WELCOME TO OUR HOME

 

 

 

 

 

SALVATION - INDEX

 

 

 

 

 

There is NOTHING in this life that is more important for you to do than to decide where you will spend eternity.

 

If you have everything that this world can offer you - an easy life, family, friends, money, and pleasures - but you decide by default to spend eternity in Hell, then your life will have been a complete failure.

 

On the other hand, if you have practically nothing in this life of esteemed value, but you choose to seek God and to spend eternity with him in Heaven, then your life will have been an enormous success.

 

The difference isn't so much in what you have or don't have; it's in what you choose and don't choose. Jesus said, "except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God."

 

List of Articles:

 

What does it mean to be "Born Again"?

 

Is Baptism part of Salvation?

 

Who is God? - Make it Simple (links to our Doctrine Article by this title)

 

A Personal Message from Our Family to You

 

 

BIBLE VERSIONS - INDEX

 

 

King James?                   New Bible Versions??

List of Articles:

 

FOUNDATIONAL ARTICLES

 

The Nature of War

 

What About the Septuagint?

 

Antioch and Alexandria

 

NIV Says to Reject Jesus

 

AN Excellent Reference for King James Bible Believers - By James L. Melton

 

NIV Quiz - by Rex L. Cobb

 

Bible Memorization Test - by Pastor James Knox

 

Personal Pronouns - Thee, Thou, Ye, Thy, Thine, etc

 

Believing God’s Word

 

Errors in the King James Bible

 

An Open Letter to Cheryl

 

DEFENDING GOD'S WORD ONLINE

 

How We Know the King James Bible is God's ONLY Word in English

 

LOST In the Confused Mind of A Pentecostal Bible College Student (A Series)

00 - LOST - Intro

01 - LOST - First Email Exchange

02 - LOST

03 - LOST

04 - LOST

05 - LOST - SUMMARY CHART

06 - LOST

Is The King James Bible Wrong About Easter at Acts 12:4?

 

Is Eugene Peterson's book "The Message" a true copy of God's Word, the Bible?

 

CONTRADICTIONS IN THE KING JAMES BIBLE

 

01 - I Sam 17:50; II Sam 21:19: WHO KILLED GOLIATH?

 

02 - Gen 1:27; Gen 2:7, 20-30: The Timing of Adam and Eve's Creation

 

03 - Judges 4:21; Judges 5:25-27: How Did Sisera Die?

 

04 - I Sam 31:4; II Sam 1:10; II Sam 21:12: WHO KILLED KING SAUL?

 

05 - Joshua 15:21-32: HOW MANY CITIES - 29 or 36 or 38?

 

06 - II Sam 24:9; I Chron 21:5-6: David Numbers How Many Men of War in Israel?

 

07 - Acts 20:35: Did Jesus Really Say This?

 

08 - Matt 4:1-11; Mark 1:12-13; John 2:1-11: Was Jesus in the Wilderness or at the Wedding?

 

 

 

 

SOUND DOCTRINE - INDEX

 

 

In this series we intend to examine doctrines with the intent of establishing which are sound and which are false.

 

Sound doctrine unites believers in Christ, false doctrine divides people from Christ, and conflicting doctrine disrupts unity and fellowship in Christ.

 

Therefore, each of us ought to purge ourselves of false doctrine and earnestly seek sound doctrine.

Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.
(I Thess 5:21)

This is not a matter of personal opinion - nor one of one-upmanship; it is a matter of personal righteousness and of right-standing before God.  Ultimately, we must be willing to let God’s Word speak to us, and we must be willing to conform ourselves to that Word.

 

Question: How much false doctrine can one believe and still be saved? 

 

At the Berean Research Institute, we are not willing to be comfortable with any false doctrines - no matter how few they are, nor how little they may be, nor what cost we may face to rid ourselves of them.

 

For good reason, Jesus warns us to beware of the leaven of the Pharisees:

Then Jesus said unto them, Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees.  (Matt 16:6)

Then understood they how that he bade them not beware of the leaven of bread, but of the doctrine of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees. (Matt 16:12)

A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump. (Gal 5:9)

Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. (I Cor 5:7)

Therefore, as we examine various doctrines, we do so not to be confrontational or disagreeable with others, but to be obedient to these specific commandments of God and to be faithful to his scriptures, overall.

 

Let's Be Scriptural, In Determining Sound Doctrine.

 

 

List of Articles:

 

OK…. So, you’re a "CHRISTIAN"...

What’s Wrong With Being a “Christian”??

 

Who is God? - Make it Simple

OK…. So, you’re a "PENTECOSTAL" - Let’s Be Scriptural About:

Pentecost and the Modern Pentecostal Movement

Examining the Pentecostal Statement of Faith, “What We Believe”

 

Pentecostal Feminism

 

Why I left the Tongues Movement - Alfred H. Pohl (Opens in New Window)

 

“Slain in the Spirit”

 

“Speaking in Tongues”

 

My Pastor, the "Spiritual Hippie"

Fake Healers, Apostles & Prophets

Smith Wigglesworth - A Book Review - by Mike Wright

 

Benny Hinn - "Man of God"?? - Videos

 

Benny Hinn - Outrageous Claims

 

Benny Hinn - Politics with China

United Pentecostal Church International

Is Water Baptism Necessary for Salvation?

 

Is the UPCI Gospel True?

OK…. So, you’re a "BAPTIST" - Let’s Be Scriptural About:

The Eternal Security of the Believer

The Eternal Security of the Believer

 

Eternal Security

 

The “Carnal” Christian

The Local Church

The “Local” Church - A Review of Dr. Kirkland's Book

 

Bible Verses Refuting the "Local Church" doctrine (Opens in New Window)

Calvinism and Arminianism

Calvinism and Arminianism

 

The god of the Calvinist

 

Calvinism and Modern Bible Versions

 

OK…. So, you’re a "CATHOLIC" - Let’s Be Scriptural About:

Salvation for Catholics

Can a “Catholic” be a “Christian”?

 

A Warning to Catholic Christians !!

 

Catholic Booklet - “Be Careful of Protestant Teachings”:  a Review

Catholic Doctrines

The Virgin Mary

 

The Mass - Transubstantiation

 

Roman Catholic Responses - Refuted

The Judgment of Rome

The Judgment of Rome - The Mother of Harlots

 

OK…. So, you’re a "JEHOVAH'S WITNESS" - Let’s Be Scriptural About:

Questions For Jehovah's Witnesses

Questions For Jehovah's Witnesses - Intro

 

Question For Jehovah's Witnesses

 

 

 

ENDTIME PROPHECY - INDEX

 

 

In this series we intend to examine  eschatological (study of endtime) teachings with the intent of determining which are true and which are not.

 

Perhaps as much as one third of the bible is prophetic, and God said (in reference to those living in the last days), that the wise shall understand (Dan 12:10).

If we knock, the door shall be opened unto us. (Matt 7:7)

It is true that Endtime prophecy has been interpreted in many different ways and by many people, but this is not a matter of personal opinion - the scriptures are not of any private interpretation.

 

We must earnestly seek to understand God’s interpretation of prophetic scripture. Despite what others say, for some, this may become a matter of salvation - a misunderstanding of this subject may result in the loss of their soul.

 

At the Berean Research Institute, we believe that God does not waste his words and that he wrote in his Word precisely what he wanted to say to us, even in this matter of prophecy.

The testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy. (Rev 19:10)

It is equally important then, in this area of eschatology, that we study to shew ourselves approved unto God, workmen that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. (II Tim 2:15)

 

Therefore, as we examine various eschatological views, we do so not to be confrontational or disagreeable with others, but to be obedient and faithful to his Word.

 

 

List of Articles:

Bible Prophecy - Relevant Today:

Understanding the Book of Revelation

 

Where Are We Today in Bible Prophecy?

 

What Should We Expect Next?

Preterist/Historicist/Amillennial:

Our Letter to an Historicist

 

Refuting Preterism/Historicism - Conclusively - Page 1

 

Refuting Preterism/Historicism - Conclusively - Page 2

 

Refuting Amillennialism

 

Although we do not agree on some issues (in particular with his soteriology), we appreciate the work and research of Irvin Baxter of Endtime, Inc for assembling many of the pieces of our understanding of the Book of Revelation for us.

 

 

 

OTHER ISSUES - INDEX

 

 

In this series we intend to address several controversial subjects. As the men of Berea did, we want to receive the word with all readiness of mind and to search the scriptures daily, whether these things are so. (Acts 17:11)

 

For us, this is not a matter of personal opinion nor one of one-upmanship; it is a matter of personal righteousness and of right-standing before God.

 

Ultimately, we must be willing to let God’s Word speak to us, and we must be willing to conform ourselves to that Word.

We know that we have liberty in Christ Jesus.

Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty. (2 Cor 3:17)

But take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumblingblock to them that are weak. (1 Cor 8:9)

So, (at the least) we must be careful in exercising our liberty.

Further, the bible teaches us that liberty in Christ Jesus makes us free FROM sin. It does not make us free TO sin.

What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein? (Rom 6:1,2)

Moreover, we are commanded to:

Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him. (John 2:15)

So, our hearts shouldn’t even desire those things in the world from which we have been saved.

 

Jesus came to seek and to save that which is lost. We who were dead in trespasses and sins he hath quickened.

Why then would we willingly go back into trespasses and sins?

 

Why would we wander away and become lost again?

(For those who believe in eternal security - please read the articles on OSAS, but in the meantime - why would we even ’behave’ as if we were lost again?)

The question then would be…...are the things we will discuss matters of sin, or are they legitimately matters of personal conscience?

 

Let’s find out.

Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. (I Thess 5:21)

List of Articles

 

Issues Common to Most Fellowships:

“Church” Membership

 

"Brother" Bill and "Pastor"

 

Lisa's Thoughts on the Depravation of Literature

 

Social Drinking/Use of Alcohol

Holidays:

Christmas:

 

Questions About Christmas

 

Is Christmas Scriptural?

 

Every Green Trees to Worship False gods?

 

Explaining to Friends - What is ‘wrong’ with Christmas

 

Comparison Between the Lord Jesus Christ and Santa Claus

 

Easter:

Television and Movies:

Watching Television

 

Mel Gibson - Our “Christian” Hero?

 

Mel Gibson - Our "Christian" Hero - The Passion of the Christ - Summary

Creation vs Evolution:

Creation, Evolution and the Gap Theory

 

Evolution - Fact or Fiction by James L. Melton - (Excellent !)

 

Robert Howie - Geologist - A Book Review by Mike Wright

 

 

 

 

Robert Howie - Geologist - a book review by Mike Wright

The Bible Through the Eyes of a Geologist,
Robert Howie

Copyright 2010, Robert Howie, Guardian Books, Belleville, Ontario, Canada.

ISBN 978-1-55452-521-8

 

(a book review by Mike Wright)

 

We encourage readers to find a copy of Mr. Howie's book wherever books are sold, to confirm that the quotations are quoted fairly in their context, and to judge righteous judgment regarding those quotations and this review. This review will not address all of the errors found in Robert Howie's book, but it will seek to present a selected number of those that pose a threat to *bible doctrine.

* IMPORTANT NOTE: Because we have found the King James Bible to be the only word of God in English, all scriptures will be quoted from the King James Bible (unless otherwise stated) and need to be read from it when researching the passages referenced in this review.

From the "Forward":

 

The Forward was written by Dr. Randall Holm, Associate Professor of Biblical Studies, Providence College, Winnipeg, Manitoba. Given that the Forward was solicited, published, and left un-rebuked by Mr. Howie, we find no justification to conclude anything but that Mr. Howie is in agreement with its content.

 

 

1. Page 13

... there is a renewed clarion call from many sectors for something we might identify as unchanging truth.  This has given rise to new expressions of fundamentalism... Among some Christian groups, this means a literal reading of the Book of Genesis replete with a seven-day creation account. - Dr. Holm

a. The word of God, itself, is unchanging truth and ought to be promoted as such by Dr. Holm and Mr. Howie. (John 17:17; Luke 21:33; Ps 119:89)

 

b. To believe the literal reading of God's word, specifically as it pertains to the seven-day creation account in the book of Genesis, is categorically NOT "new". It is the same belief that all faithful saints and disciples have had in the unchanging truth of God's word.

 

c. In fact, Christian fundamentalism is simply belief in God's word - as it is written.  This requires hermeneutics that favour a literal interpretation whenever possible and reasonable.

2. Page 13

The bible is true, some conclude, because the world was created just as the Bible says. And the world was created as the Bible says because the Bible is true.

a. Dr. Holm erroneously and mockingly suggests that those who believe God's account of a literal creation, engage in the fallacy of 'begging the question'.

 

b. As a professing Christian leader, Dr. Holm would better serve the church - and others - by explaining that inductive reasoning provides the evidence to dispel blind faith and to refute such false allegations of circular reasoning.

 

c. True Christian leaders do not sow such seeds of doubt in people's minds about God's Word ("Yea, hath God said..."- Gen 3:1). Rather, they encourage belief in God's Word through study of it (II Tim 2:15), and thereby they edify the church.

3. Page 13

In a similar vein, other fundamentalists appeal to the world of science as their ground of truth.

a. Here, Dr. Holm is committing the fallacy of false dichotomy, by stating that some fundamentalists believe in a literal interpretation of the bible and others appeal to science, as if the two are mutually exclusive.

 

b. By this, Dr. Holm reveals his misunderstanding of the word "fundamentalist" and of the fact that all biblical fundamentalists are in complete agreement with the findings of science (Dan 1:4).

 

c. It is only science falsely so called that creates confusion - by proposing lies as if they were truth. (I Tim 6:20)

4. Page 13

...Howie attempts to engineer a middle ground on the complex issue of creation and the Bible.

a. With no middle ground possible - given the false dichotomy - Mr. Howie is actually engaged in fabrication from thin air; not in engineering a common ground for the reconciliation of opposing positions.

 

b. The result is that believing souls are disillusioned about their faith in God's word, and questioning souls are hindered in ever finding the truth of God's word.

 

c. God's word is truth (John 17:17). Evolution is a lie.  There is no middle ground between them; and anyone who leaves God's word to find concord with the lie of Evolution no longer has the truth.

5. Page 14

Howie takes the road less traveled and attempts to respect the authority of scripture while appealing to his learned expertise in the geological field."

a. On the issue of respecting the authority of scripture:

1) Dr. Holm misleadingly implies that Mr. Howie respects the authority of scripture, and that Mr. Howie is at least trying his best to do so, in all sincerity.

2) However, his words may concurrently reveal the truth here - because a person who "attempts" to do something does not necessarily accomplish it, or does not even necessarily want to accomplish it.

3) The fact also is that - IF Mr. Howie actually respected the authority of scripture - Dr. Holm ought to have plainly stated so.

4) From Mr. Howie's writing, Dr Holm knows - or ought to know - that Mr. Howie does not respect the authority of scripture, a fact that will be demonstrated later in this review, with several specific examples from Mr. Howie's own words.

b. On the issue of Mr Howie's appeal to his learned expertise in the geological field:

1) Dr. Holm is committing the fallacy of false dichotomy again. In fact, there do not exist the two extreme positions that Dr. Holm is proposing must be resolved into common ground, or that must be accepted concurrently. More specifically, there is no conflict between the authority of scripture and any evidence set forth by geological science.

 

2) The fact that Mr. Howie perceives there to be a dichotomy between scripture and geological science, and that Dr Holm expresses that perception as if it were a reality, is testimony to the fact that neither of these men understand scripture and science well enough to know that no such dichotomy exists.

 

3) The fact that Mr Howie would even consider "appealing" to his expertise as an alternative to the authority of scripture, is evidence that he does not accept the scriptures as the very words of God and/or that he does not accept them as his final authority. Mr. Howie is in serious error on this issue (as is Dr Holm who is in agreement with him), because Jesus claimed that his words are the final authority (John 12:48).

 

4) It is impossible to have two final authorities. Therefore, the very fact that Mr. Howie would claim to "respect" one authority while "appealing" to another is testimony to which one he actually accepts as his final authority. For those who might have missed which one he has chosen, be aware that Mr Howie upholds his own expertise, his own scholarship, and ultimately his own opinion as his final authority.

 

5) But, given that God's Word itself claims to be the final authority, Mr. Howie has no business considering anything as an alternative to that authority - not the least of which would be his own expertise, scholarship or opinion. So, for him to do so irrespectively of this claim, is outright rebellion against the authority that God himself has magnified above his very name. (Ps 138:2)

From the "Introduction":

 

6. Page 15

The Bible gives us an interpretation of how the earth was formed.

a. Mr Howie does not even finish his second sentence before introducing heresy with his choice of words.

b. The Bible is the word of God. It gives us a REPORT of how the earth was formed; not merely an "interpretation" of it; and certainly not one interpretation among several, as if more than one is even viable.

 

c. God's Word, the Bible, is truth. (John 17:17).  The truth only exists as it is.  There is no such thing as differing "interpretations" of the truth; nor differing "versions" of the truth.  In light of this, Mr. Howie ought to consider the meaning of the misleading words "bible version".

7. Page 15

The more we know about the rocks and the processes they passed through over long periods of time, the more qualified we become to interpret what the Bible is trying to tell us about our planet.

a. Mr. Howie's use of the phrase "over long periods of time" to describe the passage of certain processes reveals his erroneous presupposition that the earth is millions of years old, or more; not just 6,000 years old, as the bible indicates.

b. Mr Howie is therefore not a biblical fundamentalist.

 

c. Mr. Howie's reasoning that "The more we know about" the rocks and processes "the more qualified we become to interpret" the Bible is, as follows:

1) illogical

2) wrong

3) evidence that he considers so-called scientific knowledge or scholarship to be superior to biblical scholarship, itself - by preferentially qualifying to a higher degree those who conduct biblical exegesis after they have attained greater geological knowledge, and

4) evidence that he is a Nicolaitan, implicitly projecting himself to be more qualified to exegete scripture, given that he, himself, is more knowledgeable about the rocks and geological processes than the average reader is likely to be.   In this, Mr. Howie is no different than a Roman Catholic priest, establishing himself as the interpreter of scripture for the ignorant masses which constitute the body of Christ.

d. Mr Howie's use of the clause, "what the Bible is trying to tell us about our planet" reveals facts, as follows:

1) Mr. Howie believes that the Bible is "trying" to tell us something, rather than that it "is" telling us something.

2) "Trying" to accomplish something does not necessarily result in success. Therefore, Mr. Howie's word choice here casts doubt on the effectiveness of the words of scripture to accomplish that which it was sent forth to accomplish.

3) Mr Howie does not believe the Bible to be God's word, or he does not accept it as his final authority; and he does not, in either case, 'respect its authority'.

8. Pages 15-16

The science of geology may be used to...evaluate the premise that dinosaurs lived in the Garden of Eden with Adam and Eve...

a. To evaluate is "to judge".

b. That dinosaurs lived in the Garden of Eden with Adam and Eve, as a "beast of the earth" (Gen 1:25) and as part of the host of the earth (Gen 2:1) is a simple fact of "scripture".

c. So, Mr. Howie is setting forth "to judge" the "scripture" with his knowledge of the science of geology.

d. Therefore, Mr. Howie believes that the science of geology is superior to the teachings of scripture. Otherwise, he would uphold the truth of scripture, as written, and set out to understand why his knowledge of that science of geology might appear to be in conflict with the scriptures.

e. The "science of geology" is an ever-changing belief system. The doctrines of the bible are forever unchanging truths. It is illogical and wrong to judge that which is proven and always found to be true by that which is often unproven and even once found to be in error.

9. Page 16

Scripture quotes in chapters I, II, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII and IX are from the New American Standard Bible. Scripture quoted in chapter III is from the 1946 printing of the King James Bible. Additional background information on some portions of scripture were also obtained from marginal notes in the 1989 version of the King James Bible, which were not included in the 1946 printing.

a. If we assume that Mr. Howie is not attempting to deceive his readers, his words here reveal that he simply does not recognize "scripture".

b. That which is given by inspiration of God is without error, without omission and without contradiction. The New American Standard Version (NASV) has errors, omissions, and contradictions. Therefore, the NASV is not given by inspiration of God. Therefore, the NASV is not scripture.

c. There are several printings of the NASV, among which are actual translation changes to the text - and not merely the inclusion of marginal notes. But Mr Howie does not identify which printing of the NASV he uses here (he only does so in the references section); nor does he warn his readers that this 'authority' he pretends to respect has had translation changes; nor that the NASV does not even qualify as scripture.

d. However, Mr. Howie identifies two 'printings' of the King James Bible - the 1946 printing and the 1989 "version", as if they might represent distinctively different textual translations. (Marginal notes in his 1989 "version" would not constitute inspired scripture and therefore make no difference to the translation.)

e. Mr. Howie's use of the word "version" in reference to his 1989 King James Bible further emphasizes his erroneous belief that there are various "versions" of the truth. His neglect to identify the 1995 printing of his NASV as merely a "version" when he has erroneously identified a King James Bible printing as such highlights his bias on this fundamental issue - at the very least. Further, his reference to the NASV as a "bible" highlights his ignorance of Bibliology.

 

f. By establishing the NASV as the "authority" that he pretends to "respect", and as if it were the actual word of God, Mr. Howie is setting the stage for arguments that are based on "straw man" fallacies, at best.

10. Page 18

According to Halley (1965), ethnologists (scientists dealing with the races of mankind...

a. Mr. Howie never corrects the 'expert' Halley whom he cites, or else he inserts the erroneous parenthetical definition on his own.

 

b. There is no such thing as different "races" of mankind

 

c. God created man in his own image, male and female created he them (Gen 1:26).

11. Page 20

The river that flowed out of the garden could have come from ... a highland area that gathered rain...

a. With this statement, Mr. Howie blatantly contradicts scripture, because the bible says, "... for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth..." (Gen 2:5)

12. Page 21

The Euphrates and the Tigris rivers still flow from the Caucasus Mountains...

a. Mr. Howie has provided no proof that the rivers by these names "still" flow as he believes they did at the time of creation.

b. Mr. Howie has concurrently ignored evidence that these rivers are not the same as those in the garden of Eden.

 

c. The historical record of scripture regarding the flood of Noah some 1500 years after creation testifies to the redesigning of pre-flood waters by way of torrential rainfalls, all the fountains of the great deep breaking up (Gen 7:10-12), and the face of the whole earth being covered with flood waters (Gen 8:9).

13. Page 25 (and similar quote on pg 26)

If water ever flowed out from this proposed garden location, it would have to have been from a large spring or a snow-capped mountain range...

a. The bible does not suggest that snow ever covered the mountains before Noah's flood.

 

b. Science suggests that the entire world was once a tropical environment.

c. There is no record that winter or cold weather ever existed until after Noah's flood. (Gen 8:22)

 

d. As he does with other speculative comments, Mr. Howie casts doubt on the word of God (and on science), and lends his 'credibility' to the erroneous belief in uniformitarianism by proposing, without evidence, that snow may have existed in the first 1500 years or so of earth's existence.

14. Page 25

Tectonic uplift prior to the planting of the garden by God could have supplied the necessary water. However, under normal circumstances, the time interval between planting the garden by God and the present day, probably would not allow sufficient time for the terrain to be worn down by erosion to its present elevation.

a. Subtly, but surely, Mr. Howie continues to ignore the fact that the flood of Noah destroyed the earth and carved it up into a very different world. So, "normal" erosion rates (i.e. uniformitarian philosophies - Col 2:8) are not applicable in determining how the topography of the earth appeared prior to that flood.

b. If the flood could carve out the Grand Canyon and the Niagara escarpment in a very short period of time, and could lower islands and raise mountains, then the unparalleled erosion caused by it (that Mr. Howie does not believe occurred - given his uniformitarian bias) would certainly have been able to reshape the terrain in the vicinity of the garden of Eden as well.

15. Page 29

Many believe there was no death on the earth until Adam and Eve sinned.

a. Mr Howie frequently uses quotes from others to represent his own beliefs, rather than simply stating his own up front.  He also uses generalized, unsubstantiated and often conflicting statements that haphazardly either support or contradict his own views. As a result of the confusion created, his personal views must be inferred from the way in which he presents the quotes of others, they must be sporadically gleaned throughout his text, or they must be discovered - if possible - within his conclusion sections at the end of each chapter.

 

b. In this case, Mr. Howie makes no statement regarding whether he includes himself among the "Many" or not.

 

c. Eventually we understand that Mr Howie does not agree with the "Many" who believe there was no death prior to sin. On this point, Mr Howie is wrong and the "Many" are correct; but none of those opinions are relevant anyway, so he need not have made reference to them in the first place.

d. What is relevant is that Mr Howie does not agree with God on this point. The bible clearly states that Adam's sin was the trigger mechanism whereby sin and death "entered" the world: "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:" (Rom 5:12)

 

e. Consequently, Mr Howie either does not know the scripture, or he does not respect the authority of that scripture.

16. Page 29

The creators of this museum assumed that all the prehistoric creatures that ever existed were still alive at this time [i.e. with Adam and Eve] and living somewhere on the earth.

a. We do not claim to speak for any museum, but we are confident that the creation museum simply teaches what God reported in his word. The bible plainly states that land animals were created on day six just prior to the creation of man.

b. Although it is a very popular myth, the belief in anything "prehistoric" is not scientific; it is religious, evolutionary, and erroneous.

 

c. It is claimed that Mr Howie "attempts to respect the authority of scripture". If he actually did so, he would simply believe what God said, when God began by describing what happened, "In the beginning".   According to God, heaven, earth, the sea and all that in them is, was created in six days. (Ex 20:11)

 

d. Nothing on this earth was "prehistoric".

17. Page 30

In order to ascertain whether there was death on the earth before Adam and Eve sinned, it is necessary to examine the scriptures and compare these results with what we can learn from the science of geology.

a. No, it is not necessary to compare these results. For anyone who actually respects the authority of scripture, it is sufficient to accept the testimony of God (who was an eye-witness of the first death) that death did not enter the world until Adam sinned (Rom 12:5)

b. Mr. Howie continually reveals that he does not respect the authority of scripture, but instead, he accepts his own scholarship and his own erroneous interpretations of the science of geology as his final authority.

 

c. It is an incidental fact, but those who examine any and all of the evidence available through the science of geology, without prejudice, will find that it is consistent with the biblical account of a literal six-day creation, exactly as God has reported it to be.

18. Pages 30-32

[Mr. Howie cites selected verses from the New American Standard Version that supposedly report the story of creation from Genesis 1:4-31]

a. Mr. Howie fails to quote God's word when claiming to provide God's account of creation. Even when citing his own version, the NASV, Mr. Howie leaves out all five of the verses that refer to the evening and morning on the first five days of creation.

b. Whether it is accepted or not, God's word is the final authority, and in these verses it could not be any more plain in describing six literal days: the evening and the morning were the first day, the evening and the morning were the second day, etc.

 

c. But, Mr. Howie believes, and presents to his readers, his belief that God's word is not to be respected as the final authority. Specifically, he rejects these repeated assertions from God's word that each day was a single evening and morning, and he even omits the repeated reference to this in the false version of God's Word from which he quotes.

19. Page 32

There is a distinction as to plants, which are classified as unconscious life, and all other living creatures, which have a self-conscious life. Self-conscious creatures have a soul, which is called life. The higher forms in this category to some extent can reason or think.

a. The bible, our FINAL authority, does not teach that any living creature has a soul, except for man. In fact, Gen 2:7 says that man "became" a living soul.

 

b. Use of evolutionary terminology such as "higher forms" of life in a "category" that includes "humanity", reveals Mr. Howie's evolutionary bias and disrespect for biblical terminology and biblical truth.

20. Page 33

Many strict creationists suggest that before man sinned, all living creatures ate grass. The scripture does not indicate that there was a physical change to any living creature after the fall of Adam and Eve except to the serpent that tempted Eve.

a. There is no division of creationists that would support Mr. Howie's concept of "strict" creationists and 'non-strict' ones.

 

b. A person either believes God's word and is a creationist, or he rejects God's word and is not. Those who attempt to reconcile the irreconcilable positions - creation and evolution - with or without use of labels such as theistic evolution, or progressive creationism, etc - are simply not honest about the evidence and/or are not scholarly in determining the facts.

 

c. The bible says that God gave every green herb as meat; not that he simply gave "grass" to eat. (Gen 1:30)

 

d. The change from man and animals eating plants to both eating animals occurred after Noah's flood (Gen 9:2-6); not at the time of the fall. So, Mr. Howie's reasoning for supporting the uniformitarian view that certain animals were always carnivorous is unfounded.

21. Page 33

Fossil remains of T. rex that lived long before man was created have been found. He had sharp teeth that indicate that he was a flesh eater.

a. This is poor science and/or poor research. There are many examples of herbivores with sharp "carnivore" teeth. The reader can easily research pandas, bats, hippopotamuses and apes, for some examples.

22. Pages 33-34

If T. rex was still living when man was created, it is quite possible we would still be living in caves afraid to go out and consequently starving. The last of the dinosaurs became extinct about 65 million years ago

a. We cannot address every absurd conclusion in Mr. Howie's book. He has written page upon page of assumption that is dependent upon false assumption. And then he 'concludes' with his beliefs, as if he has proven something. That is not science. It is not scholarly. And frankly, for someone with his knowledge and experience, it is not honest.

b. By applying the conditional "if" to the verb "still living" Mr. Howie implies that T. rex lived and then ceased to live long before man. God's word, our FINAL authority states otherwise, and no scientific evidence exists that proves God's word to be in error.

 

c. Mr. Howie's use of the phrase "living in caves" gives implicit support to the evolutionary concept of 'cave-men'. Conversely, the biblical record would suggest that God created man far superior to anyone presently on earth, and that we have generally deteriorated in our capabilities ever since then.

d. Mr. Howie has no evidence to prove that dinosaurs became extinct 65 million years ago. That myth is simply a fairy-tale of ungodly men. Scientific evidence is consistent with the record of God's word. The earth was created about 6,000 years ago, and was destroyed by a flood about 4,500 years ago.

23. Page 34

Many believe that man was immortal before the fall because he did not die soon after he ate the fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

a. If Mr. Howie truly respected the authority of scripture, he would take this opportunity to explain that man was immortal before the fall because that is how God made him, and that God meant what he said in Gen 2:17.

b. Adam died spiritually at the moment he rebelled against God. He also died physically before reaching 1000 years old - which is as "ONE" day with the Lord. (II Pet 3:8)

24. Page 35

This begs the question [sic] - why is God so concerned about mankind?

a. What Mr. Howie really means is that this "raises" the question.....

b. Mr Howie erroneously uses the term "begs the question" which is a specific term pertaining to logic. A person who begs the question commits a fallacy - an argument contrary to the laws of logic. Specifically, a person "begs the question" when he makes a conclusion that is a mere restatement of his original premise.

c. The irony of his error on this point is that Mr. Howie's book is a virtual catalogue of examples of begging the question. For example, just two pages earlier, Mr. Howie commits a double example of begging the question - one nested within the other. He begs the question about the carnivorous nature of T. rex within a paragraph in which he begs the question about T. rex living long before man lived. His 'reasoning' proceeds, as follows:

1) Fossil remains of T. rex that lived long before man ... have been found.

a) He had sharp teeth that indicate that he was a flesh eater.

b) In fact, he was said to have been the most ferocious meat eater that ever lived.

c) His teeth were about 15 cm long with sharp serrated edges.

 

d) He certainly would have played havoc with our present-day wildlife, domestic animals and man [because he would have posed such a threat, given that he was a ferocious meat-eater].

2) If T. rex was still living when man was created, [because we know he lived long before man] it is quite possible we would still be living in caves afraid to go out and consequently starving [because we know he was a ferocious meat-eater, given that he had sharp teeth.]

3) The last of the dinosaurs became extinct about 65 millions years ago [which we know because they lived long before man].

d. This type of fallacious reasoning is just one of many that characterize the writing of Mr. Howie, as he purports to rely on the science of geology to advance his beliefs.

 

e. What Mr. Howie fails to tell his readers, among other things, is that there is no credible evidence to support his original premise that T. rex "lived long before man"; nor his general premise that sharp teeth preclude T. rex from being a herbivore. He simply relies upon the strength of the myth that evidence must exist....somewhere.... to support these beliefs.

25. Page 36

If God bowed down to speak with a number of humans, it is obvious he must have a profound interest in mankind's welfare. ...[and quoting from Ps 8:5]...Yet You have made him a little lower than God...

a. Without overtly stating his beliefs up front, Mr. Howie continues to write using conditionals and generalities for premises, he discusses various ideas that may pertain to those premises, and he then concludes that his initial premises were valid.

b. The statement that "God bowed down" to speak to men is not scriptural, and it conveys an erroneous (and blasphemous) perspective about the standing that men have before God. Men always have and always will bow down before God; not the other way around.

c. By quoting Ps 8:5 from a false 'bible' version, Mr. Howie is perpetuating this blasphemous idea that man is just "a little lower than God." It is characteristic of false 'bible' versions to exalt men in this manner, and to diminish God in this manner.

 

d. In fact, the bible says that, "thou hast made him a little lower than the angels." Angels are created beings; God is not. Angels are not to be worshipped; God is.

26. Pages 36-37

In order to produce thick deposits of coal, it was necessary for many trees to die in a very warm moist climate, preferable [sic] near the equator in a sinking basin that could accommodate a thick sequence of plant material.... In order to produce a large volume of oil, the climate must be equatorial...

a. This is speculative and misleading poppycock. Noah's flood was able to produce and to "accommodate" enormous masses of dead vegetation, gathering it and burying it in multiple layers, anywhere around the earth.

b. The fact that the entire earth was tropical prior to the flood (as evidenced by tropical fossils in arctic soils) reinforces the biblical account that God destroyed the whole earth in Noah's flood and that tremendous growth of trees, other plant life, and animal life were available in sufficient quantity to account for the presence of all known coal and oil deposits today.

27. Page 38

Yes, there was death on the earth before Adam and Eve sinned. Without the death of land and sea plant life, fish and other creatures, we would not have any deposits of coal, oil or gas.

a. Mr. Howie says there was death before sin. God says there wasn't.

b. Mr. Howie does not respect the authority of scripture. "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:" (Rom 5:12)

c. Sin did not enter the world until Adam sinned. Death did not come into the world until sin came. Therefore death did not enter the world until Adam sinned. This couldn't be more plain.

 

d. The fact that coal, oil and gas deposits exist does not in any way prove that death existed prior to sin. The very fact that God's word says death entered the world by sin is sufficient to establish both the timing and the cause and effect relationship of this matter. Furthermore, the creation account and the record of Noah's flood is sufficient to establish both the timing and the mechanism for the worldwide deposits of these natural resources.

28. Page 39

If this identification is correct [that co-located fossils of man and dinosaurs have been discovered] there was not a 60 million year gap between the demise of the dinosaurs and the appearance of mankind.

a. Mr. Howie is saying that, 'if the evidence exists, then my theory is wrong; but because my theory is right, therefore the evidence doesn't exist.'  This is one of the many examples of 'begging the question' (circular reasoning) in which Mr. Howie engages that we mentioned earlier.

 

b. Mr. Howie quotes Kuban, (1996) in such a way as to presuppose the existence of dinosaurs millions of years before man.

c. This presupposition is further proof that Mr. Howie does not respect the authority of scripture that God created the land animals on creation day six - the same day as he created man. It is also proof that Mr. Howie does not respect science. All scientific evidence supports the biblical account. Only fabrications and assumptions support the myth of evolution.

d. Mr. Howie uses additional terminology that reveals his evolutionary bias, contrary to the geological evidence against it, and contrary to scripture. Terms such as "demise of the dinosaurs" and the "appearance of mankind" are evolutionary-driven and anti-scriptural - besides being unsupported by science.

29. Pages 39-43

Ken Ham [a creationist] ... released a questionable DVD indicating that dinosaurs are mentioned in the Bible... this type of data [led to museums teaching dinosaurs and man lived together. The research of a paleontologist from one museum lead to the]...unfortunate...spread of "man track" claims [which are co-located man and dinosaur tracks. The research of Carl Baugh]... seemed to indicate that man and dinosaurs co-existed...[but this work] appears to have been an unfortunate correlation of data that the average reader, with little or no knowledge of the science of geology, might accept.

a. Mr. Howie casts doubt and disparaging scorn on men who believe God's word about a literal six-day creation, and who have scientific evidence to support them.

b. Conversely, Mr. Howie does not believe God's word and he does not have scientific evidence to support his beliefs; yet he claims to rely upon both.

30. Pages 43-44

In 2004, Ken Ham released a DVD entitled "The Bible Explains Dinosaurs." In this video, he quoted a number of scriptures from the King James Bible that are allegedly in support of his theory that dinosaurs were still around when man appeared on the scene.

a. Mr. Howie's characteristically pro-evolutionary bias is self-evident in his word choice.

b. This Ken Ham to whom he refers is the same Ken Ham whose work Mr Howie earlier identified as "questionable".

c. It is worth noting that Mr. Howie never condemns what he calls "scriptures" from the New American Standard Version, or other modern version; but he singles out the King James Bible (the only scripture in English) when attacking men who actually believe the text of scripture.

 

d. It is difficult to believe that a true disciple of Jesus, a true "Christian", would reject the words of God that report a literal six-day creation, and would disparage a man who believes those literal words of God.

31. Page 44

It is unfortunate that a large lizard, a native of Indonesia, is called the Komodo Dragon, leaving some to believe that dragons were once a real entity.

a. A true historian or scholar who researched this evidence would not try to mitigate its impact by calling it "unfortunate", etc simply because it did not support his own beliefs.

b. Likewise, a true scientist would not discount evidence simply because it refuted his beliefs. Instead, he would alter his beliefs to fit the evidence and then re-test the new beliefs. That is the scientific method.

c. Perhaps most importantly, a true Christian would not ignore the fact that God himself reported the existence of dragons some 35 times in his word.

d. Mr. Howie is indicting himself. He does not respect historical evidence, he does not respect the scientific method, and he does not respect the authority of scripture.

32. Page 45

Margin notes in the 1989 printing of the King James Bible indicate that the word dragon should be replaced by the word jackal. The word owls should [sic] replaced by ostriches.

a. Marginal notes are not given by inspiration of God. Scripture is given by inspiration of God. (II Tim 3:16)

b. The King James Bible has been in print for 400 years, and Mr. Howie selects a printing of it in which the publisher (who has a vested interest in selling modern versions) has inserted a marginal note that suggests another version would be more accurate. Let's think about that for a minute. Book sales = MONEY.

c. Here is Mr. Howie's logic:

1) God's word, the King James Bible, says 35 times that dragons are real.

 

2) Mr. Howie does not want to believe that dragons are real.

 

3) Mr. Howie finds like-minded skeptics who change the word dragon in scripture to another word.

 

4) Mr. Howie now proclaims with 'authority' that dragons are not real.

d. Mr. Howie does not respect the authority of scripture.

 

e. Mr. Howie ought to understand and to teach that "every word of God is pure ... Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar." (Prov 30:5,6)

33. Page 45

To illustrate his point, God goes back a few generations and reminds [the children of Israel that] nothing good can come out of Egypt...

a. Oddly enough, Mr. Howie quotes God when he agrees with God, and he changes what God says (see previous comments) when he disagrees with God.

b. In this quote, Mr. Howie agrees with God - that nothing good can come out of Egypt - and that the children of Israel should have 'relied on God instead of turning to Egypt for help'. But incredibly, Mr. Howie, himself, doesn't rely on God either. Instead, he uses a book (which he calls a 'bible') that came from ... of all places, ironically ... EGYPT!

 

c. The school at Alexandria, Egypt is the source of the corrupt line of manuscripts that underlie modern 'bible' versions, including the one that Mr. Howie uses and calls his "bible" - the NASV.

34. Pages 47-48

Most of the details on behemoth in Job (40:15-19, 21-22), accurately describe the hippopotamus as to size, appearance, strength, eating habits and living environment.

a. There is not one honest historian, geologist, criminal prosecutor, scientist, or person of any other profession who would blindly ignore a crucial piece of evidence upon which the entire case might pivot.

b. But, in this quote, Mr. Howie conspicuously omits that one crucial piece of evidence, a characteristic - the fact that behemoth "moveth his tail like a cedar" and therewith poses the possibility - as do some modern bible versions - that behemoth was a hippopotamus.

c. Mr. Howie knows well that hippopotamuses have a tiny tail, and that only a creature like an Apatosaurus or Brachiosaurus dinosaur would perfectly fit the description of behemoth as described by God in the book of Job.

d. But, that evidence is not what Mr. Howie wants to present, because Mr. Howie doesn't believe that dinosaurs lived at the same time as men lived. (See his conclusion on page 50). (So much for honest scholarship, and so much for employing the scientific method.)

e. So, Mr. Howie engages in the fallacy of 'straw man' and diverts attention from this evidence. He pretends to consider the (obviously absurd) possibility that behemoth was a hippopotamus. Then, he correctly, but misleadingly, rejects that premise on the somewhat benign basis of cud-chewing, without any reference to the more pertinent evidence - that behemoth's massive tail raises the obvious probability that behemoth was a dinosaur.

f. Finally, having led his readers down the garden path with this straw man, he leaves his readers with the even more absurd conclusion that "this so-called hippopotamus is an allegorical depiction of a man", despite the fact that man doesn't even have a tail, let alone have one the size of a cedar tree.

Note: Mr. Howie may well claim that he already presented the evidence pertaining to behemoth's tail; but that would be a misleading claim, if not a pre-planned deception. In fact, he only 'presented' that evidence by burying it within a very lengthy quotation by the late Dr. Henry M. Morris, seven pages earlier, spanning pages 41-42, and then ignoring it. Why did he include it at all? Undoubtedly because it is too important to completely omit from his book. Why did he then subsequently ignore it? Undoubtedly because it refutes what he prefers to believe.

 

Mr. Howie never presented the evidence himself that Behemoth moveth his tail like a cedar, and he never addresses it after allowing it in Dr. Morris's quote. Instead, Mr. Howie completely ignores the scriptural and scientific evidence presented in Dr. Morris' quotation - on the simple basis that it doesn't support his unproven, and dogmatic beliefs that "Man and dinosaurs never coexisted," - the final words of his conclusion on page 50.

35. Pages 48-49

Leviathan is a coiled sea serpent of Hebrew mythology....that represents the forces of evil. [and on page 49] Leviathan as depicted in Job also has the ability to talk, indicating we are not dealing with an animal as such but a person and (or) a nation. This is an allegorical picture of idolatrous Judah (behemoth), in conflict with the evil nation of Assyria and Sennacherib their king (leviathan).

a. In this quote, Mr. Howie sets the stage of discussion by implying that the origin of leviathan is merely "Hebrew mythology". But he previously acknowledged that the "Book of Job is the oldest book in the Bible." (Page 46). Because the Book of Job pre-dated any such thing as a person called a "Hebrew", we know that leviathan did not originate with Hebrew mythology.

b. The entire chapter of Job 41 is a detailed description of leviathan. Among many other things, he has virtually impenetrable skin (vs 7), he is fierce (vs 10), he has scales (vs 15-17), he breathes out fire and smoke (vs 19-21), and iron is like straw to him (vs 27).

c. Given this, what more evidence would be needed to satisfy Mr. Howie that leviathan was a fire-breathing dragon, 'a terrible lizard', a dinosaur?

 

d. In Psalms 74:13-14, God not only stated that leviathan really existed and that dragons were real, but that leviathan was, in fact, a dragon.

 

e. In the same passage, God went further to say that he fed the dragon, as meat, to the people inhabiting the wilderness. That would have been difficult to do, if leviathan never existed, if dragons never existed, or even if the "dinosaur/dragon/leviathan" became extinct 65 million years before those people ate him.

 

f. In Psalms 104:26, God stated that leviathan really existed, and that leviathan's playground was the sea.

 

g. In Isaiah 27:1, God again confirmed the existence of leviathan.

1) God said that he would punish leviathan.

2) God called leviathan "the piercing serpent"

3) God called leviathan "that crooked serpent"

4) God called leviathan "the dragon"

5) God said again that leviathan was the dragon "in the sea"

h. But once again, the evidence conflicts with Mr. Howie's preconceived beliefs, so Mr. Howie changes the evidence instead of changing his beliefs.

i. Mr. Howie concludes that this creature that God took so much time - and more than a whole chapter of the Bible - to describe in detail, is merely a man. (So much for the meaning of words, so much for respect for the authority of scripture, and so much for the application of scientific process.)

36. Page 50

If the Book of Job was written during the time of Moses or at some time previous, [then Mr. Howie acknowledges that his theory of allegory wouldn't work]. Since we are only concerned with the origin of behemoth and leviathan, the time of the allegorical story does not matter. Behemoth and leviathan were not dinosaurs because they were not creatures that ever lived on the earth.

... The dinosaur became extinct about 65 million years before man appeared on the scene... [Mr. Howie says that behemoth and leviathan are not dinosaurs] because Man and dinosaurs never coexisted.

a. Given that the book of Job WAS written before the time of Moses, leviathan could NOT have been an allegorical reference to the Assyrian king Sennacherib who lived about 1,000 years later.

b. Mr. Howie says that "the time of the allegorical story does not matter", because the time of the story - i.e. the historical fact - destroys his entire argument. (So much for historical accuracy, scientific process, evidence and truth.)

c. God said to Job, "Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox... He moveth his tail like a cedar... (Job 40:15-17) Did God lie, or is Mr. Howie lying?

1) God told Job to "behold" behemoth. How could Job "behold" behemoth, if behemoth didn't exist?

2) God told Job that he "made" behemoth. Did God lie about that, or is Mr. Howie lying when he says behemoth never literally existed?

3) God told Job that he made behemoth "with" Job; not 65 million years before man even existed. Did God lie about making them together, or is Mr. Howie lying about dinosaurs living millions of years earlier?

d. Clearly, Mr. Howie does not respect the authority of scripture.

37. Page 51

At what stage in the creation story did it first begin to rain? Was it before or after the appearance of man?

a. It is odd that a knowledgeable, professing "Christian" who even "attempts" to respect the authority of scripture would pose these questions, and it is impossible to accept that one could conclude, as Mr. Howie does, that "Rain has fallen on some part of our planet earth from day two of creation" (Page 54) - meaning (to him) 'millions of years before man was created'.

b. But, the theory of evolution requires the existence of rain upon rocks millions of years before man. So, Mr. Howie believes in the existence of rain millions of years before man.

c. On the other hand, for those of us who respect the authority of scripture, we accept that God established a seven day week and identified the first six days as being those in which he made everything that exists. (For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.) (Ex 20:11)

d. God said, And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground. (Gen 2:5)

e. The LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth. A mist went up from the earth and watered the whole face of the ground (Gen 2:6) and a river went out of Eden to water the garden (Gen 2:10).

f. Rain is not mentioned until Noah's flood (Gen 7:4) approximately 1500 years after creation.

38. Pages 52-54

It is possible that the mist rising from the river that flowed out of the garden could have watered all the vegetation in the garden, depending on the local topography and the prevailing winds.

a. We do not intend to address all of the issues in these pages - there are many.

 

b. But, overall, Mr. Howie continues to write in such a way as to exalt himself - the scholarship of man, to diminish God, and to cast doubt upon God's word (Yea, hath God said? - Gen 3:1). Consider examples from this one quote alone, as follows:

1) God reported that, "there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground." (Gen 2:6).  Conversely, Mr. Howie doubts God's report; he says, "It is possible...could have...depending..."

 

2) God reported that the mist went up from "the earth".  Conversely, Mr. Howie speculates that the mist rising from "the river"... could have...

 

3) God reported that the mist "watered the whole face of the ground".  Mr. Howie merely concedes it "is possible" that the mist "could have" watered all the vegetation "in the garden"; not the whole face of the ground.

 

4) Mr. Howie adds further riders to the 'possibility' that God's statement is true with the words - "depending on ....", as if God (who, having just created the universe) might have overlooked the impact that topography and prevailing winds might have on moisture levels of the ground.

c. God probably didn't need a consultant's report from a Geologist before engaging in his creative work, or before making any of his statements about it.

 

d. It is equally probable that God will not be seeking opinions before he judges those who add to, remove from, and/or otherwise change his word. (Prov 30:6; Rev 22:18,19)

 

e. Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you. (Deut 4:2)

39. Page 52-53

When the earth was formed, it probably congealed from a fiery ball, created by material that came together in space with a high energy impact.

a. Would Mr. Howie's "high energy impact" of "material that came together" be the same as the "BIG BANG"?

 

b. These are not the words of a person who respects the word of God.

 

c. These are the words of an evolutionist.

 

d. Why wouldn't Mr. Howie simply be up front about what he believes?  He believes in the Big Bang Theory.  He believes in evolution.  He does not believe God.

 

e. God said that the world was covered with water when he created it (Gen 1:2-10). That would have been quite a trick, if Mr. Howie's fireball were true.

40. Page 53

The first life was in the form of plant algae...followed by other early plant and animal life and by later life forms.

a. God said that the first life was grass and trees. (Gen 1:11)  Does Mr. Howie really believe that Tyler and Barghoorn, (1954) have more authority than God has on this matter?

 

b. Without any evidence whatsoever (because there is none), Mr. Howie merely parrots the beliefs of his religion - evolution.  That is not science.  It is science falsely so called.

 

c. The god of evolution is not the God of the bible.

 

d. Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ (Col 2:8).

41. Page 53

Rain prints have been found in continental mud flats, in various parts of the world, long before the flood in Noah's day. Rain prints have been identified in the Old Red Sandstone of Devonian Age in the British Isles estimated to be 400 million years old (Holmes, 1965).

a. Without bothering to cite a page reference, Mr. Howie pretends to document evidence for his beliefs, by general reference to Arthur Holmes' Principles of Physical Geology.

 

b. Arthur Holmes' work was completed with the Second Edition of his book, published in 1965 - the year of his death. A re-print was made by his wife in 1978.  In our research of Arthur Holmes' textbook, "Holmes Principles of Physical Geology" (Third Edition, c. Doris L. Holmes, 1978, previously published in 1965 under title of "Principles of physical geology"), it appears that rain prints are only mentioned on page 93.  The single quotation, in context, is as follows:

Even the weather may be recorded in the structures of the rocks.  A brief rain shower falling on a smooth surface of fine-grained sediment spatters it with tiny crater-like pittings known as rain prints. Sun cracks develop in the mud flats of tidal reaches or flood plains when the mud dries up and shrinks (Figure 5.5).  Occasionally it happens that the polygonal cracks become filled with windblown sand before the next tide or flood sweeps over the area.

c. Any reader literate in English should understand that the words "may be" are purely speculative and do not constitute proof, evidence or scientifically validated conclusions. The weather "may be" recorded in the structures of the rocks, in the form of rain prints.  That is merely a belief; it is not science.

 

d. Moreover, this speculation does not even address (let alone provide evidence for) the independent issue of age underlying Mr. Howie's concurrently presented religious beliefs that rocks are older than 6,000 years and that rain occurred long before Noah's flood - despite the (final authority) evidence of scripture in opposition to these beliefs.

 

e. But, that is the extent of the "proof" that Mr. Howie provides.

 

f. Mr. Howie's reference to "Old Red Sandstone of Devonian Age" appears to come from pages 94-95 of Holmes' textbook - pages which pertain to mud cracks; not specifically to rain prints.

 

g. Mr. Howie's reference to the "estimated" age of the rocks being "400 million years old" do not appear to come from anywhere in the seventh chapter of Holmes at all, let alone apply to the rocks within which "rain prints" supposedly exist.

 

h. This seventh chapter of Holmes (wherein "rain prints" are mentioned once) relies heavily upon the beliefs of James Hutton (1726-1797), the founder of modern geology and the founder of the concept that Charles Lyell later called "uniformitarianism".  These evolutionary beliefs are purely religious; they have no basis in science.

 

i. These religious beliefs provide the motivation for the assumptions upon which the rock-dating methods are based.  They do not lead to facts, evidence, proof, or truth.  They lead to purely arbitrary conclusions that "beg the question" in support of themselves - the pre-existing religious beliefs.

 

j. It is outside the scope of this review to fully explain the failings of the radioisotope dating techniques that supposedly date rocks to be greater than 6,000 years old. But, for the sake of the studious reader who might wish to research them in detail, three general problem areas that invalidate all of the techniques will be listed, as follows:

1) Radioisotope dating techniques are not scientific - the original conditions cannot be observed. Therefore initial conditions have to assumed.  They are not known. (i.e. they are purely guesses).

 

2) The techniques rely upon constant decay rates, an assumption in itself, and one that is refuted by observable science.  (For example, time is not constant.  Clocks must be adjusted because the universe is winding down, and even the speed of light itself is now known to not be a constant.)  Contrary to the beliefs of Charles Lyell, James Hutton, Charles Darwin, Arthur Holmes, and Robert Howie, etc the present is NOT the key to the past.  Things do NOT continue today as they did in the past. (II Pet 3:3-4)

 

3) The ratio of parent to daughter isotopes can easily be affected by many processes. A single catastrophic event in the life of the sample could result in a completely erroneous measurement of age.

k. The result of these points alone is that whatever age is determined by radioisotope dating is nothing more than a wild guess or an age that "begs the question" in support of pre-existing religious beliefs. Radioisotope dating techniques produce conflicting and exaggerated ages in samples of known age.  It is therefore unreliable for use in samples of unknown age.

 

l. The Devonian geologic period, supposedly of the Paleozoic era (about 400 million years ago), is just one component of this unbelievable fairy tale.

1) It is difficult to accept that so-called intelligent people can believe in these myths.

 

2) It is impossible to accept that a Christian would believe in them.  The evidence for evolution simply does not exist.  Moreover, a person has to trample over the very words of God and to reject them before believing the evolutionary myth.  "Christians" are those who study God's word (II Tim 2:15), who continue in God's word (John 8:31-32) and who believe God's word (John 2:22; I Thess 2:13). There is no compromise.  There is no fellowship between righteousness and unrighteousness.

 

3) There is no 'engineering of a middle ground' between "truth" and "non-truth". Anyone who departs from the truth to embrace any of the non-truths of evolution no longer has the truth.

42. Page 55

The Genesis Flood: Real or Mythological?

a. This is the only chapter title that we intend to examine in detail in this review, but it is representative of some subtle dangers in Mr. Howie's writing.

1) All good authors understand the principle that the last thing mentioned carries the most force.

 

2) All readers, whether conscious of it or not, absorb the extra strength of that last thing mentioned.

 

3) By using this principle to his advantage, the author is not necessarily assured of persuading his reader, but he is more assured of imposing influence than he would be without having employed the principle in his favour.

 

4) With this title, Mr. Howie introduces the topic of Noah's Flood and leaves the reader with a stronger sense of it being mythological than real.

 

5) Those who are inclined to disbelieve the bible will thereby have their beliefs reinforced that the Flood is mythological - at least to some degree - particularly if they are only casual readers.

 

6) Perhaps the greater danger, however, is that the Christian reader (or an uncertain individual) will experience tension over the uncertainty, until Mr. Howie later reveals that the Flood was actually real.

 

7) And herein lies the danger. Having dismissed the idea that the flood was a myth and then verified that it was real, Mr. Howie establishes himself as "one of us" to the mind of the Christian reader - when in truth, he is not.  He is a deceiver.  He believes in evolution.  He does not believe God's word, and he sets forth to systematically question, alter and dismantle the word of God in numerous ways - one of which being that he claims the flood was real (but local; and not global).

b. This deceptive technique is probably as much a learned behaviour by those who embrace and parrot the ignorant and godless views of their pastors and professors as it is a calculated effort to deceive others purposefully.  But, to the reader, it causes destruction, regardless of the user's motives.

 

c. New 'bible' version proponents are typically adept at using this technique.  They pay lip service to the beauty, poetic style, and/or longtime service of the King James Bible, and then - with feigned "respect for its authority" - they begin to dismantle the text of that actual scripture by parroting numerous lies about its translation weaknesses and its supposed archaic nature.

 

d. Mr. Howie has employed this technique numerous times.  He pretends to champion respect for the authority of the bible, while in truth rebelling against it, and he pretends to speak for proven science while in truth making or re-distributing fabrications against it.

 

e. Let the reader beware of wolves in sheep's clothing. For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple. (Rom 16:18)

43. Page 57

[In reference to the timing and impact of Noah's Flood] To the inhabitants of this area [Ganges River], the storm destroyed their perceived world (Keller, 1974).

 

...

 

The story of the Genesis flood is recorded in the Bible... the instructions given to Noah for saving his family and preserving a sample of the wildlife that lived in his area.

a. The first quote above is the final comment (the position of strongest and most persuasive argument, remember?) in Mr. Howie's section on the Babylonian Flood.  Note his words "their perceived world".

 

b. As the reader's mind carries that thought into the next section about the Flood of Noah, a mere two sentences later, Mr. Howie suggests that God only instructed Noah to save a sample of the wildlife "that lived in his area".

 

c. This obviously reinforces in the reader's mind the concept that Mr. Howie wants the reader to believe - that Noah's flood was only local; not global.  Admittedly, he pays lip service to it being a global flood by saying that it "affected the entire world", but those are intentionally deceitful words in our view, because Mr. Howie clearly does not believe that God destroyed the whole earth with a global flood (Evidence follows).

44. Page 60

According to tradition, Noah lived in Fara, [on the Persian Gulf]... Over the years, the high volume of silt brought down by the Euphrates River...built up the floodplain.

a. Why would Mr. Howie defer to "tradition" (Mark 7:9,13) rather than to scripture?  The fact that scripture does not tell us these things is good reason for us to not read it into the text (eisegesis).

 

b. Certainly, Mr. Howie's phrase "over the years" is a reference to the millions of years of alluvial deposits near the mouth of the Euphrates - a concept that is not recorded in scripture, one that is refuted by scripture, and one that only serves to drive his evolutionary beliefs into the mind of the reader.

 

c. All of this 'traditional' myth, under title of "Ship Builders of Fara" is headed towards the yarn that Noah was a professional ship-builder.

 

d. (Story-time at the Howie residence must have been exciting when Mr. Howie's daughters were young, but it is regrettable that anyone should believe such tales in the first place and teach them to other adults, let alone that they should expose children to them.)

45. Page 60

Living in this area, Noah would have been very familiar with boat building.  He was probably a fairly wealthy merchant or he may have owned a shipyard.

a. In fact, we don't know that Noah lived "in this area" at all.  We don't know where Noah lived, for sure, and we don't know that he built anything but an ark and an altar.

 

b. These fabrications are the 'proof' that Mr. Howie is a mere story-teller: 'Noah was a professional shipbuilder', he suggests.

 

c. To fabricate a story that includes Noah's occupation, wealth and assets when scripture mentions none of that is unwise, at best. It also diminishes the hand of God in the story because - once again - Mr. Howie tells the story in a way that exalts man, as if Noah was able to accomplish a lot of the task on his own, as a result of his wealth, his business/profession and his assets.

 

d. ... Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar." (Prov 30:5,6)

46. Page 61

In children's story books, the ark is usually shown as a sleek wooden ship with animals...poking their necks and heads out of every porthole.  In actual fact in one of the sketches the ark is depicted as a rectangular barge, three stories high with a row of small openings or windows, just below the roofline (Nelson, 1993).  As it has no sails or rudder, it would have been driven here and there by the wind and tide.

a. By introducing the question of the shape of the ark in the context of children's story books, Mr. Howie has, once again set the stage for scoffers, and joins in with them. (II Pet 3:3-6)

 

b. But, rather than citing fables and listing what may have seemed like weaknesses in the design of the ark, Mr. Howie would have better served his readers by researching the possibility that drogue stones were used to tether the ark so that it wouldn't be "driven here and there by the wind and tide".

 

c. If Mr. Howie did choose to research this possibility - one scientific piece of evidence among a great many that he fails to consider in his book - perhaps he could examine the curved holes in the drogue stones reportedly found in the mountains of Ararat.

 

d. Given his evolutionary bias that we are so much more advanced today, and given his belief that Noah was disadvantaged by not having modern day equipment (page 60), Mr. Howie should be able to propose how we might drill the massive, curved holes through the stones (presumably so the ropes wouldn't chafe and break) that Noah apparently drilled through them without modern equipment.  No one else today seems to know how to do this.

47. Page 61

As the ark took shape, it probably dominated the landscape and could be seen from a considerable distance.  During construction, entrepreneurs were probably doing a thriving business with walking tours and boat trips up and down the Euphrates River past the shipyard.

a. A study of the words "can you imagine", "wonder", "suggest", "story", "probably reasoned", and five similar words in two paragraphs alone should lead the reader to "wonder" if Mr. Howie is a scientist employing the scientific method, or is simply a story-teller.

 

b. Let us remind the reader that we don't even know whether Noah lived near the Persian Gulf, or anywhere near the Euphrates River, let alone know that he had a ship building business and that entrepreneurs might have done thriving business with walking tours and boat trips past the "shipyard".

 

c. If we respect the authority of scripture, we will be like the men of Berea, who were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so. (Acts 17:11)

 

d. If we respect the authority of scripture, we will prove all things; hold fast that which is good. (I Thess 5:21)

48. Page 62

Here God is indicating that over a number of generations, the average lifespan of human kind would gradually be reduced from nearly a thousand years to one hundred and twenty years.

a. In seeking to determine how long Noah took to build the ark, Mr. Howie lists seven men and the age at which they died. The first three lived about 900 years, the last three lived about 150 years and Mr. Howie includes Enoch in the middle (who never died but was translated to heaven at 365 years old) in order to conclude that the average lifespan "gradually" reduced. (That type of statistical manipulation and reporting could have secured him a job with Enron as an accountant.)

 

b. The "average" lifespan of man did not "gradually" decrease. It fell precipitously at the time of Noah's flood.

 

c. Mr. Howie and other evolutionists would like us to believe that the lifespans "gradually" reduced, because that is consistent with their uniformitarian philosophy (Col 2:8) and evolutionary timeline of millions of years.

 

d. But the bible is clear that there was a precipitous decline of lifespans at the time of the flood.  This is inconsistent with Mr. Howie's evolutionary "gradual" uniformitarian views, but it is perfectly consistent with the expected consequences of a global flood and its catastrophic destruction upon the earth.

 

e. In Gen 6:3, because of the wickedness of man, God said that his spirit would not always strive with man, for that he (man) also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred twenty years.  God gave man 120 years to repent, during which time Noah built the ark and preached (II Pet 2:5).

 

f. God never reduced the age of men to 120.  He gave the wicked men of Noah's time 120 years to live and to repent - and they didn't.  An analysis of biblical ages shows that the lifespan of men continued to decline through the 120-year level that Mr. Howie claims God had set. In fact, God established 70 years as the average age of death, and 80 years for those in good health (Ps 90:10).

 

 

 

49. Page 63

There are no records to indicate how long it took Noah and his work force to build the ark.  ... An educated guess would be from 5 to 20 years.

a. It is true that the bible does not specifically say how many years it took Noah to build the ark.  However, Mr. Howie's range of 5 to 20 years is more of a wild guess than an educated one.

 

b. The fact that 120 years was never an established average age for man to live (and that it never became one) means that the 120 years has no other reasonable purpose but to indicate (as it does in context) that God had granted 120 years for man to repent and had decided to destroy them following that period of grace.

 

c. Noah prophesied the coming flood. The bible says that "Surely the Lord GOD will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets." (Amos 3:7)  So, it only makes sense that God told Noah to build the ark at the time when he decided to give man 120 years to repent, and he had Noah preach about it during the period of grace. (II Pet 2:5)

 

d. The fact that we also now live in a period of grace today, that final judgment of the whole world is once again on our doorstep, and that the bible prophesies our days to be as those of the Days of Noah (Matt 24:37) adds credibility to the understanding that Noah knew of the upcoming flood throughout that period of grace and was active in preparing the ark as he preached of the coming judgment.

 

e. Besides it would make no sense for God to establish a period of grace if he didn't identify the purpose of it and the reality of the pending judgment.

50. Page 63

As termites can be a real problem in most warm climates today, I think we can assume they would also have been a problem in Noah's day.

a. To shorten the period of time he believes it took Noah to build the ark, Mr. Howie "assumes" that termites would have been as much of a problem to Noah as they are to us today.

 

b. This assumption is the heart of the philosophy of Uniformitarianism. ("... all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation - II Pet 3:4")

 

c. But, he has no biblical basis upon which to make such an assumption and no scientific proof either.  That is the nature of evolutionary thinking - and of Mr. Howie's - make an assumption and then conclude that your assumption was true.

 

d. Conversely, the bible describes major changes in the world following the flood.  Included amongst these are the change of diet from plants to flesh, and the concurrent fear that began to reside in the animals; so it is reasonable to conclude that termites wouldn't have been a problem to man before that time either.  That may not provide conclusive proof, but it provides more proof than Mr. Howie's unfounded "guess".

51. Pages 63-64

Be assured it rained on the earth during this time, but we have no way of knowing how much rain fell on this particular location.

a. Mr. Howie says that we can "be assured" that it rained on the earth prior to the flood.  If the bible is our final authority, where is the scriptural proof for that?

 

b. We have already shown that God said it did NOT rain on the earth in the beginning (Gen 2:5), and that the first record of rain was during the flood. (Gen 7:4)  This conclusion is consistent with scripture.  Mr. Howie's is not.

52. Page 64

When Noah finished the ark, he was instructed to bring on board a male and female of all fowl, cattle and every creeping thing that had breath...

a. No he was not.

 

b. He was instructed to bring two males and two females of every kind of unclean beast, two males and two females of every kind of creeping thing, seven males and seven females of every kind of clean beast, and seven males and seven females of every kind of fowl. (Gen 7:2)

53. Page 64

When Noah, his family and all the wildlife were tucked away on board the ark, an additional seven days was granted Noah to get the animals and birds accustomed to their new home before the rains started.

a. Mr. Howie not only embraces the beliefs of evolutionists who ignore scientific evidence and reject God's word, but he embraces the beliefs of professing Christian teachers who ignore scientific evidence and reject God's word as well.

 

b. The bible does not say that Noah, his family and all the animals were on the ark for seven days before the rain began. That idea comes only by poorly reading the text of scripture oneself, or by listening to false teachers who promote a pretribulation rapture.

 

c. Because our days are compared to those of Noah, many today want to believe that they will be raptured seven years before Armageddon as they believe Noah to have been safe in the ark seven days before the judgment of rain and flood began.

 

d. The scripture actually says that Noah entered into the ark "the self-same day" that the fountains of the deep were broken up and the windows of heaven were opened. (Gen 7:11-13)

 

e. Seven days previously, God had told Noah to "take to thee" (i.e. gather) the animals, fowl and creeping things; and it took him those seven days to do so. (Gen 7:4,5,10)

 

f. Prophetically, this tells us that we, too, shall be on the earth for the final seven years (Daniel's 70th week) and that Christians shall only be raptured "the self-same day" that judgment falls at Armageddon.

54. Pages 64-65

According to the story teller, the highest mountain seen in the area was covered by about 7m of water. ... Because the ark had no rudder or sail, it was at the mercy of the wind and waves. ... The story teller assumed this [ledge of rock that they supposedly saw through the fog] was the highest mountain on earth and that the entire planet was covered with water.

a. Notice that Mr. Howie unrepentantly employs the language of scoffers (Yea, hath God said? - Gen 3:1) - this time by introducing his rejection of Gen 7:19-20 with the words "According to the story teller".

 

b. Well, this scripture was given by inspiration of God and was written by Moses (II Tim 3:16 - regardless of who was in the ark). Which of these two witnesses are we to believe is unreliable? Is either a mere "story teller"?

 

c. Mr. Howie is actually the story teller, because he reads into the text (eisegesis) what isn't there, including that the ark was at the mercy of the wind and waves without a rudder or sail, that the ark "probably" drifted into the Persian Gulf, that there was "probably" considerable fog and poor visibility (as if these would really matter), that the occupants of the ark saw a large expanse of water (when the text says that Noah didn't open the window until after the 40 days - Gen 8:6), that the occupants saw a ledge of rock protruding above the waves (which is needed to support Mr. Howie's false local flood), that the "story teller" simply "assumed" that this ledge (that Mr. Howie fabricated) was the highest mountain on earth, and that the "story teller" therefore erroneously concluded that water covered the entire planet.

 

d. That is quite a story.  But it is blasphemous for rejecting the actual text of God's word. God doesn't appreciate Mr. Howie - or anyone else - adding to his words. Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar." (Prov 30:5,6)

 

e. Here is what God actually reported regarding the global scope of the flood: And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered. Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered. (Gen 7:19-20)

 

f. The reader should note that it would be quite difficult to destroy every living substance from off the face of the earth (Gen 7:4) and to cover all the high hills that were under the whole heaven, and to cover the mountains with fifteen cubits of water prevailing over them (about 22.5 feet), if Noah's flood was only a local flood in Mesopotamia, like Mr. Howie wants us to believe.

 

g. Let God be true but every man a liar. (Rom 3:4)  Noah's flood was a global flood, just as God said.

55. Pages 65 - 66

When the story teller in the ark indicated the entire world was covered with water, it was a personal assessment based on his view from the ark.  If the entire world had been covered, over 9,000 m of water would have been required to cover Mt. Everest, the highest peak on earth. When the flood subsided, where would the excess water go?

a. Mr. Howie must feel that he has to remind the reader that:

1) We only assume the whole world was flooded because a "story teller" said it was so,

 

2) The "story teller" was "in the ark" (so we shouldn't think that God or Moses actually reported the incident after the fact - in authoritative scriptures that shall never pass away.)

 

3) The "story teller" only "indicated" the entire world was covered, (he didn't report it as a "fact" and he certainly wasn't speaking on behalf of God who knew that the flood was only a local one.)

 

4) This assumption is only the story teller's "personal assessment" (which certainly could have been mistaken given his restricted vantage point, no open window on the ark, the poor visibility and fog outside, etc.)  (Maybe the story teller even had sea sickness.)

b. To his credit, Mr. Howie refrains from asking where sufficient water came from in the first place to cover all of the mountains of the world - which most scoffers usually ask. (II Pet 3:3-6)

 

c. But asking where all of the water went afterwards is just as bad.

 

d. Among other places, Mr. Howie already admitted on page 20 that "...at the junction of three tectonic plates, [in the Mesopotamian area] there has been considerable uplift with changes in topography..." BEFORE the flood, he claims.

 

e. So, when God says that ALL the fountains of the great deep were broken up (Gen 7:11) and that the world was overflowed with water and perished (II Pet 3:6) why is it so difficult to believe him?  He made the whole universe.  Is it difficult to believe that he can't find a place to put some water?

 

f. There are other biblical references to the fact that the flood was global - and many scientific proofs as well (like millions of marine fossils on mountains around the world, like the Niagara escarpment and the Grand Canyon, etc).

 

g. The waters decreased continually. Then, on the first day of the tenth month the tops of the mountains were seen (Gen 8:5).  The dove that Noah released returned to him without finding a place to rest, because "the waters were on the face of the whole earth" (Gen 8:9).

 

h. The bible appears to say that Noah built the ark over a period of 120 years.  Mr. Howie says it only took 5-20 years. Okay; that's fine.  If the flood was only local, then why didn't God just tell Noah to move?  If a one-legged man can run completely across Canada in a few months, then surely Noah didn't even need the 5 years that Mr. Howie gave him to get away from a "local" flood.

 

i. Now, if the reader actually loves God's word, should he believe that the waters were on the face of the "WHOLE EARTH" (Gen 8:9; II Pet 3:6), or should he believe Mr. Howie and other evolutionists who say that Noah's flood was only local?

56. Page 66

Besides it is not logical to assume that God would destroy all the wildlife on earth because he wanted to destroy the wicked humans that lived in Mesopotamia.

a. Mr. Howie slips his false premises in the reader's mind with the words:

1) "because [God] wanted to destroy the wicked humans" when in fact God had said that he would destroy everything. (Gen 7:4)

 

2) "Mesopotamia", when, in fact, the bible never identifies a local place and always refers to the whole earth in reference to the extent of the flood.

b. After stating on this page repeatedly how "important" it is to note that the "story teller" was only expressing a "personal opinion" regarding the flood being worldwide, a "personal assessment" that he "assumed", again a "personal assessment", "based on the knowledge available to the story teller at the time", Mr. Howie concludes that it is "not logical to assume" that God would destroy all the wildlife on earth.

 

c. Well, God himself said that, "every living substance that I have made will I destroy from off the face of the earth." (Gen 7:4) and, "the waters were on the face of the whole earth" (Gen 8:9), and "the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished" (II Pet 3:6)

 

d. So, who is right - Mr. Howie, or God?

57. Pages 66-67

[Given that everyone is a descendant of Noah] it is expected that most cultures would have a flood story in their history.  The version we find in the Bible was probably passed down through Abraham's lineage to Moses.

a. By using the word "story" instead of "record", "account", "report", or "what scripture says about the flood", etc, Mr. Howie diminishes the credibility of this scriptural account of the flood.

 

b. By using the word "version" in reference to the scriptural account in the "Bible", Mr. Howie implies that the scriptural account is merely one of many implicitly equal or otherwise viable accounts.  It also strengthens his propaganda that any 'bible version' should be considered as a viable version of God's word; not the King James Bible alone.

 

c. Although it is possible that Moses received the records by the hand of men from generation to generation, it is also possible - and just as probable, if not more so - that he received it directly from God, as he had received so much of the rest of scripture directly from God, and as the Apostle Paul received directly from the Lord (I Cor 11:23).

 

d. To suggest that Moses received this knowledge by the hand of man over several generations, compounds Mr. Howie's unscriptural and faithless claim that what we have today is merely a "version" of the record of the flood.  This is an assault on the authority, preservation and veracity of the word of God.  There are MANY versions of what occurred during Noah's flood.  Which one is the truth?  Which one constitutes God's word on the matter?

 

e. Mr. Howie would have us believe that the truth lies in his collation of an eclectic text from conflicting and corrupted manuscripts written by ungodly men, and that we need experts like him to provide professional opinions on what parts of them "probably" constitute the truth. That is uncomfortably reminiscent of those who teach that we need a priest to interpret scripture and to be a mediator for us.

 

f. Conversely, God himself said that his word is pure and perfect, that it shall outlive heaven and earth, that we need to live by EVERY WORD of it, and that he would preserve his words in it, himself.

 

g. We have found that pure, preserved word of God, in English, to be the King James Bible.  All other "versions" have errors, omissions, contradictions and fables in them.

58. Page 67

[In reference to koalas, kangaroos and Tasmanian devils, etc, Mr. Howie says,] If they were on the ark, I don't see how they could have traveled about 12,000 km (8,000 miles) and cross an ocean to get back to the continent of Australia during Noah's time.

a. Mr. Howie questions "IF" these animals were on the ark..., clearly casting doubt on God's word just like Satan did with Eve in the garden. (Yea, hath God said? - Gen 3:3)

 

b. In his instructions to Noah, God said, Of EVERY clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens... and of beasts that are not clean by two... Of fowls also of the air by sevens (Gen 7:2,3) And seven days later, Noah entered the ark with, "EVERY beast after his kind...and EVERY creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind, and EVERY fowl after his kind, EVERY bird of EVERY sort. (Gen 7:14)

 

c. What animals did God leave out, Mr. Howie; or which did Noah forget to take?

 

d. We haven't mentioned it yet, but oddly enough, Mr. Howie contradicts many of his own false premises when he quotes from his own "version" of the "bible".  For example, it appears that he doesn't believe his own version when even it clearly says that God destroyed "all flesh that moved on the earth", "every living thing that I have made" (pages 57-59).

 

e. Those who actually "respect the authority of scripture" simply believe what it says.

 

f. For those who wonder how animals came to live in Australia, it is perfectly reasonable to conclude that there were land bridges to all parts of the earth for several hundreds of years following the flood, because the bible says that in the days of Peleg the earth was divided (Gen 10:25; I Chr 1:19), which might suggest the continents were then divided, or possibly that water came over the land bridges and divided the continents.

 

g. It is alternatively reasonable to conclude that they were taken there on ships in the generations following the flood. It is obvious that everyone on earth knew about ships at that time.

59. Page 67-68

The eye of the storm was probably over Mesopotamia, because this was the area where at that time all of mankind lived, according to the biblical stories.

a. The bible never calls it a "storm".  It was over the face of the whole earth.

 

b. The bible never says that all of mankind lived in Mesopotamia.

 

c. Mr. Howie continues to fabricate these 'facts' to support his belief in a local flood.

60. Page 68

The foundations of the deep being broken up suggest crustal faults that would create tidal waves or a tsunami.  Away from the nearby epicenter, the rest of the world probably experienced considerable flooding, but not at all as severe as in the Mesopotamia area.

a. The bible actually states that the "fountains" of the great deep were broken up; not that the "foundations" were broken (Gen 7:11).

 

b. We have already quoted several of the scriptural references that prove the flood was global (Gen 7:4; Gen 8:5; Gen 8:9; II Pet 3:6). Mr. Howie merely continues to assert, without scripture or science, that the rest of the world "PROBABLY experienced considerable flooding, but..." (emphasis added)

 

c. It is difficult to understand how Mr. Howie can believe that the mountains were covered with 15 cubits of water (about 22.5 feet), sufficient for the ark to pass over them (page 65) without believing that the whole world was flooded, as scripture plainly records.

 

d. Scientific experiment would suggest that water does not pile up over mountains for large boats to float over them; it tends to spread out.

 

e. Mr. Howie should be held to account for why he rejects the plain text of scripture in this matter, and also, for what scientific evidence he offers in support of his local flood assumption - wherein the flood still covered all of the mountains of the earth with 22.5 feet of water.

 

f. Giving Mr. Howie the extreme benefit of the doubt, he would at least be required to prove that water could cover all of the earth and pile up high enough for the ark to pass over the mountains - with 22.5 feet of water over the peak - and to come to rest on the mountains of Ararat FIVE MONTHS LATER without there being more than a local flood in the area of Mesopotamia.

61. Page 68

The flood was a judgment by God against man but not against the animals... although some wildlife perished, sufficient survived on their own by moving to higher ground.

a. Where is his proof? Mr. Howie uses these statements to support his idea that the animals, sensing danger, simply headed for higher ground - which, of course, fabricates support for his "local flood" assumption.

 

b. But God said that he destroyed ALL living things on the face of the earth. (Gen 6:17; II Pet 3:6)

 

c. By sensing the danger and moving to higher ground, the animals would appear to have been more intelligent than either Noah or God, (who instructed Noah to build an ark instead).

 

d. Mr. Howie is a scoffer and does not respect the word of God (II Pet 3:3-6).

62. Page 69

Faulting in deep ocean basins can cause earthquakes and a change in the level of the sea floor.  Fault adjustments or submarine slumping commonly create waves or tsunamis...

a. Mr. Howie pretends to write authoritatively at times about these things throughout his book, but then he strains at the idea that the "excess" water could have been swallowed up into deepening ocean floors or into earthquake rifts.

 

b. Moreover, he rejects outright the plain text of scripture wherein God, himself, says that he covered the whole earth with a flood - And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly (II Pet 2:5)... whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished (II Pet 3:6)

63. Page 71

The earth's biosphere was apparently drastically altered during the Genesis flood by forty days and forty nights of torrential rain and violent earthquakes.  The result of this unusual disturbance is in the biblical record but not its cause.

a. These first sentences in Mr. Howie's 'analysis' of the flood is under the title of "What Forces of Nature Caused the Flood", as if "NATURE" were a person or had anything to do with it, and as if we didn't already know the cause.

 

b. The "CAUSE" of the "disturbance" is God, Mr. Howie.  God, himself, said that he would destroy the earth in judgment.  God, himself, reported that he did so.  God, himself, said, "I WILL CAUSE IT TO RAIN UPON THE EARTH... and every living substance that I have made will I destroy from off the face of the earth." (Gen 7:4) "God made a wind to pass over the earth, and the waters asswaged"(Gen 8:1). God created heaven and earth (Gen 1:1).

 

c. GOD has everything to do with this. "NATURE" has nothing to do with this.

 

d. But this is typical of Mr. Howie, and of evolutionists in general, to minimize the impact and credit due to God, to reject the plain text of his word, and to exalt man, naturalistic forces (Nature), or anything else that might provide opportunity for men to boast and that might avoid giving God the credit.

64. Page 71

It is probably safe to say that the flood was triggered by one or more factors related to outer space, simply because science has not identified any possible causal mechanism internal to our earth nor any from outer space. [and other similar comments on this page]

a. Mr. Howie, you wrote that the flood was triggered by one or more FACTORS "related to outer space"?  Do you mean "God", Mr. Howie?  Is God nothing more than a spaceman to you?

 

b. Have you ever read Mark 4:39, Mr. Howie? Jesus stood up in the boat, rebuked the wind and said unto the sea, Peace, be still.  And the wind ceased, and there was a great calm.

 

c. Could you tell us what "causal mechanism" triggered that calming of the sea just at the right moment? Was it "internal to our earth", "from outer space", or has science not identified that yet either?

 

d. Mr. Howie says that "science has not identified any possible causal mechanism".  Maybe that is because no one else in "science" has bothered to read his bible yet either - or to believe it.

 

e. Has "science" been able to identify "any possible causal mechanism" for the creation of heaven and earth yet, Mr. Howie? Surely you know that "it" hasn't.  Surely you know that the "Big Bang" and other theories are incapable of identifying any possible causal mechanism. Surely you know that science cannot reach beyond the FACT of creation and identify the CAUSE of creation without coming face to face with God.

 

f. So, why then do you set God on the shelf and babble about NATURE and OUTER SPACE and CAUSAL MECHANISMS?  Why do you lament that "science" HAS NOT identified a cause, while rejecting the very words of God who ALREADY HAS identified the cause and who already has declared his role in it?

 

g. Mr. Howie, GOD CAUSED the flood.  Throw away whatever "scholarship" encourages you to ignore his word; and worship God.

65. Page 72

Anthropologists indicate that about 12,000 years ago modern humans populated most of the world except the hostile environments of the deserts and the Antarctic (Mullins, 1995)

a. Mr. Howie, as a supposed professional geologist, you ought to know full well that there is not one reliable dating technique that can offer an ounce of support to this claim, and you have to trample over proven scientific evidence and over the very words of God in order to LIE to your readers about it being otherwise.

 

b. There is no such thing as "modern humans". The bible is clear that God made man approximately 6,000 years ago (add up the dates), fully formed.  No scientific evidence disproves that, and much scientific evidence supports it.

 

c. The tropical vegetation buried in the Arctic and the Antarctic regions can hardly be indicative of an environment that is climatically "hostile" to man.

 

d. Where is ONE indisputable proof that your dates are valid, Mr. Howie?

 

e. ALL scientific evidence proves that your dates are wrong:

1) Radioactive Polonium Halos prove that your dates are wrong.

 

2) Polystrate fossils all over the world prove that your dates are wrong.

f. Where is your "science", Mr. Howie?

 

g. I urge you to publish a sequel to your blasphemous book and to refute the many errors you have already published.  Promote the truth of scripture and the truth of science.  Stop publishing lies that destroy people's faith in the word of God.

66. Page 72

Remains of Modern or Cro-Magnon Man has [sic] been found in southern France dating back 30,000 years ago (Howie, 1999)

a. Lies.

67. Page 72

If the above dates are reliable, the flood must have taken place prior to 30,000 years ago.  If we push the flood back that far, it is amazing that mankind had the ability and tools to build the ark.

a. How about the drogue stones? No one today is smart enough to drill them.

 

b. How about the pyramids?  How about the stones in Solomon's stables?

 

c. It is only amazing to you evolutionists that men from previous generations accomplished so much, because ye think more highly of yourselves than ye ought.  The truth is that we are ignorant and incompetent in comparison to men who lived just 150 years ago, let alone to those who lived in early bible times.  We are not evolving.  "We" are becoming stupid as we forsake the words of God who created us.

68. Page 73

After the flood, God promised Noah that he would never again destroy all humanity with a flood. The date for the flood has not yet been determined. The flood is only one of the many catastrophes in nature that will occur before the Lord returns.

a. These seem to be disjointed statements; perhaps one of several typographical errors in the book.  The first statement is true.

 

b. The second statement is almost meaningless. In fact, the flood occurred about 4500 years ago.  We may not know the date any more precisely than that before the Lord returns.  But, Mr. Howie means that it hasn't been determined within a range of tens of thousands of years. On that point, he is completely off base.

 

c. The third statement makes very little sense.  The flood already occurred. God promised that he wouldn't repeat it. So, there is no flood pending, prior to the Lord's return.

 

d. Although we haven't expressly stated it yet, Mr. Howie actually makes God to be a liar many times over.  For example, Mr. Howie admits that God said, "I will establish my covenant with you, neither shall all flesh be cut off any more by the water of a flood; nether shall there any more be a flood to destroy the earth (Gen 9:11).

 

e. Therefore, if Noah's flood was global, as the bible says, then God was speaking the truth.  But, if Noah's flood was only local, as Mr. Howie claims, then God was lying, because there have been many devastating floods that have destroyed the earth in "local" areas - consider the tsunami of 2004, in Indonesia, for example.  But, there have been no floods like Noah's that actually destroyed the whole earth, as God said.

 

f. So, who is telling the truth - Mr. Howie or God?

69. Page 75

Regardless of whether you accept the origin of the universe as recorded in the Bible, or by way of the geological record, it is obvious our world has gone through many changes.

a. This quote is nested within such a 'flood' of evolutionary propaganda that it is clear which origin of the universe Mr. Howie accepts.  He accepts his own opinion.  He accepts what he claims science proves.  He rejects "the origin of the universe as recorded in the Bible".

 

b. The reader should understand that there is no such thing as the geologic column, except as it appears in theory in textbooks.  There is nowhere on earth where layers of rock can be shown to indicate periods of millions of years. As noted earlier, polystrate fossils provide conclusive proof that Mr. Howie is wrong on this point.

 

c. For example, fossilized trees that protrude through multiples layers are polystrate fossils - (fossils that go through many-levels, poly-strata - of rock or coal, etc).  They could not have grown through them, and they would not have survived for millions of years while the rock formed around them.  Furthermore, many of these trees are completely upside down with the roots still intact, indicating that they were deposited in a catastrophic flood.  The layers of rock and coal, supposedly millions of years old, through which they protrude are simply multiple layers of deposits of mud, vegetation and sediments that underwent hydrologic sifting and sorting during the flood.

 

d. As a geologist, Mr. Howie surely knows these things from experience.  As an author, Mr. Howie has proven that he has been exposed to the proofs for a young earth in his research.  As an independent, intelligent man, Mr. Howie has the same biblical and scientific evidence available to him as does everyone else.  The evidence is available, abundant, and clear to anyone who cares enough to look for it.  Therefore, Mr. Howie has no excuse.

 

e. By contrasting "the origin of the universe as recorded in the Bible" with "by way of the geological record", Mr. Howie has indicted himself - explicitly acknowledging that his interpretation of the geological record is in conflict with the Bible.  Therefore, Mr. Howie is, by his own admission, holding to a belief system that is in conflict with the Bible.  That is, he rejects the Bible.  That is, he calls God a liar.  Mr. Howie has no excuse.

70. Page 77

The last book of the Bible is called Revelation.  It indicates that there will be an increase in earthquake activity, accompanied by a warmer climate, that will result in the death of a large segment of the population.

a. The book of Revelation, itself, nowhere teaches that there will be "an increase in earthquake activity".  At most, it mentions several times the earthquake of greatest intensity that will occur at the Lord's return (Rev 6:12; 11:13; 16:18).

 

b. The book of Revelation, itself, nowhere teaches earthquake activity that is "accompanied by a warmer climate".  At most, it mentions that men will be scorched with fire and great heat as a result of God's direct judgment in the 4th vial (Rev 16:8,9).

 

c. By suggesting "warmer climate", Mr. Howie is using the terminology of the deceivers who are promoting manmade "global warming".  This global warming propaganda is nothing more than a mechanism to usher the world into global government.  Following the email scandal of 2009, and the failed conference at Copenhagen, the deceivers shifted to speaking of "climate change" more so than "global warming".  But the fraud remains the same.

 

d. There will not be "death of a large segment of the population" due to a "warmer climate".  Even in the 4th vial there is no record of the judgment causing deaths.

71. Page 78

There will be seven seals of destruction followed by seven additional seven [sic] vials of destruction to be poured out on the earth.  At that time, heat from the sun will be so intense, it will be like standing next to a very hot furnace.

a. The bible does not teach that seven vials will follow seven seals.  Mr. Howie's eschatology is founded on the same principles of confusion upon which his science of geology is founded.  The conclusions of both are based on Hollywood movies, ungodly "experts", bible-rejecting companies, hearsay, propaganda, myth, delusion and/or ignorance.

 

b. The seven seals, seven trumpets, and seven vials are separate sets of events, beginning at different times, eventually running concurrently, and all ending together at the battle of Armageddon.  Only the vials contain the judgment of God's wrath, which is one of the reasons why Mr. Howie's pre-tribulation rapture belief is incorrect.

72. Page 80

[Title] The Bible is More Than An Instruction Manual

[God] is the author who inspired the recording of the exact message he wanted us to hear.

a. This is true.

 

b. But Mr. Howie rejects that "exact message" and replaces whatever words in the bible he wishes to replace, in order to defend his "scientific" theory of evolution, his popular eschatology, and perhaps ultimately, his gospel.

73. Page 81

As we look around us, we see climate change that may well be the start of conditions, prophesied in the Bible.

a. So, it wasn't just our assumption that Mr. Howie believes in "climate change" - as suspected and noted, regarding page 77, above.

 

b. Global Warming, Climate Change, Evolution, and Pre-tribulation Rapture are all hoaxes foisted upon those who reject God's command to "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good". (I Thess 5:21)

74. Page 95

[When Adam and Eve ate the fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and evil] they lost their physical immortality and separated themselves from God for all eternity.

a. It is true that Adam and Eve lost their physical immortality and separated themselves from God.  But the bible nowhere states that their condition was "for all eternity".  In fact, it was reversible.  Mr. Howie appears to know this, because he had previously stated that God drove them out of the garden, "removing them and their descendents [sic] from temptation until he, God, would implement his plan of redemption..." (pages 34-35)

 

b. We may assume Mr. Howie believes Adam and Eve to have been physically immortal prior to the fall, on the basis of this quote.  It would be good, if he believes that, because that is the truth.  But, it is not good that he creates conditions necessitating us to make such assumptions.

 

c. Confusion arises here because Mr. Howie's style of writing is passive and ambiguous.  He rarely, if ever, openly states his own opinions.  He frequently quotes conflicting opinions without clearly resolving them, and he frequently quotes the opinions of others to represent his own opinions, rather than expressing his own opinions for himself.

 

d. For an example of this ambiguous confusion, consider Mr. Howie's comments which appear to conflict with this quote above (wherein Adam and Eve HAD BEEN physically immortal prior to the fall), in which Mr. Howie also appears to concurrently believe that Adam and Eve were NOT physically immortal prior to the fall.

1) "Many believe there was no death on the earth until Adam and Eve sinned" (page 29). Mr. Howie introduces this important chapter with that nondescript statement, and with no indication as to whether he includes himself among the "many" who believe it, or not.

 

2) In fact, he writes all eight sections (pages 29-38) of this chapter on "Was There Death on the Earth Before Adam and Eve Sinned?" without clearly stating whether he believes there was death or not.  We begin to assume that he believes there was death, but he gives us no confidence in that assumption, prior to his conclusion (page 38), and no proof that there ever was such death, in any of his chapters.

 

3) "Many believe that man was immortal before the fall..." (page 34). Mr. Howie introduces his third section of this chapter with this equally nondescript opening.

 

4) If we continue with the assumption that he excluded himself from the "many" in the first section (which we later discover to be a correct assumption) then we are even more inclined to assume that he would also exclude himself from the "many" in this quote as well - that is, that he does NOT believe that man was immortal before the fall.

 

5) This assumption is reinforced by his own comment that "When Adam and Eve ate of the forbidden fruit, they disobeyed God and died spiritually..." (page 34).  In this, Mr. Howie makes no mention of the impact that sin might have had on their physical state, leaving us to conclude that he only specified spiritual death because he believed they were already headed for physical death, naturally.

 

6) Because Adam and Eve ultimately died physically, we are left to continue assuming that Mr. Howie considered this physical death as a natural eventuality, and not attributable to the entrance of sin into the world. (i.e. we assume he believes they were NOT and had never been physically immortal in the first place).

 

7) This assumption is further reinforced by Mr. Howie's comment that, if Adam "was to eat fruit from the  tree of life, he would live forever apart from God" (page 34), suggesting that Adam could have lived forever physically by eating the fruit - given that he had already died spiritually, and that it makes no sense he could have lived forever spiritually once his body eventually died and was no longer able to eat the fruit physically.

 

8) This, together with his concluding quote from the previous section, that "If all living creatures were immortal they would not require food...." (page 34) suggests that Mr. Howie never considered Adam and Eve to be physically immortal in the first place.

 

9) Because it is his most assertive statement, Mr. Howie appears to believe that Adam and Eve WERE physically immortal initially, but that they lost their physical immortality at the fall (page 95), and that they could have sustained physical life afterwards by eating the tree of life forever (page 34), but he also appears to strongly suggest that they were NEVER immortal in the first place, with comments as follows (and these are only a few):

a) "The scripture does not indicate that there was a physical change to any living creature after the fall of Adam and Eve except to the serpent that tempted Eve" (page 33)

 

b)"all the living creatures will eventually die" (page 34)

 

c) "If all living creatures were immortal they would not require food" in the first place, (page 34) and

 

d) "Death comes to all, but in the case of humankind it may come earlier than expected because of sin." (page 36),

 

e) "All life on earth will eventually die.  It is part of the normal cycle of nature." (page 36)

 

f) "Death Was a Necessary Part of Creation", (page 36),

 

g) "Death follows life for every living thing" (page 37), and

 

h) "Yes there was death on the earth before Adam and Eve sinned." (page 38)

10) That final quote is Mr. Howie's strongest and most definitive statement, and we don't find it until we get to his conclusion. But to whom does it apply?

 

11) Mr. Howie never resolves the ambiguity as to whether he means only the death of plants and animals, before Adam and Eve sinned, or whether he includes the death of man in that statement as well - thereby addressing the question of the immortality of Adam and Eve before the fall.

 

12) This is additionally important because it leaves open the question as to whether Mr. Howie believes in a Pre-Adamic civilization of human and/or near-human 'race' of beings, as many other evolutionists believe.

e. If that is not confusing enough - and we could certainly have provided more ambiguous and conflicting quotes from him - Mr. Howie drops a theological 'bombshell' in the midst of this confusion, under the title of "Is Death the Result of Sin" (page 36).  The 'bombshell' is his declaration that, "It is important to realize that death and sin are two different concepts" (page 36)

 

f. Well, admittedly, Death and Sin are not synonymous.  But the distinction that Mr. Howie chooses to make between them - in the midst of this ambiguity about pre-Adamic civilizations and mortality/immortality of animals and/or of man - is more relevant to a discussion on whether Sin CAUSED death, then it is to this simple matter of TIMING - whether or not there was death prior to the TIME that sin entered the world.  So, it is an unnecessary distraction - at the very least.

 

g. The fact is that, scripture says, there was no death on the earth until Adam sinned (Rom 5:12). So, the entire chapter was unnecessary.  The answer to the chapter title, "Was There Death on the Earth Before Adam and Eve Sinned?" is a simple NO.  The scriptural reference and the scriptural authority is Romans 5:12.

 

h. But Mr. Howie often rejects scripture - and we eventually discovered that he does so with this one as well.

 

i.  So, perhaps to mask his disrespect for the authority of scripture, Mr. Howie wrote a full chapter of ambiguous confusion, assumption, speculation, absurdity, factual error and logical fallacy (eight sections in all - including "Is Death the Result of Sin?" - which is also clearly answered by Romans 5:12) and Mr. Howie emerged from that confusion with his anti-scriptural and antithetical conclusion that "Yes there was death on the earth before Adam and Eve sinned." (Page 38).

 

j. But, THUS SAITH THE LORD, "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin" (Rom 5:12)

 

k. Sin ENTERED the world by Adam

 

l. Death ENTERED the world by sin

 

m. Therefore there was NOT sin before Adam, and

 

n. Therefore there was NOT Death before Adam.

 

o. Mr. Howie is at odds with God, and Mr. Howie is seriously wrong.

75. Page 97

[Jesus] may also have demonstrated many of Joseph's characteristics because both Mary and Joseph were of the lineage of King David.  It is not unusual for strong family traits to pass down from generation to generation.

a. There is no reason to look for physical characteristics common to both Jesus and Joseph, because Jesus was not the physical son of Joseph.  Only mockers of God's word would wish to imply that there was (John 8:41).

 

b. If it matters at all, the fact that Mary descended from King David might explain how Jesus could have had physical characteristics common with King David.  Given that Jesus was not the physical descendant of Joseph, the indirect common characteristics he shared with Joseph would be insignificant at best, if not meaningless, because all of them would have been passed through Mary.

 

c. There would also have been many other people with whom Jesus also shared common characteristics, as co-descendants of King David, and so the implication that he shared common characteristics with Joseph does little more than raise doubts about the deity of Jesus.

 

d. In fact, everyone has descended from Noah, so by Mr. Howie's reasoning, any two of us could share common family characteristics with each other anyway.  Again, the reasoning and the association is therefore meaningless, and is potentially harmful to people's faith regarding the deity of Jesus.

76. Page 99

As the inns were full, Jesus was born in a manger in a shepherd's cave.

a. Jesus was laid in a manger; not born in one. (Luke 2:7)

 

b. There is no scriptural evidence for the location being a shepherd's "cave".  Again, Mr. Howie uses terminology that subtlely leads the mind to accept the evolutionary concept of cavemen.

77. Page 102

Around this time, the city of Alexandria was estimated to have a population of over a million Jews (Barclay, 1976a).  Although coming to Egypt as strangers, Joseph and Mary probably lived among their own people.

a. There is no scriptural evidence to suggest that Jesus lived in Alexandria, Egypt.  The bible is silent on the specific location in Egypt.

 

b. The fact that false 'bible' versions come from Alexandria makes one wonder why Mr. Howie even mentions Alexandria in relation to Jesus.

78. Page 105

[At the 'last supper', Jesus] also gave them wine, being symbolic of his blood that would be shed for them.

a. God's word never uses the word "wine" in reference to the blood of Jesus.

79. Page 116

The devil led a rebellion against God and was thrust out of heaven together with the angels who helped him, who are now called demons.

a. God's word never uses the word "demon" or "demons". It always uses the word "devil" or "devils".

 

b. "Demons" are disembodied spirits in Greek mythology.  They can be good spirits or they can be evil spirits.  But God's word makes no mistake about what is good and what is evil.  It consistently calls the fallen angels "devils", because they are "de" ("of")-"evil".

80. Page 116

Nevertheless you will be thrust down to Sheol, To [sic] the recesses of the pit (Isaiah 14:12-15)

a. God's word in English never identifies a place called "Sheol".  Instead, it clearly identifies a place called "hell".

 

b. This is one of many places where new versions use archaic words instead of the contemporary (and biblical) word "hell".

81.  Page 119

[In reference to the story of the rich man and Lazarus in Luke chapter 16] Although [sic] this is only a parable, it may be unwise to extrapolate an argument about the nature of heaven and hell.

a. Mr. Howie presumably meant to say "Because" and not "Although".  Otherwise, the statement makes little sense.

 

b. God's word never suggests that Luke 16:19-31 is a parable.  On the contrary, all of the evidence would suggest that the story is true.

1) God's word does not outright say that this was a parable, as it typically does when presenting parables.

 

2) Jesus said that there was a "certain" rich man, a description uncharacteristic of parables.

 

3) Lazarus is mentioned by name, which is uncharacteristic of "parables".

 

4) Abraham is likewise mentioned by name, which is likewise uncharacteristic of "parables".

 

5) Abraham is known to be a real person.  So, Jesus would have been lying to say that Abraham said certain things to Lazarus and the rich man if he did not, in fact, say such things.

 

6) If the story is just a parable then what does the "flame" represent?

 

7) If the story is just a parable then how was the rich man "tormented" in the flame?

 

8) If the story is just a parable then why should we care about a rich man (who doesn't really exist) being "tormented" in a "flame" that doesn't really exist?

 

9) Jesus taught much about the reality of hell.  The story of Luke 16 is consistent with the other biblical passages that describe hell.  For example, Jesus said that hell is a place where their worm dieth not and the fire is not quenched (Mark 9:44,46,48).

c. At best, Mr. Howie is treading on thin ice to say it may be unwise to use the scripture (Luke 16) to make an argument about the nature of heaven and hell.  God expects us to believe his word.  But, Mr. Howie continually casts doubt on God's word.

82. Page 121

"For just as JONAH WAS THREE DAYS AND THREE NIGHTS IN THE BELLY OF THE SEA MONSTER, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth" (Matthew 12:40).

a. God's word says that Jonah was in the belly of the whale; not in the belly of the "sea monster".

 

b. New bible versions create all sorts of doubts, conflicts, errors and false doctrines.

 

c. It is difficult to understand why Mr. Howie would so easily accept the false 'bible' version description of a "SEA MONSTER" that swallowed Jonah, when the bible simply calls it the whale; particularly after he has spent so much time trying to prove that dinosaurs never lived on earth together with men in the first place.

83. Page 122

As Hades appears to have been in the heart of the earth, in a physical sense we would picture a very large cave that would hold all the people in these two different areas who would have lived from the time of Adam until the death and resurrection of Jesus.

a. God's word in English never identifies a place called "Hades".  Hades is merely a euphemism for "hell" (the biblical word).  The word "Hades" comes from Greek mythology in which "Hades", the ruler of the underworld, is the brother of Zeus, the chief of all gods.  Such careless use of words like this in false 'bible' versions obviously leaves open the possibility that God and Satan are brothers - an actual doctrine of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Mormons).

 

b. For some reason, Mr. Howie seems to have a fascination with the imagery of "caves" and "men" within the same context (pages 33, 99, 122).

 

c. Mr. Howie seems to draw much of his 'understanding' of the bible from western movies (page 27), from Hebrew mythology (page 48), from Greek mythology (several pages, including page 116), from humanist mythology (many pages, including page 72), from Global Warming/Climate Change mythology (pages 77 and 81), from science fiction movies/mythology (page 122), from Pentecostal mythology (several pages, including page 131) and undoubtedly from a host of other mythological sources.

 

d. Ironically, Mr. Howie believes all of these myths, but he rejects the plain words of God - the truth itself (John 17:17), and the final authority (John 12:48).

 

e. Moreover, Mr. Howie does everything he can to persuade the reader as well to reject God's word. (For example, Mr. Howie says that God really did not mean that he created heaven, earth, the sea and all that in them is in six "days", God really did not mean that a mist - rather than rain - watered the earth before the flood, God really did not mean that he created behemoth WITH man, God really did not mean that he destroyed the whole earth with the flood of Noah, etc). Yea, hath God said....? (Gen 3:1)

84. Page 123

After his death, Jesus descended into the heart of the earth and gathered up the souls of all the redeemed in Abraham's bosom and took them with him to paradise above.

a. Jesus told the thief on the cross that "today" he would be with him in paradise.  If Jesus literally meant that "day", as the words say, then paradise was not "above" at the time.

 

b. Jesus did not take the souls with him until after his resurrection, because he did not ascend until after his resurrection. (John 20:17; Matt 27:53)

85. Page 123

The arrangements for the Old Testament saints had not changed, only the location.  In this new location, they are joined by all those who have since died and had accepted Jesus as their Savior.  This large throng of believers are now nearer to heaven and the throne of God.

a. It is uncertain what Mr. Howie means when he says "nearer" to heaven.

 

b. "In heaven", John saw the souls of those slain for the word of God "under" the altar. (Rev 4:1; 6:9)

86. Page 124

There is no question that the rapture will occur; but there is no specific reference in the scriptures as to when this will take place.

a. On the contrary, the bible is actually very clear about the timing of the rapture.  It will take place:

1) IMMEDIATELY "AFTER" the tribulation of those days (Matt 24:29-31)

 

2) At the "last trump" (I Cor 15:52) - which is the seventh trumpet (Rev 11:15-19)

 

3) AFTER a falling away and the revelation of the man of sin, the son of perdition (II Thess 2:3) which we know occurs 3 1/2 years before the last trump (Matt 24:15)

 

4) Seven years AFTER the confirmation of the covenant (Dan 9:27)

 

5) Three and one half years AFTER the abomination of desolation (Dan 12:7; Matt 24:15,21,29-31; Rev 12:6; Rev 13:5; Rev 11:2,3)

 

6) Three and one half days AFTER the two witnesses are killed (Rev 11:11-13)

b. That is why Jesus commanded us to "watch" (Matt 25:13; Rev 16:15), and that is why Jesus specifically described the sequence of events that would precede his coming in Matthew chapter 24, in direct answer to his disciples' questions - "when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?

 

c. Mr. Howie needs to reject the Pentecostal heresies and the many mythologies that he has embraced over the years and to start believing the words of God, exactly as they are written in the King James Bible.

87. Page 125

Although only God knows when Jesus will return; there are certain conditions that must be met prior to the event.

a. God ("the Father") is not the only one who knows the timing of the Second Coming. Along with (primarily Pentecostal) prophecy heretics, Mr. Howie relies on Mark 13:32 and parallel passages to suggest that the day of the rapture will be a surprise.  But, it will only be a surprise to those in darkness; not to the elect.  At the time he made that statement, Jesus was speaking as a man.  But, at his resurrection, Jesus was glorified with the glory that he had with the Father before the world was (John 17:5).

 

b. The timing will be known to the elect because these things are only sealed up "till" the time of the end (Dan 12:9)

 

c. The wicked shall not understand, but the wise SHALL understand (Dan 12:10)

 

d. His coming will only be as a thief in the night to those in darkness (I Thess 5:2)

 

e. But it will not overtake the elect as a thief (I Thess 5:4) because we are children of the light and of the day; not of the night nor of darkness (I Thess 5:5)

 

f. Jesus plainly told us when his coming would be - even with the wording he used in his statement "but of that day and that hour knoweth no man" (Mark 13:32 - re: Jewish Feasts).

88. Page 125

The 70-year time interval will be complete by the year 2018, but Jesus could come in the sky at any time to take his bride (the church) up to heaven. Be ready!

a. A person can only "Be ready" if he or she is a Christian.  To be a Christian, one must be a "disciple".  (Acts 11:26)  To be a disciple one must continue in HIS word (John 8:31-32). Modern 'bible' versions are not his word. When a person continues in HIS word, he will be a disciple indeed, and he will know the truth. (John 8:31-32).  Mr. Howie does not know the truth.

 

b. God's word does not teach the false doctrine of imminency.

 

c. Jesus cannot come "at any moment". (But any one of us may die at any moment; so in that sense, we must continue in HIS word and thereby "be ready" at any moment.)

89. Page 125

Here on earth after the removal of the saints, there will be a seven-year period of great tribulation like nothing the world has ever seen prior to the return of Jesus and his army, for the battle of Armageddon, when Satan and his army will be defeated.

a. This is pure (primarily Pentecostal) myth.  Mr. Howie needs to turn off the television (ideally forever, but particularly when Jack and Rexella Van Impe are on) and start reading, believing, studying and continuing in God's word - as we are commanded to do.  THEN he will be a disciple indeed.  THEN he will know the truth.  THEN he will be a Christian.

 

b. God's word does not anywhere teach a "seven-year" period of great tribulation.  There is no "seven-year" period of tribulation at all, and there is only a three and one half year period of "great tribulation", according to Jesus (Matt 24:15).  Daniel's seventieth week (seven years) is not seven years of tribulation.

 

c. The saints will not be removed until Armageddon, as already shown in the preceding few paragraphs.

 

d. Besides those passages, Rev 20:4-5 also proves that Mr. Howie's pretribulation rapture (along with Jack Van Impe, et al) is false doctrine.  There are two resurrections - the first for the just and the second for the unjust (John 5:29) When the rapture occurs, the dead in Christ will rise first (the first resurrection) and we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together to meet the Lord in the air (I Thess 4:16-17).  Those who are beheaded for not taking the mark of the beast are part of this FIRST RESURRECTION (Rev 20:6).  This is the FIRST resurrection. Therefore, there is not a resurrection seven years earlier at a "pretribulation" rapture.

90. Page 126

Some say the rapture will take place prior to the tribulation, others suggest during the middle of the tribulation, while others say it will take place at the end of the tribulation. ... For more information on this topic please refer to [Mr. Howie's recommended sources]... As the pre-tribulation rapture appears to be the view most widely accepted by present-day theologians, this is the interpretation that will be used in this paper.

a. Is Christ divided? (I Cor 1:13) Certainly not.

 

b. Is God the author of confusion? (I Cor 14:33) Certainly not.

 

c. Did Jesus lie when he said that we would KNOW the truth by continuing in his word? (John 8:31-32) Certainly not.

 

d. So, the fact that many people are divided and confused and don't know the truth proves that those people are NOT in the body of Christ and are not continuing in his word.

 

e. There is no such thing as a 'mid-trib' position, because that theory is based on a seven-year tribulation and we have already shown that no seven-year tribulation exists.

 

f. The fact that Mr. Howie refers the reader to men (Levy, Emmons and Scott) rather than to scripture (John 8:31-32, II Tim 2:15, etc) emphasizes the fact that Mr. Howie does not respect the authority of scripture, that he does not believe the scriptures, and that he is ultimately trusting in man for knowledge rather than trusting in God.

 

g. The fact that Mr. Howie adopts the pre-tribulation rapture "interpretation" on the basis of its POPULARITY amongst men is another very revealing piece of evidence regarding Mr. Howie's lack of respect for the authority of scripture, lack of study to learn the scriptures, and lack of wisdom in deferring to men in lieu of trusting the scriptures.

 

h. Given that Jesus compared the last days to the days of Noah (Matt 24:37), it might be prudent to recall that those who deferred to the "view most widely accepted" at the time of Noah were somewhat "wet behind the ears" in more ways than one.

91. Page 126

When the rapture occurs, Jesus shall come as a thief in the night. "For you yourselves know full well that the day of the Lord will come just like a thief in the night (I Thessalonians 5:2 [from a false 'bible' version])

a. Mr. Howie fails to continue reading the passage, fails to follow the trail of pronouns in the passage, fails to notice the "BUT" introducing verse 4, and ultimately fails to present the truth to his readers.

 

b. Without exhaustive explanation on each of these points, we will simply repeat verse 4: "BUT YE, brethren, are NOT in darkness, that that day should overtake YOU as a thief." (emphasis added)

92. Page 126

All over the world, many will just disappear.... Some family members will be gone, others will be left.  The world in general will probably attribute the disappearance of the righteous as an invasion from outer space.

a. God's word never teaches anywhere that righteous people will simply "disappear" at the time of the rapture.  That is a false teaching, popularized by contemporary charlatans and/or media producers.

 

b. In fact, God's word teaches that we will be "changed" in the twinkling of any eye (I Cor 15:52) AT THE LAST TRUMP.  We will be changed from having mortal bodies to immortal bodies (I Cor 15:53).  There is no hint that we will disappear.  On the contrary, Jesus was very solid and visible in his immortal body, and the disciples witnessed his ascension into the clouds (Acts 1:9-11).  He did not "disappear".  When he returns, he will come "in like manner" (Acts 1:11) and every eye will see him (Rev 1:7).  If we are caught up to meet him "in like manner" as he went (which is perfectly reasonable), then we will be caught up to meet him in the clouds while everyone is watching. (I Thess 4:16-17)

 

c. Mr. Howie exposes again what appears to be his fascination with myths, movies, spacemen and invasions from outer space.  But, he really needs to learn doctrine from scripture rather than from television and movies and men.

93. Page 128

The presence of heavenly crowns in John's futuristic vision indicates the rapture was a reality.  Once the redeemed had received their glorified bodies at the rapture, they were to come before the judgment seat of Christ in heaven to receive their rewards for what they had accomplished for Jesus during their lifetime.

a. Again, Mr. Howie moves from confusion to conclusion.  As background to this quote, Mr. Howie had just concluded that he did not know who the 24 elders were sitting on seats around the throne in heaven (Rev 4:4).  But somehow he is able to jump from that acknowledgment to the conclusion that "the rapture was a reality" already.

 

b. The only reason why Mr. Howie likely concludes that the rapture had already occurred by Rev 4:4 is that the false pretribulation doctrine requires such a conclusion, by interpreting Rev 4:1 as representing the rapture.

 

c. Mr. Howie appears to have accepted this false doctrine - hook, line and sinker.  But Rev 4:1 is not the rapture.  Rev 4:1 is simply what it claims to be - the call for the Apostle John to come up hither to heaven to see and to write the things which must be hereafter (Rev 1:19).  The rapture of the saints has been clearly identified in earlier paragraphs of this review to occur later in the revelation.

94. Page 129

Next, John sees a scroll or roll of a book that is sealed with seven seals.  This is the title deed to earth (Van Impe, 1997)

a. To say that the scroll is "the title deed to earth" is a ludicrous assertion, and is without any scriptural basis.

 

b. Jack Van Impe is so completely blind to the truth that he actually believed Pope John Paul II was the greatest Christian alive.  Further, he takes most opportunities to promote the Roman Catholic Church, the Whore of Babylon, and its false doctrines. Jesus warned about the blind leading the blind - both will fall into the ditch.  Mr. Howie needs to follow scripture; not Jack Van Impe.

95. Page 130

[After buying a new house, you] may want to make some alterations before you move in.  You may change the carpets, put a ceramic floor in the kitchen, install a built-in vacuum system and finish off the basement.  When Jesus won back the deed to the earth he also wanted to make some changes to a now-corrupt earth.  As we shall see, the seven seals on the scroll are the changes he intends to make.

a. Heaven and earth shall pass away (Matt 24:35).  Jesus is going to replace the earth; not just 'renovate' it.

 

b. The Lamb of God did not take a "scroll" from him who sat on the throne.  It was a "book" (Rev 5:1,7-8) with seven seals.

 

c. The seven seals do not constitute "changes" that Jesus intends to make, as renovations to earth.  Mr. Howie and/or Jack Van Impe are simply fabricating fables.  The explanations for each are in plain text in the King James bible.  We have summarized the seals, trumpets and vials in our article: "Understanding the book of Revelation"

96.  Page 131

When all the Christians and the restraining power of the Holy Spirit are taken up from the earth, a federation of satanic origin will take control.  ...The opening of the seven seals marks the beginning of the seven-year tribulation period when Satan pours out his wrath on the peoples of the world.

a. The Apostle Paul warned Timothy about teachers who taught fables, from which "some having swerved have turned aside unto vain jangling; Desiring to be teachers of the law; understanding neither what they say, nor whereof they affirm." (I Tim 1:4,6-7)  Mr. Howie does not understand what he is saying.

 

b. For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables. (II Tim 4:3-4) The pretribulation rapture is a fable of unsound doctrine that people want to hear, and Mr. Howie is more than willing to act as a teacher and to deliver it to them.

 

c. Christians will not be removed from the earth during Satan's wrath.

 

d. The Holy Spirit will not be removed from the earth during the seventieth week of Daniel.  If he were, no one would be able to be "saved" during that time. (Rom 8:9)

 

e. There is no such thing as a "seven-year tribulation period".

97. Page 131

During the first three and a half years of the seven-year tribulation period, Satan attempts to hold on to the title deed to earth.  Notice that Satan is riding a white horse and is wearing a crown.

a. Mr. Howie repeatedly promotes his propaganda - and helplessly so, without scriptural support.

 

b. Even by Mr. Howie's theory, the "book" is already in the hands of the Lamb of God.  So, Satan would not be able to "hold on to it" even if that is what he was trying to do.

 

c. The new comment here is that Mr. Howie claims that Satan is the rider of the white horse in the first seal.  Where's the proof?  There is none.  Only erroneous speculation.

98 Page 132

It is during this time of upheaval and great unrest that the nation of Israel rebuilds their temple.

a. The context of Mr. Howie's quote here is the "great tribulation".  But the temple will be rebuilt before the great tribulation. (Matt 24:15; II Thess 2:4; Rev 11:1,2)

99. Page 133

Jesus prophesied that this abomination of desolation would occur a second time, halfway through the end time tribulation.

a. Jesus didn't prophesy that the abomination of desolation would occur a second time.  He simply prophesied that when we see the abomination of desolation "spoken of by Daniel the prophet" - as if the single endtime occurrence was the only abomination of desolation that Daniel had spoken of. (Dan 9:27; Matt 24:15)  That is not to say that what occurred in 168 B.C. by Antiochus Epiphanes was necessarily without prophetic significance.

 

b. This abomination of desolation will occur at the beginning of the great tribulation, three and one half years from Armageddon.

100. Page 133

The tribulation saints consisting of Jews and Gentiles will remain in their graves until Jesus comes to defeat Satan and the armies under his control (Thiessen, 1952)

a. God's word does not teach that there will be "tribulation saints" as a third dispensation of believers.

 

b. There will only be two resurrections: The just will be resurrected and/or raptured unto eternal life for the Judgment Seat of Christ, at the time of Armageddon (John 5:29; I Cor 15:51-52; I Thess 4:16-17; Rev 20:4-5) and the unjust will be resurrected 1,000 years later unto eternal damnation at the Great White Throne Judgment (John 5:29; Rev 20;11-15).

 

c. Mr. Howie continues to look to men and refers to men rather than to scripture, and he thereby falls prey to their false doctrines.

101. Page 134

The saints that are martyred during the tribulation are not part of the marriage supper of the Lamb that has taken place in heaven, but they will reign with Christ in his kingdom.

a. Whoever dreamed up this doctrine has a very elitist and unscriptural attitude towards the saints of God.  There is no scriptural support for this doctrine.

 

b. It is difficult to believe how anyone could think that Jesus would proceed with a marriage feast CELEBRATION while his saints are laying down their lives (by beheading) on the earth and that they must wait for the 'celebration' to end before being allowed to join the party, effectively as second-class citizens (second-class to those who were raptured out before the hard times even began).

 

c. Such elitism is merely the Pentecostal version of the Baptist Bride heresy.

 

d. No one will be raptured out until the Second Coming - at the battle of Armageddon, and no one will sit down to feast until all of the righteous can participate together.

 

e. The Wedding Supper of the Lamb doesn't occur until Rev 19:7-9, immediately AFTER the great tribulation. (Matt 24:29-31).  God's word couldn't be more plain.

102. Page 136

At the battle of Armageddon, the army with Jesus is privileged to stand and watch, as he defeats the armies of Satan, with the sword of his mouth, which is nothing less than the Word of God:

a. Mr. Howie seems to understand this, but he continues to blatantly reject that very Word of God - whether denying the literal creation account, the literal global flood, or other scriptural truths.  He also denies that very Word of God by promoting false 'bible' versions from EGYPT, that have errors, omissions and contradictions in them, as if they were that same Word of God.

 

b. God has magnified his word above all his name. (Ps 138:2)

 

c. Mr. Howie is headed for serious trouble with the Lord.

103. Page 139

Earlier we explored the resurrection unto life, and now we will look at the resurrection unto damnation.

a. Clearly, Mr. Howie understands that there are these two resurrections. (John 5:29)

 

b. But, for some reason, he rejects what the bible plainly states in Rev 20:4-5 that those who are beheaded for not taking the mark of the beast are resurrected in the FIRST resurrection. Obviously, that precludes there being another 'first' resurrection seven years earlier and thereby completely refutes the false teaching of a pretribulation rapture.

104. Page 143

The new heavenly city will be the home of the bride of Christ, and the new earth will be the home of all the redeemed who are not part of the bride.

a. WOW! Mr. Howie does believe in an elitist separation of the body of Christ. (Of course he wouldn't call it that; nor would he likely admit that the idea probably came from a science fiction movie.)

 

b. Mr. Howie offers no scriptural support for this heresy, because there is none.

 

c. As mentioned, this false doctrine is little more than the Pentecostal version of the Baptist Bride heresy.

 

d. When addressing the Pharisees, who also thought themselves to be something special, Jesus said, "There shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth, when ye shall see Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, and all the prophets, in the kingdom of God, and YOU YOURSELVES THRUST OUT." (Luke 13:28)

 

THE BIBLE - THROUGH EYES THAT SEE

 

 

105. It is not the purpose of this review to exhaustively analyze the evidence that Mr. Howie ought to have presented to his readers.  It is sufficient to have exposed some of the fallacies, errors, and heresies in his book, and to have offered truth in exchange for them.  We acknowledge that his book is entitled "The BIBLE through the eyes of a Geologist" and that it may actually reflect his understanding of the bible.  Regardless, we are grieved for him because of it - whether he is lying to his readers to promote and to justify his life's work, or alternatively, whether he is simply ignorant of the truth despite having had exposure to it - in the bible itself and also in the field of geological science.

 

106. Despite Mr. Howie's claim that those more knowledgeable about geology are also more qualified to interpret the bible, the fact remains that wisdom, knowledge and truth begin with the bible; not with science.  Consequently, those who are more knowledgeable about the bible are actually more capable of interpreting the evidence presented by geological science.  This is an inevitable conclusion, given that God is both the author of the bible and the creator of all things about which it truthfully reports - including geological science.

 

107. A person does not need to be a geologist or other expert to understand simple evidence that God has made available to all. For those wishing to examine more scientific evidence that refutes Mr. Howie's thesis, we suggest some, as follows:

a. Polystrate fossils prove (polystrate fossil video) that rock layers were deposited in rapid succession and in catastrophic conditions.

 

b. The presence of millions of sea fossils on mountains prove that the mountains were covered by water and debris in a global flood.

 

c. Radioactive Polonium Halos in granite prove (radioactive halo video) that the earth's rocks did not cool from a molten mass over millions of years.

 

d. The presence of tropical plant fossils in arctic zones proves that the world was once uniformly temperate climatically.

 

e. Lack of a significant erosion gradient in the Grand Canyon proves that the whole canyon was carved out at the same time and was not eroded over millions of years, and

 

f. A study of the elevations of the Grand Canyon and of the Colorado River, from beginning to end, prove that the river did not carve out the canyon.

108. Practically speaking, there is no end to the scientific evidence that the earth is only 6,000 years old - exactly as the bible declares.

 

109. For those wishing to examine more biblical evidence that refutes Mr. Howie's thesis, we suggest some, as follows:

a. An intrinsic study of the text of the bible in comparison to that of new versions proves that none of the new versions are the words of God.  There are many places one may begin to research this.

 

b. A study of the history of the Septuagint proves that the supposed Pre-Christian Septuagint is a fraud, and that the "Septuagint" available today is the work of spiritually corrupt men about whom even the Apostle Paul warned, long before the time of Origen and his Hexapla. (II Cor 2:17)

110. A person doesn't need a university degree, or years of expertise in a 'scientific' field of study to come to the correct conclusion on these evidences. One need only desire to know the truth, without having dogmatic pre-conceived bias, and the Spirit of truth will guide that person into a knowledge of the truth. (John 16:13)

 

 

CONCLUSION - THE GEOLOGIST THROUGH THE EYES OF THE BIBLE:

 

 

111. Mr. Howie does not respect the authority of scripture, and he may continue not respecting the authority of scripture until he seriously undertakes a study of the bible version issue and the deception that has been foisted upon the church by it.  That issue poses a significant threat to his soul; but it is not the only issue that does so. As he has done regarding this issue of creation and evolution, Mr. Howie has embraced the false teachings of many so-called professionals around him on other issues as well.

 

112. With science and God's word both testifying to a literal six-day creation and a catastrophic global flood that broke up the earth's crust some 1500 years later, Mr. Howie needs to resolve whether he truly respects the authority of this scripture as his FINAL authority, and whether he accepts the corroborating hard facts of science in support of God's word - such as the evidence of polystrate fossils around the world, marine fossils on mountains, and radioactive polonium halos in igneous rock.  (Polystrate fossils, for one example, are even found in Joggins, Nova Scotia, Mr. Howie's native province.)

 

113. Mr. Howie believes that death brought man into the world (by evolution).  The bible says that man brought death into the world (by sin).  Either the bible is wrong, or Mr. Howie is wrong.

 

114. The need for a saviour is based on the events that occurred in the Garden of Eden, including this matter of sin and death.  A person cannot reject the words of God and truthfully claim to follow the word of God.  That is confusion.

 

115. Mr. Howie rejects the words of God.

 

116. The Apostle Paul warned us about many who would corrupt the word of God (II Cor 2:17).  He also warned against those who teach a false Jesus, a false gospel and/or a false spirit (II Cor 11:4).  The Apostle Peter warned us about false teachers (II Peter 2:1) and about scoffers who deny the global flood (II Pet 3:3-6).

 

117. Mr. Howie corrupts the word of God in several ways, including by use of false 'bible' versions.

 

118. Mr. Howie is a scoffer, denying many passages of scripture, including the literal creation account and the global flood.

 

119. Jesus himself said that many would come in his name claiming that he was Christ, but would deceive many. (Matt 24:4-5)  Pentecostal people in particular will claim to have prophesied in his name, cast out devils in his name, and done many wonderful works in his name, but Jesus will cast them away (Matt 7:21-23).

 

120. Mr. Howie is a very nice man.  But he is deceived, and he is deceiving others.

 

121. For those readers who don't know Mr. Howie, he and many in his family have attended Pentecostal fellowships for many years. In such fellowships, the appeal to experience (even that which is in direct and open opposition to the word of God), is a highly esteemed practice that is taught or endorsed at all levels, typically while lip service is paid to the 'importance' of scripture. (Mark 7:6) It is therefore understandable why Mr. Howie would only "attempt" to "respect" the authority of scripture while actually appealing to his own professional "experience" (i.e. his own opinion) as a geologist as his final authority.

 

122. But Jesus said that HIS words are the final authority. (John 12:48)

 

123. Jesus said that, "If a man love me, he will keep my words." (John 14:23)

 

124. Jesus said that to be his disciples, and to know the truth, we must continue in his word - not in false 'bible' versions, but in HIS actual word.

 

125. The word of God in English, the King James Bible, can be TRUSTED exactly as it is written.  We wish Mr. Howie and all readers of this review the very greatest of success in studying, believing, keeping, and continuing in that pure and trustworthy word of God.

 

Mike Wright,
The Berean Research Institute