Deadly Disclosures

by Julie Cave

  Thomas was troubled by Andy’s words.

  “Did you know that Jeffrey Dahmer, one of our worst serial killers, believed evolution as truth? He said that basically, if there is no God, then there is no point in modifying behavior to within socially acceptable ranges. He felt the need to be a mass murderer, and if he’s not accountable to God, then why shouldn’t he be allowed to do whatever he wants? If he, as a human male within our kind, is stronger than another human, then isn’t he free to take a weaker life if he chooses? That’s just survival of the fittest, isn’t it?”

  Thomas objected: “Come on, I know for a fact that even you believe in natural selection.”

  Andy nodded. “Yes, I do, with the following qualification: I believe we can see natural selection at work when we find long-haired dogs native to cold climates, and short-haired dogs native to hot climates. It is rational and logical to believe that short-haired dogs in cold climates might struggle to survive and would die out over time. A true understanding of natural selection within God’s ordination of kinds certainly does not justify murder or violence of any kind, or even racism.”

  Thomas absorbed this information for several moments. “Okay, I can understand your arguments there,” he said at length. “But I’ve just never been able to take God seriously. Science has the answers for so many problems. Look at what we’ve achieved in the medical field.”

  “You know I’m a scientist, right?” Andy asked. “Believing in God and being a scientist are not mutually exclusive. And while I agree with you that science has found answers for many things, it falls short many times. For example, can science explain why that young man put on a mask and gunned down his fellow students? Can science explain why a husband and father would leave his wife and children after 20 years of marriage, or why a young lady with potential to be anything she wants to be continues to shoot heroin into her veins despite the knowledge that it’ll kill her? Science can’t really explain the essence of our humanity, our spirit and soul. But God can explain all of those things, because He formed you with His own hands, breathed life into you with His own breath, and watches over you even today.”

  “I’ve never believed there to be a God so personal,” admitted Thomas. “If I’ve ever thought about a God, it’s that He’s up in heaven somewhere, occasionally looking down to see if we’re all still here. I certainly don’t think of Him as caring about me.”

  “He most certainly does. He knows you better than you know yourself, and yet He still loves you more than you can imagine.” Andy grinned. “I say ‘yet’ because even you would have to admit you have some flaws.”

  Thomas smiled briefly. “How do you know that?” asked Thomas. “I mean, how can you say with all certainty that you know God loves us?”

  “Well, the Bible tells us that many times,” Andy said. “But there is one particular event in history which absolutely clinches it. When I tell you that I, along with other Christians, believe the human race to be sinners, what do you think?”

  “I’ve heard the term. I suppose I think it means none of us are perfect.”

  “Right. None of us are perfect, and the reason for that is because the first man and woman, whom you can read about in Genesis, disobeyed God’s commands. They were created perfect, you see, in a perfect world, completely at one with God. But they ruined it, and the world has never been the same since. We’re all born into sin and there is nothing we can do to escape this state. We are in constant rebellion, if you like, against God. That is why we see murder, robbery, adultery, child abuse, lying, and deceitfulness all around us, and why we indulge in it ourselves. It’s like we can’t help ourselves. That’s because we can’t escape who we are — less than perfect.”

  “Okay, so if we’ve messed everything up so bad, why does God let it go on?” Thomas asked. “Why didn’t He just end it all?”

  “Well, because of His enormous love. Picture this: our Creator God, just having created a beautiful, perfect world complete with two perfect people, is disobeyed and rejected by those very people. You would almost expect a fit of rage, destruction of everything, and then sitting in the corner of the universe wondering why it all went so horribly wrong. The opposite is true: despite Adam and Eve having failed Him, He could not turn off His love for them — or us — any more than you could stop loving your own kids. So now we have a problem. We have a God who is both perfect and loving. He can’t tolerate our sin, but He loves us too much to simply wipe us out. So what can we do about that?”

  “I expect that most people would say that living a good life was enough,” said Thomas. “You know, working hard, being good to your family, having a decent set of morals.”

  “The answer is, actually, there is nothing you can do,” replied Andy. “Based on God’s commands in the Bible, if you’ve ever told a lie, if you’ve disobeyed your parents, or maybe cursed at someone, then you’ve fallen into the category of sinner. The truth is, nobody can possibly live up to the perfect standard of God. So God, in His great love, decided to do something about it Himself. There needed to be a way where God could punish sin, once and for all time. But He needed to do this to Someone who had never sinned. It was up to God Himself, once again, to provide the Person upon whom His anger and punishment would be inflicted. And so He sent His Son, Jesus Christ, to earth to fulfill this requirement for the sinless blood of a spotless lamb. He lived among us, here on earth, in a fully human form. He was tempted and mistreated, just like we are. He dealt with those who treated Him cruelly with love and compassion. He did not seek revenge. He did not call down legions of angels to destroy those who might kill Him. His purpose was greater. You see, when Jesus died upon the Cross, He not only suffered a physical death, He also suffered the outpouring of wrath and judgment of God for every sin that mankind has ever committed, and will ever commit; not because He deserved it, but because we deserved it. Can you understand it? Jesus, who is God, bore our punishment rather than allowing us to suffer it ourselves. And the shedding of His perfect blood was the final covering necessary.”

  Andy paused, gathering his thoughts. “Then He rose from the dead three days later, in victory over death. He is powerful enough to defeat death, which is why Christians do not have to fear death. We know that the God who loves us enough to sacrifice Himself upon the Cross, and who defeated death, will raise us up in life. That is why we do not believe, as atheists do, that there is nothing after death. We believe that there is eternity after death, and that the decisions you make here on earth will determine where you spend eternity. If you acknowledge and believe in Jesus, the Son of God, if you understand yourself to be a sinner who cannot be worthy in God’s eyes but cling to the power and love of Christ’s sacrifice on the Cross, then you can be sure you will be with God in heaven. If you don’t, God will grant your wish — you will not have to spend eternity with Him, but will spend it in hell.”

  Thomas was transfixed. “But how do you know? How do you know for certain?”

  • • • •

  Thomas was determined to stay in Minnesota until he’d heard the end of the story. He met up with Andy the following morning over a hot breakfast. He’d lain awake all night, thinking about the things Andy had said, not only the previous day but also through the years that they’d debated and argued the subject. He’d thought about the arguments he’d used to refute Andy. To his own surprise, he was beginning to open his mind to a different way of thinking.

  “So last night, you asked me how I knew for certain all of the things I’ve told you up to this point,” Andy began. “And I know the standard answer of ‘because the Bible says so’ is not going to satisfy you.”

  “No, I’m afraid it wouldn’t.” Thomas tried to articulate how he felt. “I know that Christians believe the Bible, but I’ve never understood why. I mean, why do you not accept that it could be wrong?”

  “You know what? I’m really glad you are questioning me on that,” Andy said. “It’s easy for Christians to believe what they do without ever unde
rstanding why they believe it. I think it’s important for us to understand why we believe it, for it truly deepens the awe and appreciation for God. Here’s why I believe the Bible is absolutely the truth, given to us by God. The ultimate argument is that the Bible claims to be the word of God. It claims authority and it claims to be totally accurate. The onus is on the critics to prove if it is wrong because this claim is special. If the Bible is God’s Word, claims contained therein are from God. I have never — not once — found evidence that does not support the historical accuracy of the Bible that leads me to see its authenticity in its message about not only the history of this world but also the history of Jesus as our Savior. In fact, I have not found a scientific avenue yet that hasn’t supported the claims of biblical authority including geology, astronomy, biology, anthropology, or any other area.”

  Thomas interjected, “But aren’t there many critics who have disputed that? Archaeologists and others?”

  “Many critics of the Bible claim that it is outdated and unreliable, and base these arguments on archaeological discoveries. For example, the critic Ferdinand Baur claims that the New Testament wasn’t written until late in the second century A.D., a time period during which myths and legends about Jesus had been exaggerated and idealized. Actually, there have been many documents discovered, such as the Chester Beatty Papyri, dated A.D. 150, that confirm the accuracy of the New Testament and bridge the gap between the time of Christ’s life and existing manuscripts from later dates. Furthermore, this type of evidence leads to the belief that the books of Jesus’ life, the gospels, were produced within one generation after His death and Resurrection, allowing little time for folklore and myth to exaggerate the details of His life since people were still alive who had been with Him.”

  Andy stopped to eat bacon. Still chewing, he continued. “Another famous archaeologist, Sir William Ramsay, had always taught that the New Testament, particularly the Book of Acts, was not written in the first century as is claimed, but rather in the second century and was therefore unreliable. However, during his research into the history of Asia Minor, he spent some time examining the Book of Acts and finally came to the conclusion that the author was a historian of the finest rank, that the facts were meticulous in their accuracy, and that it was a book of absolute reliability.

  “Of course, critics today still argue that over the past 2,000 years, the Bible has to have been changed from its original form and, even if it once was accurate, that it couldn’t possibly continue to be accurate today.”

  “Exactly. That’s what I’ve always thought.” Thomas’s eggs were cold and he pushed his plate away.

  “Well, that’s a valid argument. None of the original manuscripts are still in existence, so we would have to ask the question, how reliable and consistent are the copies that we have? This is true not only of biblical manuscripts, but any document. For example, Aristotle wrote his poetics in 343 B.C., but the copy we have is dated 1,400 years later, and only five of these copies exist. We have nine copies of the first century historian Josephus, which were written some 1,000 years later than the originals. Yet the reliability and accuracy of these early writings aren’t criticized.

  “Compared to Aristotle and Josephus, there are 5,600 biblical manuscripts, far more material than any other ancient book. In 1975, 200 biblical manuscripts were discovered in the Sinai. All confirm that the New Testament has been preserved throughout the centuries with remarkable purity. In fact, Sir Frederic Kenyon, director and principal librarian at the British Museum, has said of these early copies of biblical manuscripts that the last foundation for any doubt that the Scriptures have come down to us as they were written has now been removed. So I think it is safe to say that we can trust the accuracy of the Bible as it stands today.”

  “I understand that point,” conceded Thomas. “But how do you know that the original authors were themselves credible? I mean, couldn’t the Bible be the result of a madman’s ramblings? There is a great deal of it that doesn’t make a lot of sense, as I recall.”

  “Absolutely.” Andy rubbed his hands together enthusiastically, bacon forgotten. “I can’t tell you how glad I am that you’re asking these questions. We would then apply the test of internal criticism, which aims to determine whether the original written record was of itself credible. The author of such records must have been present to the events, both geographically and chronologically. For example, the best people to record the history of American society in the 21st century are ourselves, because we both live in the society we are chronicling and during the relevant time period. Biblically speaking, there are six eyewitness accounts of the life of Jesus Christ, one of whom is Luke. Luke has been acknowledged by both liberal and conservative scholars alike to be an extremely accurate historian, and the other five eyewitness accounts are very close to Luke’s account of Christ’s life. Furthermore, many of the eyewitnesses contained within these accounts were hostile and would have needed no encouragement to challenge the validity of the writings if they were inaccurate. Finally, we can obtain corroboration of the biblical transcripts through external sources, such as the Jewish historian Josephus and the Roman historian Tacitus. Both of these gentlemen are accepted universally as being reliable in their relation of history during the time of Jesus. Josephus specifically refers to Jesus Christ in his writings as being the martyred leader of the church in Jerusalem, and that he was a wise teacher who had a large and lasting following of believers despite being crucified under the reign of Pontius Pilate. Now, Josephus wasn’t a follower of Jesus during this time and in fact was sympathetic to the Romans, so you wouldn’t expect more than a basic account of his life. What’s interesting is that historically, his account and the biblical accounts are very similar. Secondly, Tacitus refers to Christians being persecuted during the time of Nero. Tacitus was wholly unsympathetic to Christians but still records the success and spread of Christianity based on Jesus, who was crucified under Pontius Pilate. He also reports that a large number of Christians were willing to die rather than recant their Christianity.”

  Andy paused to drink his coffee.

  Thomas nodded slowly. “So let me see if I have gotten this straight: if you apply the standard tests of historicity to the early biblical manuscripts as one would to the manuscript of Aristotle, Josephus, and Tacitus, the results are overwhelmingly in favor of the Bible being an accurate historical record, relatively unchanged throughout the centuries.”

  “That’s right,” agreed Andy. “The question for you is: if the Bible is accurate and reliable, what are you going to do about the message it contains?”

  There was silence for several moments.

  “I don’t know, Andy,” admitted Thomas at length. “But you’ve given me a lot to think about. I can at least promise you that I’ll give it some serious consideration. I can tell you that I have one major hurdle to taking this all a lot more seriously.”

  “Oh? What’s that?”

  “If we can go back to the evidence that we both use to support our arguments: every time you look at evidence you start with the Bible. Your belief flavors everything you find.” Thomas watched Andy intently, waiting for the answer.

  “You’re talking about a presupposition, Thomas, and you have them as well,” Andy replied easily.

  “How can you say that? For us, evidence is all we have. We don’t have an underlying belief system.”

  “Actually, Thomas, I can prove your presupposition. Let me give you an example question. How do you determine how old a rock or a fossil is?”

  Thomas looked relieved to be asked such an easy question. “Radiometric dating, of course. See, no presupposition.”

  “Actually, there is. Radiometric dating works on the basis of estimating the age of rocks from the decay of their radioactive elements, right?”

  “Yes, we measure the half-life of elements such as potassium and uranium. We can then extrapolate the calculation to determine the age of the rock. No presupposition still,” Thomas said con
fidently.

  “Not quite. Your calculations rely on three critical assumptions. The first is the initial condition of the rock sample — something you couldn’t possibly personally observe. The second assumption is that the amount of the radioactive elements in the sample has not been altered by any other process. As scientists, we must admit that rarely do conditions in the natural world remain constant. Thirdly, you assume that the rate of decay has remained constant since the rock was formed. These assumptions are, in effect, your presupposition. You know that different circumstances can dictate release rates, but you have not presupposed that any of these circumstances could have been a factor. Your presupposition is that current conditions are exactly as they have been in the past.”

  Thomas was impressed. “I see your point. You are telling me that when I consider that the present is the same as the past, that is a presupposition.”

  “Precisely. We both have starting points. The difference is that my presupposition, the Bible, never changes. I have not yet seen any evidence to place my presupposition in conflict. It seems when there is a conflict with your starting point, you just change your presupposition. That doesn’t seem consistent, does it?”

  Andy drained his coffee and continued, “Look at what was discovered at Mount St. Helens. We know that rocks were formed as a result of the volcanic eruption in 1980. In 1996 dating tests were performed on a rock sample using radiometric dating. The results of the tests claimed that the rock could be up to 2.8 million years old! We know that this cannot be true. Therefore, this is a good example of the failing of your presupposition. So how am I supposed to believe any of your other claims of rocks and fossils being millions of years old when I know that the dating methods you use are seriously flawed?”

  Thomas was considering Andy’s response. “Andy, you really do have some great points. This is the first time in my life that anyone has been able to get me to really consider God. I truly will give it some real thought and we’ll keep in touch.”