The following article is a transcript from a live presentation given by Dr.
Howard Loree (PhD, Medical Engineering – Harvard / MIT)

June 30, 1998

Howard M. Loree II, Ph.D. http://www.CEECGOD.com hmloree@ix.netcom.com

Who I am:

Background and training in applied science, both theoretical and experimental,
and in design.

Firmly grounded in the scientific method: objective measurement of phenomena,
experimentation, and the making of repeatable observations in a controlled setting.

Trained to organize and present my conclusions in a manner that is consistent,
logical, and defensible.

Who I am not:

I am not a theologian , philosopher, or an astrophysicist.? In the words of
C.S. Lewis "Any theologian will see easily enough what, and how little, I have
read."

What I believe:

I believe in the God of the Bible, that the Bible is his inspired word, and
that Jesus Christ is his son

?I have had many doubts and questions about God, and many posed to me by others.

?Rather than ignoring these questions, I have pursued answers to them. I have
carefully studied the arguments and evidences for and against the Christian
position.

I have remained a Christian because I have always found that position to be
consistent, logical, and defensible.

My purpose:

??????????????? 1. To define the real issues concerning God’s existence.
??????????????? 2. To address a few of the best arguments against the reality of God.
??????????????? 3. To present a few of the best arguments for the reality of God.
??????????????? 4. To present evidence for the authenticity of the Bible.
??????????????? 5. To describe the personality of the God of the Bible.
??????????????? 6. To motivate you to actively seek a relationship with God.

?In our audience today, many different religious and philosophical points of
view are represented.I appreciate all of your efforts to be here today and respect
your each of your points of view. You may, however, feel challenged when I question
some of the assumptions you have made in reaching your point of view. Please don?t
take that as a personal attack. I am not saying you are a bad person or condemning
you. All I am saying is that you may need to reconsider why you believe what
you believe in light of the available theological, philosophical, and scientific
evidence. Although time prohibits an open question and answer period, I am happy
to meet with you after the?? talk to address any questions or concerns that
you may have. If I can?t answer your question, I will try to research it and
get back in touch with you.

What are you?

Atheist: Someone who believes beyond the shadow of a doubt there is no? God

Agnostic: Someone who is unsure whether there is a God or not, believing? either

??????????????? 1.? ?????????
There may or may not be a God, they just have not discovered his

?existence yet if he does exist; or
??????????????? 2.? ?????????
They do not know if there is a God or not and believe no one can ever? know.

Deist: Someone who believes there is a God.

Christian: Someone who believes in and obeys the God of the Bible and? Jesus
his Son.
?

Atheism is an "anti" position. The atheist says that there is no possibility
beyond his limited knowledge for God to exist. It is an illogical position because
he would need to have all knowledge? (be God?) to prove it. The first type of
agnostic could have a noble heart, but he would have to make some effort to??
consider the available evidence. The second type of agnostic is just a thinly
disguised atheist. If there is a God, then certainly? he would be powerful enough
to reveal himself to us.
?

Defining the Real Issues Concerning God’s Existence

1. Science vs. Religion
?"I want to know how God created this world. I am not interested in this or
that? phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know his
thoughts; the rest? are details."

?– Albert Einstein

Remarkable! A great physicist, perhaps the greatest, expressing the belief that
God created the world. Aren’t science and a belief in God incompatible? No,
they are not. In fact, here is a list of various branches of science founded
by outstanding Bible-believing scientists (1):

Famous Bible-Believing Scientists Who Founded?

Bacteriology Louis Pasteur

Calculus and Dynamics Sir Isaac Newton

Celestial Mechanics Johannes Kepler

Electrodynamics James Clerk Maxwell

Electromagnetics Michael Faraday

Gas Dynamics Robert Boyle

Genetics Gregor Mendel
?

Science and religion can be friends!

What has science told us?

Universe began 15 billion years ago

Earth formed 4.5 billion years ago

Life began 3.5 billion years ago

Homo Sapiens formed 450,000 years ago
?

Most people today accept these "when" answers.

However, the questions of exactly how and why the universe and life began are
still being debated.

2. Atheism vs. Creationism

There has been a lot of confusion stirred up by groups presuming to speak for
all scientists or for all Bible-believing Christians. We hear a lot in the popular
press about the atheist and creationist positions. Battles rage on TV talk shows
and in congressional school prayer debates. But not every scientist is an atheist
(like Carl Sagan was). And not everyone who believes in a creator is a creationist
(like Jerry Falwell is). What exactly are the classic positions of the atheist
and creationist on the origin of the universe?
?

Atheist: "Every event which ever has or ever will occur in the universe can
be explained by the laws of nature."

?Creationist: "The universe is just a few thousand years old. All known scientific
facts are in agreement with this claim."

?The atheist position begins with the assumption that there is no possibility
of a miraculous explanation for the creation of the universe (2).

There is strong evidence to suggest that the universe began with a "Big Bang"
some 15 billion years ago.

The COBE (Cosmic Background Explorer) satellite launched by NASA in 1989 provided
important evidence in April, 1992 when it found slight temperature variations
(based on very sensitive measurements of the cosmic background microwave radiation)
which scientists had expected to find if the universe had indeed begun with a "Big
Bang". Presumably, these variations would have led to the formation of galaxies,
stars, and planets as matter coalesced in certain regions of the vast and largely
empty universe.

A telecast of "Nightline" with Ted Koppel featured these findings (3). Two of
the top scientists in the field of cosmology were interviewed for the program.?
At the start of the program, Ted Koppel asked the first scientist (an atheist):
"Something tiny exploded into the reality of everything large that exists in
the universe-? How does that work?" The first scientist responded that the Big
Bang Theory successfully handles the 1929 observation of Edwin Hubble that the
universe is very old and still expanding. Ted Koppel responded, "I think that I just
got an evasion to my initial question." Toward the end of the program, he t
urned
to the second scientist (a Bible believer) and asked him if the latest data
in support of the Big Bang Theory would improve or worsen the relation between
religion and science. This scientist stated that the Belgian priest/astronomer
LeMaitre who first proposed the Big Bang Theory in 1929 believed that there
were really two distinct set of questions to be answered: "Theology deals with
the why and the who. Sciences deals with the how, when, where, and what." Ted
Koppel then turned to the first scientist and asked, "Would you like to try
another crack at my initial question?" He said, "No, I don?t think that?s the
question I really want to? answer." Everyone has a hard time dealing with the
question of where all the matter originally came from, but the atheist has no
answer to put forth (4)! The creationist position, also known as the "special
creation model" (5) starts with the assumption (based on an interpretation of
the genealogies in the Bible by a 17th century Irish bishop) that the earth
was created about 5500 BC. However, all available scientific evidence suggests
that the earth is very old, certainly billions of years at least. The alluvial
deposits or sedimentary rocks in the Grand Canyon are 6000 feet thick. There
is an average of 80,000 feet of sedimentary rock on the earth’s surface. Creationists
claim that these layers were laid down in just 7000 years. Nowhere on the earth
is sediment being laid down at such a rate today! In fact sediment will not
even form rock this fast! To make the creationists? claim even more outrageous,
most would maintain that all these layers were dumped in one great flood! The
creationists have to perform great feats of contortion to explain the multitude of layers,
each having a unique chemical and fossil makeup where the older fossils always
seem to be below the younger fossils. Then is the account of creation in the
Bible’s book of Genesis to be discarded? Would it surprise you to hear that the
Bible was not written as a science textbook? (6) It only devotes two pages to
the creation of the universe and nowhere does it mention anything about DNA!
Like us, it often speaks of "sunrise" and "sunset" although we know through astronomy
that it is the earth that moves, not the sun. A lack of scientific precision
is especially characteristic of the Bible’ poetry. I am not here to argue about
whether or not the universe was created in six literal days. Figurative language
is used throughout the Bible (Look at Daniel and Revelation). "With the Lord
a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day." (7) What
strikes me is that the Bible lays out an orderly sequence of events surrounding the
origin of the universe, which is much more than the mythological treatment of
the origin of the universe given in other sacred writings (8).

?The questions of how and why the universe began are still unanswered. Nobody
knows for sure!

We need to approach the question with an open mind as we consider the available
evidence. It is a mistake to start with a conclusion and then look for some
evidence, or ways to twist the evidence to back up our pre-conceived notions.
It appears that neither the atheist nor the creationist view for the origin of the
universe is fully supported by science.

3. The Theory of Evolution vs. the Fact of Evolution.

Evolution is another controversial subject. Some people speak of evolution as
though that accounts for everything we see in the world today: "Evolution is
true, so who needs God?" However, the fact of evolution must not be confused
with the theory of evolution (9).

Theory of Evolution: "Life arose from non-life, and all life forms today can
be accounted for by evolutionary change from simpler to more complex organisms."

Fact of Evolution: "Life forms have developed and diversified into new life
forms. This evolution continues to occur today."

There is ample proof that evolution occurs on a limited scale today, but no
scientific proof that evolutionary principles account for all life today.

?Three reasons why the Theory of Evolution has not been proven:
??????????????? 1.? ?????????
The lack of transitional forms (i.e. amoeba to trilobite, reptile to? bird,
ape to man).
??????????????? 2.? ?????????
The scientific method involves repeatable observations in a controlled? setting.
It is hard to think of a way to set up a reliable experiment to reproduce the?
first life form.
??????????????? 3.? ?????????
There are too many unknowns to trust any model we could come up with.

Take for example the Nobel Prize winning experiment conducted by Stanley L.
Miller in 1952 (10). He prepared a mixture of methane, water, ammonia, and hydrogen
in a glass vessel. He then applied an electric spark to the mixture and analyzed
the precipitates. He found that it contained amino acids: small molecules, although admittedly
more complex than the compounds in the original mixture. Miller proposed that
the early atmosphere was made out of methane, water, ammonia, and hydrogen and
that this mechanism might be the first step in explaining how the proteins in the first
spontaneously generated life came to be. (Incidentally, this assumption of a
reducing atmosphere has now been abandoned by most experts in favor of an oxidizing
atmosphere with different gases.) But what about the other basic classes of molecules
in life: nucleic acids, carbohydrates, and lipids?? These molecules (except
lipids) have also been created in a similar apparatus to Miller?s, but required
different atmospheric compositions. Let’s assume that the primitive earth had four different
atmospheres in four different places.? Let’s assume that each basic building
block of life was produced in these four oceans. After this, all four types
of molecules would have to float great distances and meet up somewhere. If they were
in the right concentrations, they might come together before they fell apart.
Then this life form would quickly have to begin recognizing and ingesting food,
growing, and reproducing. The simplest life forms that exist today are viruses,
but they cannot live on their own. Bacteria are the next simplest, and E. coli
are about 1 x 3 ?m and contain 7×1011 atoms, 3000 different proteins, 50 different
carbohydrates, forty different lipids, and 1000 different nucleic acids. This a
challenge for the spontaneous life theorists! They have proposed chemical evolution
of molecules requiring some form of natural selection (of nonliving things)
over sufficient time.? What is sufficient time? The statistical improbability
of forming even one protein in the early oceans of the earth has?? been guessed
by some to be once in 10243 years! By these estimates, the time for life to
begin spontaneously would have been much longer than the time the universe has
existed. Virtually any scientist, when pressed, will admit that the Theory of Evolution
is only an unproven? theory-no more. Even though it is widely taught and accepted,
the Theory of Evolution has some soft spots! Now that we have cleared away some
of the rubble and foggy thinking, we can go on to address some more helpful arguments
that really get at the issue of the reality of God.

?III. Arguments Against the Reality of God (11)

Arguments Against the Reality of God
??????????????? 1.? ?????????
Lack of Proof
??????????????? 2.? ???????
??
Hypocrisy
??????????????? 3.? ?????????
?Suffering

1. Looking for the Wrong Kind of Proof:

The first Soviet cosmonaut, Yuri Gagarin, radioed back to earth on April 12th,
1961 the shocking report: ‘I can’t see "God" anywhere in the heavens!" What
did he expect to see, God relaxing on his throne? No one has ever "seen" a neutrino
in a high-energy physics experiment. The only evidence that it has been there is the changes
in a few chlorine atoms or light emission from water molecules contained in
a huge detector. No one has ever seen a yard of love or a gallon of justice,
but I think we all agree they exist. Similarly, one needs to look for evidence
of God working. "Well, you can’t relate, I feel a great distance from God."
Why is that? You can read the Bible and pray if you want to.? Often, our own
lifestyles make it hard to believe in God.? We can fill our lives with so many
other things that we have no time for God. Believing in God would be inconvenient
for us since there are too many changes we would have to make (12).? So we come
up with philosophical technicality, a complaint about God’s justice, or? a supposed
contradiction in the Bible to justify our choice.

?2. Atheism as a Response to Hypocrisy in Religion (13):

"Since most people who believe in God are hypocrites- that is they do not practice
what they preach- then what they believe must not be true." Certainly there
are religious hypocrites in Christianity, but does that necessarily mean that
Christianity is false? Example: Is it right to get in shape? Of course! If I go
down to my health club, is everyone working on their fitness?? No, there are
some who are there to pose at the mirror, talk with friends, or pick up a mate.
Do these hypocrites keep me from going to the health club to work out? No! The
hypocrites at the health club are not a valid excuse for me not being in shape!
Similarly, the hypocrisy of some "Christians", the Crusades, and the Inquisition
do not show the falsehood of the Bible, only the great need to properly put it
into practice. Have you ever heard the statement that "more people have been
killed in the name of Christ than any other name"?? Do you believe it? Of course,
even one person killed in the name of Christ is too many. However, the number
of people killed by atheists in just the 20th century totally dwarfs the number
of people killed by professing Christians in over 20 centuries. In fact, the
term "genocide" was not even coined until this century!

Estimated Numbers of Deaths in the Name of?

Jesus 17,000,000 1st to 20th Centuries

Stalin 40,000,000 late 1920?s to late 1940?s

Hitler 15,000,000 early 1940?s

Mao 72,000,000 1948-1976

127,000,000 (low) vs. 17,000,000 (high): ~8 to 1

Joseph Stalin remarked, "One person being killed is a tragedy, but 10,000 killed
is merely a statistic." Moral relativism quickly follows when atheism takes
hold in a society. When moral relativism takes hold, then human life becomes
cheap, just as it was before Jesus Christ? entered our world. In contrast, compassion
for the poor, civil liberties, public education, and even universities all trace??
their roots directly to the rise of Christianity. Moreover, Jesus rocked the
standards of the ancient world, and even today?s world, when he elevated women to
equal value to men. If you still think that Christianity has been a largely
destructive influence on the world, consider the words of James Russell Lowell,
former Minister of State from the US to England: "I challenge any skeptic to find
a ten square mile spot on this planet where they can live their lives in peace
and safety and decency, where womanhood is honored, where infancy and old age
are revered, where they can educate their children, where the Gospel of Jesus
Christ has not gone first to prepare the way. If they find such a place, then
I would encourage them to emigrate [there and] proclaim their unbelief."

3. Suffering in the World (14):

"There is so much suffering in the world, so either God is good but not all-powerful
(since he cannot prevent evil) or all-powerful but certainly not good (since
he doesn’t prevent suffering)." But where does the majority of suffering come
from? Much is inflicted by humans (war, murder). So to stop all suffering, God
would have to destroy all evil in the world, and destroy us.? If he did keep
us, he would have to wipe our brains clean of evil thoughts. All of our decision
would be overruled and we would become pre-programmed robots. Is it better to
live as creatures without personality? Let’s become part of the solution, obey
God, and make the world a better place (which is the purpose to which true Christians
devote their lives. But should suffering of any kind in this life keep us from
seeking God? If Bible is true, then eternity awaits us after death. Living 70
years in agony will be forgotten after a million, a billion, or a trillion years
in heaven. Now let?s consider some of the best arguments for the reality of
God.

IV. Arguments for the Reality of God (15)

Arguments for the Reality of God
??????????????? 1.? ?????????
Cosmological Argument
??????????????? 2.? ?????????
Moral Argument
??????????????? 3.? ?????????
?Teleological Argument

1. Beginning of the Universe (16):

Cosmological Argument

Universe Exists

Beginning No Beginning

Caused Uncaused

Personal Impersonal

(i.e. Creator)

Let’s start with the premise that the universe exists. Does anyone want to argue
with that?
?

A Beginning?

Could the universe have always existed? 1st Law of Thermodynamics: "In a closed
system, the sum of mass and energy are conserved." Assuming that the universe
is indeed a closed system, then the amount of energy and mass has not changed
since the beginning. 2nd Law of Thermodynamics: "For any spontaneous process, the entropy
of the universe increases." Entropy is the measure of randomness or disorder.
The universe is running down. Without outside intervention, all the stars will
eventually become cold, hard, rocks. Eventually, no life could exist at all. If
the universe has always existed, it would already finished running down. Clearly,
it has not. Therefore, the universe had a beginning.
?

B Cause?

Scientists proceed on the assumption that there is order in the world, without
order there is no science (remember science deals with repeatable phenomena).
Every cause has an effect. Order does not come from disorder. If the universe
had a beginning, then it had a cause.

C Personal Cause?

How can we account for the elements of personality that we see in the world
(love, hate, reason, music, art, worship, and philosophy)?? What could have
made impersonal matter take on a personal nature? Clearly, there must have been
some element of personality present at the beginning. Thus, the universe had a personal
beginning, a personal cause, a creator.

2. Moral Argument:

??????????????? 1.? ?????????
Unless there is a God, there cannot be objectively binding moral? obligations.
??????????????? 2.? ?????????
There are objectively binding moral obligations.
??????????????? 3.? ?????????
Therefore, there is a God.
?

It is universally wrong to kill in cold blood, to take your neighbor’s spouse
(same rules in all cultures). Certainly, we can willfully disobey God, eventually
searing our consciences (17). Moral relativism denies the existence of such
objectively binding moral obligations. This is the big problem with moral relativism!
If all morals are relative, then the individuals (alleged to be three white
supremists in Jasper, TX) who recently (6/6/98) murdered and tore to pieces
the disabled black musician James Byrd, Jr. by dragging him behind a pickup truck
were fully justified in what they did and you can’t say they did anything wrong.
If it was right in their eyes, then it was right!

3. Argument from Design:

Teleological Argument

??????????????? 1.? ?????????
The universe appears to have design and purpose.
??????????????? 2.? ?????????
The best explanation for design and purpose is an intelligent designer.
??????????????? 3.? ?????????
Therefore, the universe is probably the result of an intelligent? designer.
?

Cicero: "If you saw a splendid house, you surely would not assume that it was
built by mice and weasels. A splendid house implies a splendid architect; and
a wonderful world implies a divine creator." Consider the human brain: "It consists
of about 3 pounds of gray matter, and yet no man made computer of any size can duplicate
the myriad of operations it routinely performs for us every day. Composed of
thirty billion nerve cells, the brain is a vast, largely unexplored continent-
one of the wonders of the universe. How can a person be expected to believe that
an organ of such incredible complexity and versatility came to exist by accident
as the result of an unintelligent and purely material process?" (18) We can
see ample evidence for the existence of God (19)! Then what explanations or conceptions
of God are options for us? Have you ever heard the statement that "all religions
are basically the same"? Do you believe it?? Actually, there are huge differences
between the Gods of today?s religions.

The Gods of the Major Religions

Eastern Religions: Polytheistic, God = Universe (Created thing)

Hinduism >10,000 Gods, very human in form. Idol worship.

Buddhism Originally atheistic (philosophy of life). Idol worship.

Confucianism Worship ancestors.

Western Religions: Monotheistic

?Islam God is majestic and distant, causes good and evil (fate).

Christianity Personal heavenly Father. Loves us and sent Jesus to die? for our
sins.

Judaism Jesus Christ is rejected, despite OT references.
?

Not all of these views of God can be true. The God of the Bible (NT and OT)
is very different from the Gods of other religions (20). But what reason do
we have to trust the Bible?

IV. Evidences for the Authenticity of the Bible (21)

Well, there is actually no scientific proof that the Bible is the God’s word.
Remember that the scientific method involves measurement of phenomena, experimentation,
and repeatable observations in a controlled setting. I can’t scientifically
prove to you that I had lunch last Sunday. However, I could use a legal or historical
proof to convince you beyond a reasonable doubt. I could bring in witnesses
to testify: the waitress at the restaurant, the friends who were with me. I
could show you records of the event like a credit card receipt with my signature.
Then you would only be concerned with the reliability of the records and testimonies.
We don’t actually have the original copies of the letters penned by apostles
and prophets,

So how can we know if the Bible is reliable?

Evidences for the Validity of the Bible
??????????????? 1.? ?????????
Bibliographic Integrity
??????????????? 2.? ?????????
Archeological Discoveries
??????????????? 3.? ?????????
Scientific Accuracy Before its Time

1. Bibliographic Integrity (22):

Bibliographic Integrity

How well was the document transmitted to us? Look at the interval between the
original work and the earliest available copy. Look at the number of available
manuscripts. Bibliographic Test of the New Testament

Work Date Written Earliest Copy Span # of Copies
?

Aristotle 340 BC 1100 AD 1450 years 5

Thucydides 410 BC 900 AD 1300 years 8

New Testament (Gk) 50-100 AD 200 AD 100 years 5000

?Fragment of John 75-100 AD 125 AD 30 years

24,000 complete and partial manuscript copies of the New Testament in? all languages.
?

Bibliographic Test of the Old Testament

The Dead Sea Scrolls: Found in 1947. Contained a complete Hebrew manuscript
of Isaiah dated to 125 BC. Comparison with next oldest manuscript (900 AD) showed
virtually no textual changes? over 1000 years. The story of this discovery is
one of the most remarkable tales of modern times. In 1947, a Bedouin shepherd boy
was searching for a lost goat on the west side of the Dead Sea, about eight
miles south of the ancient city of Jericho. He threw a stone into a hole in
a cliff and to his surprise heard the sound of breaking pottery. He investigated
and found an amazing sight: several large jars on the floor of the cave. Each
contained leather scrolls wrapped in linen. Because the jars had been so carefully
sealed, the scrolls had been preserved in excellent condition for nearly 1900
years, evidently having been placed there in 68 AD. Prior to the discovery of
the dead Sea scrolls, the oldest known Hebrew manuscript of the Old Testament
was dated from 900 AD. How could we be sure of their accurate transmission since the time
of Christ in 32 AD? Thanks to archeology and the Dead Sea Scrolls, we can now
be confident. In 1948, scholars began to photograph and study the scrolls. One
of these is the Isaiah scroll which measures 24 feet long and 10 inches wide.
It is a complete manuscript of the Hebrew text of Isaiah, dated from about 125
BC. This was more than 1000 years older than the next oldest known Hebrew manuscript
(916 AD). The impact of the discovery is the exact similarity between the Isaiah
scroll and this later manuscript, demonstrating the unusual accuracy of the copyists
of the scripture over a 1000 year period. For example, of the 166 words in Isaiah
53, there are only 17 letters in question: Ten of these are a matter of spelling,
which does not affect the sense. Four more are minor stylistic changes, such as conjunctions.
The remaining three comprise the "light" which does not affect the meaning greatly.
Thus, in one chapter of 166 words, there is only one word (three letters) in
question after 1000 years of transmission, and this word does not significantly
change the meaning of the passage.

Scholar Millar Burrows concluded: " It is a matter of wonder that through something
like a thousand years the text underwent so little alteration. As I said I in
my first article on the scroll, ?Herein lies its chief importance, supporting
the fidelity of the Massoretic tradition.?" (The Massoretes were a group of Jews
from Tiberias who from 500-900 AD accepted the laborious job of editing and
standardizing the Hebrew Old Testament texts. The text which the Massoretes
concluded with is called the "Massoretic" text and is the standard Hebrew text even
today.)

?The Bible is by far the best-attested book from ancient times!

How has archeology authenticated the Bible?

2. Archeological Discoveries (23):

The Ebla Tablets

City of Ebla destroyed in 2250 BC. Uncovered in 1968.? Tablets contained evidence
for the existence of Sodom & Gomorrah, previously believed to be mythological.
An archeological find relating to biblical criticism is the Ebla tablets discovered
in northern Syria at Tell Mardikh where excavation began in 1964. In 1968, a statue
of King Ibbit-Lim was uncovered. Its inscription made reference to Ishtar, the
goddess "who shines brightly in Ebla". At its height of power in 2300 BC, the
city had a population of 260,000. It was destroyed in 2250 BC by Naram-Sin, the
grandson of Sargan the Great Since 1974, some 17,000 inscribed clay tablets
have been unearthed from the era of the Ebla Kingdom. In the past, some critics
of the Old Testament have taught that the period described in the Moses? writings
(about 1400 BC) was a time prior to all written language. But Ebla demonstrates
that 1000 years before Moses, laws, customs, and events were recorded in writing
in the same area of the world in which Moses and the patriarchs lived. The critics
also taught that the Priestly code and the legislation recorded in the first
five books of the Old Testament (the Pentateuch) were far too developed to have
been authored by Moses (The Documentary or J.E.P.D. Hypothesis). They alleged that
the Israelites were too primitive to have written them and that it was not until
much later during the Persian kingdom (538-331 BC) that such detailed legislation
was recorded. But the Ebla tablets contained the law codes of that ancient cit
y, illustrated in elaborate judiciary proceedings and case law. Many are very
similar to the Deuteronomy law code? (i.e. Deut 22:22-30). Finally, critics
had considered Genesis 14 to be historically unreliable. The victory of Abraham
over Chedolaomer and the Mesopotamian kings had been described as legendary
and the five cities of the Plain (Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah, Zebolim, and Zoar)
as fictious. Yet, the Ebla tablets silenced these critics by referring to all
five cities on the Plain in the exact order as in Genesis 14. The tablets reflect
the culture of the patriarchal period and depict that, before the military events
described in Genesis 14, the region was experiencing economic prosperity and
flourishing, exactly as describe in the Bible.

?Archeology totally supports the Bible!

In fact, you can go to the library and read Biblical Archeology Review, a journal
detailing the

?continuing work of archeologists who use the Bible as a guide to find lost
cities.

How does the Bible hold up to criticism from science?

?3. Scientific Accuracy Before its Time:

Scientific Accuracy Before Its Time

Man and woman possess seeds of life Gen 3:15, 22:18 17th? Century

?Quarantine of disease Lev 13 17th Century

Seaworthy design (30x5x3) Gen 6:15 19th Century

Water cycle Amos 5:8, Job 36:27 19th? Century
?

The Bible is not a science textbook (1).

However, it does touch on scientific matters in a very embryonic form, and when
it does,

those statements are true.

4. Conclusions:

A. Science and the Bible are friends and we need them both in order to understand
the world.

John Calvin maintained that the Bible, God?s special revelation, is a set of
spectacles that we must wear if we are to correctly read the book of nature,
God?s revelation in creation. When we throw away these glasses, many distortions
result. The Bible presents an absolute truth. Sciences recognizes no absolute
truth it is based on progressive hypothesis and is always changing. Many theories
have been set forth and subsequently abandoned. For example: At the beginning
of this century, the entire human endocrine system was thought to be vestigial.
Now it is recognized as running the entire chemical process of the body The
splitting of the uranium atom began the "atomic age" an ended the ancient scientific
belief that the atom was the smallest unit of matter. In fact, the word "atom"
comes from the Greek word "atomos", from "tomos" meaning "cut" and "a" meaning
"not": "that which cannot be cut". Yet today, we hear regularly about discoveries
of new subatomic particles.? Science will not and indeed cannot answer all of
our questions. Technology cannot spiritually fulfill us! There will never be
enough technology to satisfy us. Indeed, the US Patent Office has remained open,
despite the belief by one politician in the late 19th century that all meaningful
inventions had? already been made by that time and that the government had better
places to spend its money.

The Paradox Of Our Age (24)

"We have taller buildings, but shorter tempers;

wider freeways, but narrower viewpoints;

we spend more, but have less;

we buy more, but enjoy it less.

We have bigger houses and smaller families;

more conveniences, but less time;

we have more degrees, but less sense;

more knowledge, but less judgment;

more experts, but more problems;

more medicine, but less wellness.

We drink too much,

smoke too much,

spend too recklessly,

laugh too little,

drive too fast,

get too angry too quickly,

stay up too late,

get up too tired,

read too seldom,

watch TV too much,

and pray too seldom.

We have multiplied our possessions, but reduced our values.

We talk too much, love too seldom and lie too often.

We’ve learned how to make a living, but not a life;

we’ve added years to life, not life to years.

We’ve been all the way to the moon and back,

but have trouble crossing the street to meet the new neighbor.

We’ve conquered outer space, but not inner space;

we’ve done larger things, but not better things;

we’ve cleaned up the air, but polluted the soul;

we’ve split the atom, but not our prejudice;

we write more, but learn less;

plan more, but accomplish less.

We’ve learned to rush, but not to wait;

we have higher incomes; but lower morals;

more food but less appeasement;

more acquaintances, but fewer friends;

more effort but less success.

We build more computers to hold more information;

we produce more documents than ever, but have less communication;

we’ve become long on quantity, but short on quality.

These are the times of fast foods and slow digestion;

tall men, and short character;

steep profits, and shallow relationships.

These are the times of world peace, but domestic warfare;

more leisure and less fun;

more kinds of food, but less nutrition.

These are days of two incomes, but more divorce;

of fancier houses, but broken homes.

These are days of quick trips,

disposable diapers,

throwaway morality,

one-night stands,

overweight bodies,

and pills that do everything from cheer,

to quiet,

to kill.

It is a time when there is much in the show window and nothing in the stockroom.
Indeed it’s all true."

B. The Bible, both OT and NT are reliable and trustworthy records.

C. We can rely
on them to learn the truth about God!

So if the God of the Bible is real?

What is the character of God?

Why should you seek him?

V. The Personality of the God of the Bible.

The Character of God

John 4:24 God is Spirit (non-physical but real).

Acts 17:24-28 God wants us to seek him.

Heb 1:1-4 Jesus is our model of God.
?

VI. Motivation to Actively Seek a Relationship with God.

Summary

We have:
??????????????? 1.? ?????????
Defined the real issues concerning God?s existence.
??????????????? 2.? ?????????
Addressed arguments against the reality of God.
??????????????? 3.? ?????????
Examined arguments for the reality of God.
??????????????? 4.? ?????????
Seen evidence for the authenticity of the Bible.
??????????????? 5.? ?????????
Looked at how the Bible uniquely describes God?s personality

?

Conclusion

GOD DOES EXIST!

Find out the answers for your