who is this Allah? On page 27 he says: “The last hour will not come before the Muslims fight the Jews and the Muslims kill them.” That's their plan. “The purest joy in Islam is to kill and be killed for Allah.”

After killing tens of thousands of non-Muslims in Iran, Ayatollah Khomeini said: “In Persia no people have been killed so far - only beasts!” Because he thought, they're not Muslims, so they're not really people.

Dr. Don Boys, my friend up in Chatanooga, Tennessee area has written a great book called Islam: America's Trojan Horse. His website's fabulous too. CST (common sense today) cstnews.com. You can read more about Islam. He's got a lot of heat really, received some flack for writing the book, ok.

It is phenomenal the stuff that the Mormons believe. Joseph Smith forged the book. Somebody else had taken a book to the printer to get printed. It was a Baptist who got mad at his church and he wrote story about..., it was a novel actually. Well, Joseph Smith apparently got that, the draft copy. We have on CD available here, if you want to get it, the actual photocopies of the pages that he took to the printer, and said: “This is what I want printed.” Supposed to be the most perfect book on earth. He said he got these special seer stones that he would put these golden plates, that he got from the angel, Moroni. He put them in a hat, he'd look in there with the seer stone, and he had a curtain beside him, and he would read to his friend, Hiram, I believe it was, who wrote down everything. When he got done writing all this through the curtain..., Hiram never got ever to see the golden plates. Nobody ever got to see the golden plates, nobody, except Joseph. He told people about them, ok. There were no golden plates. But he said he translated it by looking through this special seer stone, because it was written in ancient Egyptian hieroglyphics. But he was reading the text of this book that he stole from the printer, apparently, ok. And when he got all done writing it, they took it to the printer to get printed. They said it's the most perfect book ever written, it came straight from God. There are thousands and thousands and thousands of mistakes in it and corrections. If you want to see the actual one, call our office. We'll have the CD available. I got it in my office stacked up. Probably we can reproduce those, on Mormonism. So I'm not anti-Mormon. I'm for truth and against error and what they teach is error. We've got a ton of stuff on Mormonism if you want to read it.

Lucy Mack Smith said: “Joseph was running through the woods at the top of his speed for three miles with the gold plates tucked under his arm. And three people came out and he had to knock three different people down.”

While he's running with these plates, full blast with the plates under his arm, golden plates, three people attacked him, he knocked them down with one hand and kept running to the house. The size of the golden plates, this is a picture of what they would have been, this is the one the Tanner's have in their museum, of the golden plates of the size that Joseph Smith said they were. This is out of lead, now gold is a lot heavier than lead. The golden plates, that size; the dimensions were given several times, and Joseph Smith told how wide they were, etcetera; they would weigh 230 pounds (100 kg). “Paul, you weightlift a lot. Can you run with 230 pounds under one arm?” - “No.” They have a competition in New York every year, I forget what they call it, but they bring in all the body builders and huge muscle guys in and say: “Let's see who can run three miles (5 km) carrying these plates under their arm.” They've got a huge prize for anybody who can do it. The farthest anybody's made it, with the plates under one arm, is 75 feet (22 m). That's walking carrying 230 pounds under one arm. Good luck, ok. I don't buy that story that Joseph Smith told. I think he's lying, ok.

The book Mormonism, the Way that Seemeth Right is mostly just questions. It's here..., here we go. Now I would differ with these guys on several things, ok. I am not promoting everything they believe. But this book is well done. It is just simply questions to ask Mormons. Like:

There are a couple of great DVD's out now called, The Bible versus the Book of Mormon and DNA versus the book of Mormon. Did you see those Jonathan? Oh, they're in the library, if you want to check those out, ok.

So, if you want to study Mormonism, I'd recommend those 2 DVDs that just came out in 2005, about the serious problems with the book of Mormon. And again, there are millions, I think like 10 million people, now following Mormonism. Some very good, sincere, honest, intelligent people who have just been absolutely duped, deceived, tricked, lied to.

Mormonism is not a Christian religion. It's a cult in every sense of the word. There are all kinds of errors in what they teach. We'll cover more about that in our College Class.

“What about Jehovah's Witnesses?” Well, we could spend two days on Jehovah's Witnesses. I just recommend you get the book, Answers to my Jehovah's Witness Friends. There are other ministries that deal just with this religion. Here's a good little pamphlet you can get, Fifteen Reasons Why I Cannot be a Jehovah's Witness [by Robert B. Mignard]. Here's the address on the screen, by www.MacGregorMinistries.org. There are people who have, you know, God has laid it on their heart to witness to the Jehovah's Witnesses. They are very sincere, really duped. One of the craziest religions on the planet has got to be Jehovah's Witness.

As I go speak on creation and evolution, and especially when I do debates, there is always somebody during Q & A time at the university that says: “There are contradictions in the Bible.”

As a brand new Christian, age 16, I went to the Methodist church camp one more time. I'd started going to the Baptist church. At the Methodist church camp where I had been going before, the counselor sat us boys down on the bed and said: “Hey guys, who are you, you know, how old are you, where do you live, etc.” And we told him our names, and we were all sitting around on the bunks there. And he said: “Well, my name is (whatever it was) George or something.” He said: “ I'm a student at University of Illinois, and I want you to know I'm a humanist.” I didn't know what a humanist was, so I said: “Does that mean you believe in humans?” He said: “Well, I do believe in humans, but no, that's not what that means.” I said: “Well, do you believe the Bible?” He said: “Well, the Bible is a good book, but it has lots of errors.” Now I had only been saved for a few months, but I was smart enough to know, because my Baptist preacher told me, that if anybody ever says the Bible is full of errors, hand him your Bible and say: “Show me one.” So I handed him my Bible and said: “Well, show me one.” He said: “I'll be glad to.” Here's what he showed me. Genesis, chapter one, the Bible says pretty clearly in chapter one: “The earth brought forth grass and herb yielding seed and fruit trees, this happened on the third day.” (Gen. 1:12-13) The counselor said: “Kent, when did God make the trees?” I said: “Day three.” He said: “Alright, verse 20. Day five: ‘Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth.’” He said: “Kent, when did He make the birds?” I said: “Day five.” He said: “What did he make the birds out of?” I said: “Well, it looks like he made them out of the water.” - “Correct, He made Adam out of the dirt; He made Eve out of the rib; made the birds out of the water.” That's what it says, ok. Verse 24: “Let the earth bring forth the living creature...” He said: “Now Kent, what did God make the creatures out of?” I said: “He made them out of the earth, He made the birds out of the water, He made the animals out of the dirt, and then He made man.” He said: “That's chapter one. Now look at chapter two.” “And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground. And the Lord God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed. And the Lord God made grow every tree.” (Gen. 2:7-9) And he said: “Wait, wait, wait! I thought the trees were made on day three and man on day six. Here we have the man made and then the trees after man. Which is correct, were the trees made before man or after man?”

Have you ever been in an argument with somebody and you knew you were losing? You married guys know about that. You just know, hey, I'm losing this argument. Might as well stop right now, alright. You might as well just quit. Verse 18: “The Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air.” Oh, here we got two problems.

You've got the animals made after man, and you've got the birds made after man, and the birds are made out of the ground instead of out of the water. He said: “Kent, the Bible's a good book, but it's got lots of contradictions. Just in the first two chapters. Did chapter one say grass, plants, trees made on day three? Chapter two has plants and trees made after man on day 6. Chapter one has birds made out of the water on day 5. Chapter two has birds made out of the ground on day 6. Chapter one has animals made before man; chapter two has animals made after man.” He said: “The Bible is a good book, but it's not God's Word.”

I'd only been saved a couple of months and I was crushed in my faith. It seems to happen to every young Christian. Satan sends somebody along to destroy their faith and get them derailed. Well, that got me, I'll tell you what. The rest of that week at camp, I was a defeated young Christian.

Oh, I wish I could find that guy today. I could answer his question now, ok. Here's what happened. On the third day, God made the plants, the grass, plants, and trees. On the fifth day He made the birds out of the water. On the sixth day, He made the animals, and then He made man. And then He made the garden and put man in the garden. Now all of chapter two is describing what happened in the garden of Eden only. It's not describing the whole world, just the garden. God made more trees, and there are only the two kinds; the trees that are good for food and the trees that are good to the sight, for the beautiful garden. The rest of the world is already full of trees. He's describing what happened in the garden. And then He made one more of each animal, so that Adam could name them and select a wife. And so while Adam is standing there, up out of the ground is coming one more of each animal. Now the rest of the world is already full of animals. This is just for Adam to see God do it and to make a wife, to create a wife; to select a wife. Up comes a giraffe, he says: “Giraffe, no thanks. Hippopotamus, no thanks. Elephant, no thanks. Hamster, no thanks.” You know, one by one, Adam names all the animals and rejects them as a wife. And then the Lord says: “Adam, go to sleep, son, I've got a surprise for you when you wake up.” He put Adam to sleep, took one rib, and made the world's first loud speaker, ah I mean woman, ok. And so this is only describing what's happening in the garden.

Now, it's interesting if you look at the sequence here. Adam actually saw God create things. Eve never saw that. Suppose God had made Adam last. Satan could walk in and say: “Adam, how do you like this beautiful garden I made?” And Adam would have doubts the rest of his life. Boy, who really made this? I don't know. I trust you God, but I don't know. There's no way he could know. Now the fact is, Eve never saw God create anything. So who did Satan go to to trick? Eve, the weaker vessel, I Timothy says. So that's what happened. There are no contradictions in the Bible. Genesis chapter one and chapter two are both fine. The Bible says in I Timothy (2:13-14): “Adam was first formed, then Eve and Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.” Adam knew full well what he was doing. When she walked up and handed him that banana, or whatever it was. They say it was an apple. I don't know. We don't know. It was a fruit, ok. He said: “Oh brother, Eve, you blew it.” He looked at that. He knew if I don't become sin for her, God's going to have to kill her. I think Adam, knowing full well what he was doing, voluntarily took that fruit, ate it, and said: “God, whatever you do to her, you've got to do it to me too.” That's what I think, just like Jesus Christ voluntarily became sin for us, so that He could save us, and we could become the Bride of Christ. That'll preach.

As a young Christian, I was reading my Bible and came across II Chronicles 4, and it says: “Solomon made a great sea of 10 cubits (15 feet; 4.5 m) from brim to brim, and 5 cubits (7 feet, 2.2 m) the height thereof; and a line of 30 cubits (45 feet; 10.5 m) did compass it about.” I read that, I set my Bible down on my bed, and I said: “Lord, this is wrong. If it's 10 cubits across, it's not 30 cubits around.” Anybody that has studied mathematics knows, that to find the circumference of a circle, it's diameter times pi (3.14159265). [C = D x π)] I said it should not be 30 cubits around. It should be; 31.4159 cubits around. Why did he say 30 cubits around? I thought there was an error in the Bible, and I was gonna quit Christianity. And I read the passage, and read it, and read it, and read it and said: “Wait a minute, wait, I'm missing something here.” Verse five says: “...it was an handbreadth thick...,” that's a lot of brass, that thick, “...and the brim of it was like the work of the brim of a cup.”

Either theory would probably solve the problem. No, there are no contradictions.

I Kings says: “Solomon made this molten sea that held 2,000 baths.” A ‘bath’ is about 8 gallons (30 l). Yet II Chronicles says it held 3,000 baths. Well, was it 2,000 baths or 3,000 baths? By the way, 3,000 baths, 24,000 gallons, is a small to mid-size swimming pool, ok. It's the kind you put in your backyard; that's a 24,000 gallon pool. That's a lot of water or oil or whatever they're going to put in this thing. Well, II Chronicles says it held 3,000 baths. I Kings says it contained 2,000 baths. Is that a contradiction? No, it's not full. It's two-thirds full, ok. It could hold 3,000, but it's only got 2,000 in it.

“How many horses did Solomon have?” This is a contradiction the atheists always bring up. I Kings says: “Solomon had 40,000 stalls of horses for his chariots, and 12,000 horsemen.” II Chronicles says: “Solomon had 4,000 stalls for horses and chariots and 12,000 horsemen.” Well, which is it 40,000 or 4,000?

Now we sell on our website the Defender's Bible by Dr. Henry Morris. I love Henry Morris and the Defender's Bible. He's a good personal friend of mine and his son, John Morris, is a good personal friend of mine. I love what they're doing. In the Defender's Bible, he's got a footnote right here that says that this is a copyist error. He says: “This number is given as 4,000 in II Chronicles. This is best explained as a copyist error.” Well, I read that, and I wrote a letter to Henry Morris and said: “Brother, I love you and I sell your Bible, but I'm going to have to put a disclaimer in the front page. You have a mistake, actually quite a few mistakes in your footnotes.” And so I have a one-page disclaimer that goes with the Defender's Bible that we sell. They've got a stack of them in shipping, if you want to read it disclaimer, that says: “We love Henry Morris. He's got many good notes in here, but like anything, you've got to eat the meat and spit out the bones. He's wrong about this one. There is not a copyist error; both of those verses are absolutely fine.”

Read them carefully. “Solomon had 40,000 stalls of horses for his chariots.” Does that tell me how many chariots he had? No, that tells me how many horses he had for the chariots, right. II Chronicles: “And Solomon had 4,000 stalls for horses and chariots.” Oh, now that's different. Apparently he had stalls for to keep horses and chariots, and he had other stalls just for the horses for the chariots. Well, if they had 40,000 stalls of horses for the chariots, and he had 4,000 stalls for horses and chariots, they had 10 horses per chariot. Not a contradiction at all. King James got it exactly correct; 10 horses per chariot. They would never put one horse per chariot. I mean, one arrow takes out the whole tank. They had chariot teams, actually. NIV [New International Version] got it wrong! New American Standard got it right. I collect other Bible versions. I've got a bunch of them here. New Revised Standard got it wrong.

How many men did David kill; 700 or 7,000? Well, look at the passages carefully. “The Syrians fled before Israel and David slew the men of 700 chariots of the Syrians.” I Chronicles: “David slew of the Syrians 7,000 men which fought in chariots.” Well, which is it? 700 or 7,000? Read it carefully. Again, Henry Morris has a footnote here that says this is a copyist error. No, I'm sorry, Henry, it is not a copyist error. Both verses are fine.

Look at them carefully. If he slew the men of 700 chariots and he slew 7,000 men which fought in chariots, what does that mean? 10 men per chariot. They had 10 men, and 10 horses for each chariot. They had chariot teams. You go out and you fight for awhile; you come back; you swap out. You see, the chariot does not get tired. The men and horses get tired, and the chariot is your tank. You don't want to lose that thing. So if somebody gets wounded, hurt, bring them back, swap out. They had chariot teams. NIV got it wrong: “he killed 700 of their charioteers” and “7,000 of their charioteers.” There's a clear contradiction.

Most of the new Bible versions that I'm aware of have some real serious contradictions built in. I am not aware of any in the King James.

The Bible says in Genesis 10: “These are the sons of Shem, after their families, after their tongues.” So the languages are divided in Genesis chapter 10. But when you read chapter 11, it says: “the whole earth was of one language.” When I debated Farrel Till, who's the editor of an atheist magazine up in Illinois, he said: “Oh, the Bible's got a contradiction. Chapter 10 says the languages were divided up, and chapter 11 says the whole world's of one language. See, the Bible is wrong.”

Farrel, chapter 11 is recapping, like giving a headline. Suppose you saw the headlines in the paper: “Ten children killed in school bus accident.” Then you start reading the article: “The bus was driving down Highway 12,” and you say: “Wait, I thought, I thought they had a wreck.” Yeah, the headline is summarizing the story, now they're going back and giving the details. Chapter 10 summarizes the story and chapter 11's going through and giving some of the details. That's not a contradiction!

Here's another supposed contradiction. How many died in the plague? Numbers 25 says: “Those that died in the plague were 24,000.” When you read the story in I Corinthians 10:8, it says: “...there fell in one day 23,000.” Well, which is it? 24,000 died in the plague, according to Numbers, or is it 23,000 died in the plague?

Again, read it carefully, no contradiction. How many died in the plague? 24,000. How many died in one day? 23,000. Well, 1,000 others also died, from the same plague. It's not a contradiction at all. So we go through in our College Class quite a few of the supposed contradictions in the Bible. If you think there are some, you can contact our office or on our radio program. We have lots of time. We can take an hour and a half questions every day on supposed contradictions in the Bible or questions on creation or evolution.

Continued on Part 7e