Man at computer

More on the Bible’s Historicity

Refuting the Critics

by Dr. Lisle

Our feedback this week is from Colin who had previously claimed (see first article) that the Bible was not historically reliable.  He continues his case here, along with my responses.  He made a lot of assertions and copied various internet links.  But did he present any actual evidence for his claims?

Colin> Hi Dr Lisle,

Colin> Thx deeply for your very kind and long reply!

Dr. Lisle: You are most welcome. I appreciate your follow-up, but I noticed that you didn’t answer any of the questions I put to you. Perhaps I should explain the following. In order for us to have a rational dialog, you will need to answer my questions and respond to my points, just as I have provided answers to your questions and responded to your claims. The basis of a rational dialog is not simply to assert opinions and link to youtube videos. Rather, it is to provide evidence – to show that you have a good reason for believing in your position. I have done this, albeit briefly, and have challenged you to do the same. But so far, you haven’t offered any actual evidence for your beliefs.

Perhaps I should also explain that youtube videos and rationalwiki links do not constitute evidence because these are merely (non-peer-reviewed) opinions. Anyone can post any absurd, unfounded idea on those sites. That’s not science. Suppose two people were debating what 1+4 equals. One person asserts that the answer is 5 and demonstrates this with evidence. He produces an apple, then adds four more, and counts the total as 5. That is sensible. The other person asserts that the answer is clearly 13. But instead of making a rational argument, he merely posts links to internet pages and youtube videos that repeat this incorrect view. That is not evidence, it merely repeats the absurd opinion of others. So I am not interested in reading the opinions of people who don’t know what they are talking about. I want to know if you have a logical reason for your position. To be honest, I don’t think you do. I suspect you have blindly accepted what you have read on the internet and seen on youtube. But I would like to give you the opportunity to prove me wrong. But for that, you will need to produce actual evidence.

And you will need to answer the questions I put to you previously. In particular, I asked, “What gave you the impression that the Bible is historized fiction?” I want to know if you have a rational reason to believe that, or if you are blindly parroting what you heard someone else say. Also, I asked, “As a matter of procedure, how do you know what happened in the distant past so that you can check the record of the Bible?” This is important because your answer will reveal your ability to discern truth from error in historical matters.

I asked you to test the Bible’s scientific claim that what you sow is what you reap. Did you try the experiment, or at least read up on what others have done in this area? Do you now agree that the Bible is right about this scientific claim? I asked if you could cite any examples of things that have a beginning but no cause. Can you? I asked if you could provide any examples to back up your claim that I have taken probability “out of context from reality.” Can you show me an example in any of my articles or books where I have done so?

I have asked how you can make sense of moral accountability in an evolutionary worldview. I asked, “if we are just the unplanned product of chemistry over time as Darwin believed, then how could anything be ‘right’ or ‘wrong?’” I wrote, “You wouldn’t chastise baking soda for fizzing when it reacts with vinegar would you? Then why criticize a person for being disingenuous, if he or she is just a complex chemical reaction? Why not be disingenuous if it helps you survive?” I asked, “on the evolutionary worldview, why should I (an unplanned bundle of chemicals) be honest or courageous?” I asked, “Do you have any evidence at all for your position?”

Also, I asked if you could answer the presuppositional challenge: if you can rationally justify the preconditions for knowledge within your own worldview. I have shown that only the biblical worldview can make sense of the procedures of science. To be rational, you must either justify your confidence in science within your worldview, or relinquish science. Now, on to the specifics:

Colin> As you are a Scientist,you use Science,albeit wrongly, to support your theistic Paradigm…

Dr. Lisle: That is not really accurate. It is not science that supports my worldview. Rather, it is my worldview that supports science. Only the Christian worldview can justify our confidence in the scientific method. I have explained this here:

Colin> distinguished Christian Lawyers without training in Science,lo and behold,use their Legal Criteria to validate the Bible…

Dr. Lisle: There are many lines of evidence that confirm Scripture. Naturally, people will tend to focus on those lines of evidence that are in line with their educational background. There is nothing wrong with that providing the arguments they make are rational.

Colin> but we can show they are are all misguided and bias:Objection!

Dr. Lisle: Can you indeed show that they are misguided, or are you merely asserting it? How do you know that their bias is incorrect? …


image credit: NeONBRAND

Published by

The Bunchernator

I'm in charge of selecting and collecting all the wonderful creation science information available on