Thoughts to Ponder

Got Proof?

I am often asked how I can have such blind faith as to believe in God and the Bible. I make no apology for the fact that God requires faith:

Hebrews 11:6 And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him.

However, nothing in this passage or elsewhere in the Bible tells us that we must have blind faith. God has provided proof of Himself and His word if we are willing to do the work of looking for it. That proof is not the kind of proof that most people are looking for; they want God to come stand in the parking lot of Target this weekend so they can touch Him, ask Him questions, and get their hard evidence of His existence. No, that isn't available, but there is plenty of proof out there for the person who is willing to look for it and believe it.

In this Thought to Ponder, I want to give you just a few examples of what I am talking about. To the skeptic  my proof will be meaningless, but to the believer it should strengthen your belief and show you that you don't need blind faith.

Let's start with creation. I am often laughed at because I dare to believe that God created Adam and Eve, and they populated the world. The people who write me usually call me a fool for one of two reasons. First, they claim it is impossible for all the people of the world to come from just two individuals. Secondly, they claim if all the people did come from just two individuals, then their kids would have to have had sexual relations with their brothers and sisters and cousins, and that would mean that all the other children would have been retarded and have birth defects. So let's look at this and see if their ideas hold any water or if they are full of holes.

They laugh at the idea that all the billions of people on the earth could come from the union of two people who were created sexually mature and lived 900 years. But I don't really want to address that; what I want to look at is their alternative to creation.

They believe in evolution. They believe that all life started in a primordial ooze. Where this primordial ooze came from is another discussion. Then, after millions of years (billions of years total, if you come all the way forward to today) simple creatures evolved, and after a few more million years one crawled out onto dry land and began to breathe air.

I am a fool for believing that two sexually mature adults populated the earth, yet these people believe that no sexually mature beings populated the earth. Even if evolution were true as they say, and this being mutated and crawled out onto dry land, who did it have sexual relations with to reproduce? Let's say that two creatures mutated at the same place and time and it just happened that one of them mutated as a male and one as a female, you are still left with the problem that out of all the dry land in the world they happened to crawl out close enough together to find each other. Yep, those stupid Christians are the only ones who will believe junk through blind faith.

This brings us to their second problem with Adam and Eve: the inbreeding. But again, I want to look at what they believe for a moment. They believe that these two mutations crawled out on the beach and produced young. Okay, but who did their young reproduce with? Either they reproduced exactly the way Adam and Eve's children did, or we are to believe that not only did two creatures mutate at the same time and place and of the opposite sex, but that there were more than just two who mutated at the same time in the same place and of opposite sexes.

Of course the answer to either their problem or the creation problem is simple: the gene pool was not polluted when God created Adam and Eve, so there would not have been the problems we see today when close relatives marry and have children. Those errors in the DNA and genetic code happened over time, causing the problems we see today.

For the Christian, this should be a blessing to their faith. Yes, we have to take it by faith that God created Adam and Eve and that they populated the earth, but look at the alternative given by the world and tell me which takes more blind faith to believe.

Another thing that I am ridiculed over is the flood. There are a number of things about the flood that they laugh at Christians for believing. For example, the idea that Noah could have gotten all the animals on the Ark. They claim there wouldn't have been enough room or enough food for all the animals. But they park their brains at the door when thinking about this. As for both room and food, what if God sent babies of each kind to Noah? They wouldn't eat as much and they wouldn't take up as much room. Besides, God could have put them into a deep sleep while in the Ark.

I love the next argument because it helps prove my point. I have heard people say that there are flood stories in many cultures and that just goes to show that the story of the flood in the Bible is just another myth. Well, actually there are over 200 different flood stories from different people groups all over the world, and they all have a couple of common themes. First, they all say that this flood was a great flood and killed everyone except one family (sometimes it is stated as one man). So what does this prove? Does it prove that the Bible is just a book with myths that many cultures have?

Think about this, if the Bible is true and there was a worldwide flood that killed every human being and land animal with the exception of those in the Ark, then would it not be common sense to have these stories all over the earth? Of course it would, because Noah's sons would have repopulated the earth. I would imagine they would have told their children the story of how they alone escaped the flood, and their children would have passed that story on to their children, etc… And since they repopulated the entire earth, Noah's children's children and so on down the line would have moved and populated other areas. It would do more to disprove the Bible if there weren't any stories about a great flood than it does that there are such stories scattered all over the world.

The next two are kind of related. They laugh at the fact that the Bible claims that people before the flood lived to be hundreds of years old. They also laugh at the idea that there was enough water to flood the whole earth and that it then receded somewhere.

I said these are kind of related, and I believe that they are. First let me quote from Genesis:

Genesis 1:6-7 And God said, "Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water." [7] So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. And it was so.

So we see from this that God separated the water under the expanse (sky) from the water above the expanse (sky). Now think about what water above the sky would be like. Well it would most likely be very high in the atmosphere at the edge of space, which we know is very cold. So the water would have been an ice layer above the breathable atmosphere.

What would an ice layer like that do? It would filter out solar radiation for one. We know today that solar radiation has a lot to do with cancer and aging, both in animals and humans. So if this ice layer were to filter out some or all of this radiation, what would you expect to happen to those people and animals that lived under this filter? They would have less disease and live longer!

Secondly, an ice layer would cause a greenhouse effect on the earth, making the temperatures more moderate throughout the world. Could this explain the frozen animals in the Arctic that have been found with green vegetation in their stomachs?

Thirdly, it would put pressure on the atmosphere. What you would have is a natural barometric chamber covering the whole earth. Again, what would you expect that to do to the people and animals on the earth? All you have to do is look at what modern medicine and science use barometric chambers for today to find out the answer. If a person has a limb amputated and then reattached they are often placed in a barometric chamber and given high concentrations of oxygen to help the healing process. Now, remember the greenhouse effect the ice layer would have produced, meaning that there would have been more oxygen-producing plants on the earth. So the end result would be healthier and longer living humans.

Let me go back a moment to those animals found in the Arctic with green vegetation in their stomachs. Scientists say that whatever killed and froze them happened very fast, so fast that the food in their stomachs didn't have time to degrade. Now couple that with the idea that the earth's axis has been moved so that the earth spins on a tilt, which scientist believe happened when a meteor struck the earth.

So let's assume the scientists got this right, and sometime in the past the earth was struck by a meteor which hit so hard that it caused the earth to tilt. Now let's think about that happening if there were an ice layer suspended at the edge of the atmosphere all around the earth. Certainly, it would have been violent enough to break that solid ice layer, causing it to fall into the atmosphere.

If the hit caused the earth to tilt then the meteor must have struck close to one of the poles, the areas we call the Arctic today. You would expect that the ice layer would break at the same place that the meteor hit, which would cause huge amounts of ice to fall where the meteor struck. Now all this falling ice would cause anything that it landed on to instantly freeze. Boy, I bet that could happen so fast and be such a deep freeze that even the contents of the animal's stomachs might be preserved in the state they were in when it happened.

Now the rest of the ice layer would have cracked and probably sagged before falling. So it would have sagged into the atmosphere, where it would have slowly warmed, causing the ice to become-- water! That water, when it fell to the earth, would have been rain and lots of it. I bet it could even have caused a flood!!

What happened to all that water? Well the Bible doesn't tell us, other than to say that God sent a great wind to dry it up, but what if that great wind was coming from the super frozen ice cap in the Arctic? Scientists claim we have had ice ages, could this have been one? If so then much of that water would have frozen in the cold areas and the warm areas would have dried out.

If you have ever looked at a map which shows the continental shelf you will see that if the water was just up to the continental shelf then there would have been land bridges between all the continents, allowing people to move around the whole earth. This would explain how Noah's son's families could populate the whole earth. Then, as the temperature started to warm up, some of the ice would melt and eventually we would have the continents as we know them today, with the continental shelf under water and the land bridges gone.

Another point of contention is on dinosaurs. People laugh at me because I say that God created all creatures during the literal six days of creation. They laugh because they believe the "facts" as put out by evolutionist and others that say the dinosaurs disappeared from the earth before man evolved.

I want to look at their assumptions for a moment and see if they hold water. If their assumptions are correct, then no man ever saw a living dinosaur. If that is true, then how can the cave drawings be explained? If you are not familiar with them, there are many drawings of creatures that look like dinosaurs in caves all over the world. These drawings were made by 'primitive' man, what the scientist call 'cavemen' and yet these creatures that these primitive people drew were gone from the face of the earth millions of years before these people drew them.

The only explanation would be that these primitive humans found a bone or two and from that came up with what these creatures would have looked like when they were alive. Amazing! Or, of course, it could be that these people actually saw these creatures and just drew them as they saw them.

Remember the barometric chamber before the flood, which would have caused beings to live longer and be healthier? Now, did you know that a reptile never quits growing? From the day they are born until they day they die, they are growing. So if they also benefited from the things that made pre-flood humans and animals stronger, healthier, and live longer, would it not stand to reason that they would also have lived longer and therefore grown much larger than today?

Just for the record, I don't believe that dinosaurs died out during the flood. In fact I think that many of the myths about dragons are true and are actually just describing dinosaurs. In fact, look at what the Bible has to say:

Isaiah 27:1
    In that day,

    the Lord will punish with his sword,
        his fierce, great and powerful sword,
    Leviathan the gliding serpent,
        Leviathan the coiling serpent;
    he will slay the monster of the sea.

Job 41:1-11
    "Can you pull in the leviathan with a fishhook
        or tie down his tongue with a rope?
    [2] Can you put a cord through his nose
        or pierce his jaw with a hook?
    [3] Will he keep begging you for mercy?
        Will he speak to you with gentle words?
    [4] Will he make an agreement with you
        for you to take him as your slave for life?
    [5] Can you make a pet of him like a bird
        or put him on a leash for your girls?
    [6] Will traders barter for him?
        Will they divide him up among the merchants?
    [7] Can you fill his hide with harpoons
        or his head with fishing spears?
    [8] If you lay a hand on him,
        you will remember the struggle and never do it again!
    [9] Any hope of subduing him is false;
        the mere sight of him is overpowering.
    [10] No one is fierce enough to rouse him.
        Who then is able to stand against me?
    [11] Who has a claim against me that I must pay?
        Everything under heaven belongs to me.

This Leviathan sounds like a pretty big sea monster doesn't it?

Job 40:15-24
    "Look at the behemoth,
        which I made along with you
        and which feeds on grass like an ox.
    [16] What strength he has in his loins,
        what power in the muscles of his belly!
    [17] His tail sways like a cedar;
        the sinews of his thighs are close-knit.
    [18] His bones are tubes of bronze,
        his limbs like rods of iron.
    [19] He ranks first among the works of God,
        yet his Maker can approach him with his sword.
    [20] The hills bring him their produce,
        and all the wild animals play nearby.
    [21] Under the lotus plants he lies,
        hidden among the reeds in the marsh.
    [22] The lotuses conceal him in their shadow;
        the poplars by the stream surround him.
    [23] When the river rages, he is not alarmed;
        he is secure, though the Jordan should surge against his mouth.
    [24] Can anyone capture him by the eyes,
        or trap him and pierce his nose?

Doesn't this sound like a dinosaur to you? People try to claim that it is describing an elephant or a rhinoceros, but have you ever seen one of these animals have a tail like a cedar?

Let me address one last item. Even people who will concede that there might be a God will laugh that I believe in Jesus Christ, since there is no proof outside the Bible for His existence. Oh, if you explain that Josephus wrote about Him, they discount that, because...well, just because. If you tell them that the Romans kept good records, and they often mentioned Jesus, they will often say, "Well okay, but that just means there was a guy named Jesus; there still isn't any proof that He was who He claimed to be."

Again, yes we need to have faith, but in this area it doesn't have to be blind faith. The Jews for the most part rejected their Messiah and this was predicted in the Old Testament:

Isaiah 53:3 He was despised and rejected by men, a man of sorrows, and familiar with suffering. Like one from whom men hide their faces he was despised, and we esteemed him not. [NIV]

That is important, because to understand what I am going to show you, you have to understand that the Jews as a whole had every reason in the world to not say anything that could be used to prove that Jesus was the Messiah. Yet that is exactly what they did without realizing it. The Jewish people have what they call the Talmud, it is not part of the Bible; it is called sage writings. It is sayings and interpretations of the Bible by Rabbis. It is a collection of writings and is broken down into books and chapters. So let me quote from it and show you what I mean.

The rabbis taught: Forty years before the Temple was destroyed, the lot never came into the right hand, the red wool did not become white, the western light did not burn, and the gates of the Temple opened of themselves, till the time that R. Johanan b. Zakkai rebuked them, saying: "Temple, Temple, why alarmest thou us? We know that thou art destined to be destroyed. For of thee hath prophesied Zechariah ben Iddo [Zech. xi. 1]: 'Open thy doors, O Lebanon, and the fire shall eat thy cedars.'" (Yoma Chapter 4)

This might not mean anything to you, but let me explain. The Talmud tells us that each year when the High Priest was sacrificing the sin offering as prescribed by Scripture; two goats were taken, one was killed and the blood sprinkled on the alter and the other goat was called the scapegoat and was led out of the city into the wilderness. The High Priest placed his hand on the scapegoat and pronounced the sins of the people and then the goat was taken away, showing that the sins of the people were taken away also. This was a big deal they had to take the goat far enough away so that it could not come back, or otherwise the sins of the people would come back with it. Now the Talmud tells us that the High Priest tied a red cord to the scapegoat, and he also tied a red cord to the door of the Temple. The Talmud says that after the scapegoat had been taken away, the red cord on the Temple would turn white. This was a sign that God had accepted their sacrifice and forgiven their sins. This comes from the Old Testament where God says that even though their sins are as red as scarlet, He will make them as white as snow.

Okay, with that background now go back and read the section I quoted above. The Talmud is saying that about 40 years before the Temple was destroyed, the red cord quit changing to white. They don't seem to understand why it happened. Also, you see that some other things happened also, but I just want to address the white cord. Now we know from history when the Temple was destroyed, it was 70 A.D. So if you count back 40 years you come to 30 A.D.

What happened around the time of 30 A.D.? Well the calendar begins at the birth of Christ, so that would be 0 A.D. We know from Scripture that He was 30 years old when He started His public ministry and that He ministered for 3 years until they crucified Him. If those dates are right then He died in 33 A.D., but we can't be sure they are right, just close. Next the Talmud does not give a date, just that forty years before the Temple was destroyed the red cord quit changing, so again it could be 30 A.D. plus or minus a year or two. Are you beginning to see where I am going?

The red cord quit turning white after Jesus died, but why? Easy, God forgave the sins of the Israelites up to the time Jesus died because they were faithful in sacrificing as He told them to do; part of that faith was that they were proclaiming that they believed God would send the perfect sacrifice one day to take away all their sins. Well, He did just that; Jesus was the perfect sacrifice, and after His death there was no need for the continuation year after year of the goats. So God quit forgiving their sins because of those sacrifices, and the red cord quit turning white.

So you see proof of who Jesus was in the writings of people who deny that He was who He was. If they realized that this is proof of who He really is, they would never have included it in the Talmud.

I have only scratched the surface in this article, but I hope it shows you that there is plenty of proof out there if you are willing to look for it. I am not trying to claim that God has given me any sort of revelation on these subjects, for all I know I could be wrong about some of the finer points, but the larger point is that there proof of God and reason to reject the world's explanations. We need not have blind faith, but we do need to have faith and to continue to strengthen that faith daily.

E-Mail Ralph

To receive new articles via e-mail sign up below.

Subscribe to Thoughts to Ponder
Powered by

911 - God's Help Line Articles Apologetics Book Reviews
Contemplating Suicide? Discipleship Eternal Security How to know Jesus
Help for the Cutter In Memory Marine Bloodstripes Police Humor
Police Memorial SiteMap Statement of Faith Testimonies
Thoughts to Ponder True Life Stories Vet's Memorial Why I Have a Page
eXTReMe Tracker

May 2007