|In their article “Is the Shroud of Turin Authentic – or Is it a Forgery” Creation Ministries International (CMI) supports the theory that the Shroud of Turin is not the authentic burial shroud of Christ – it is a medieval forgery. This article refutes that theory, along with the main reasons CMI gives for rejecting authenticity.
This article relies primarily on the testimony of Shroud of Turin Research Project (STRP) members and other expert testimony to demonstrate there is a wealth of evidence CMI apparently did not consider before drawing their conclusions. This article is intended to inform the reader of those evidences and make available the testimony of the STRP members and other expert witnesses so that readers may judge for themselves whether CMI has reached the correct conclusion. It is the position of this article that they did not. The reader is encouraged to click on the links to view the referenced testimonies.
First of all, let’s dispense with the idea that the Bible speaks of the mythical magical type of unicorns pictured above – the type that most people think about when they hear the word “unicorn”. In fact the word “unicorn”- as it is understood today, is so far removed from the meaning of the original Hebrew word ראם (reh-ahm) that modern translations have chosen to not even use the word, preferring instead “wild ox.” Some translations using “wild ox”: NIV, ESV, NKJV, NASB, NRSV among others. That’s appropriate since 1. “wild ox” is the primary meaning given in the standard reference – BDB and 2. Its a word that could refer to what many commentators conclude the Hebrew word points to – the aurochs – a wild ox now extinct. The problem with that understanding is that all the wild oxen we’re familiar with have two horns. Which gets back to the main question I want to examine:
Does the Bible Really Refer to a Unicorn?
An atheist on twitter was frustrated that I was following my own advice about not providing evidence to mockers. So in his frustration he did what mockers do: engaged in ridicule and mocking. In an attempt to deride and ridicule the faith he proceeded to tell others what he thinks I believe:
“He follows a holy book with a jealous & genocidal god, ghosts, zombies, seers, devils, demons, witches, satyrs, unicorns, talking animals, a man who lived in a fish and a 7 headed dragon.”
Clearly he takes exception to all of these. But since he is an atheist, that neither surprises, nor concerns me. The question I do want to address however is what are we believers and people who are seeking the truth to think about what many would consider mythical creatures in the list? With that in mind let’s look at what the Bible has to say about each of these items, plus one that is usually questioned, but not in his list: a talking snake. So let’s look at these one by one in the light of what the holy book – the Bible – says about them. But before I start, let me highlight the main problem: Continue Reading
As noted in part 1 of this article, distant starlight has been called the best argument against biblical creation and a young earth. A serious charge. So I thought it would be helpful to identify the best answer to this “best” charge against creation. A number of solutions to this problem have been offered by scientists who happen to also be creationists. We briefly examined the popular ones in the previous article. Now that we’ve completed an overview of possible solutions, we’ll get to the meat of the matter: identifying which theory or theories both have a possibility of working, and surviving the principle of Occam’s razor. So without further ado: Continue Reading
Distant starlight: It’s been called the best argument against biblical creation and a young universe. Why is that? Because Big Bang Theorists, secularists and anyone who believes in an ancient universe believe they have an iron clad case against a young universe with regard to distant starlight. The argument goes like this.
We can see stars hundreds of thousands, millions even billions of light years away. Take the Andromeda galaxy – 2.5 million light years away. A supernova was observed in that galaxy. That implies the light took 2.5 million years to get to earth. But if the earth (and indeed the entire universe) is only 6,000 years old. How can we see Andromeda or the supernova? Using standard understandings and formulas, there hasn’t been enough time for the light to get here from Andromeda. Yet we can see it. On the face of it that suggests that the earth is at least 2.5 million years old – much older than the 6,000 years that Biblical creationists claim for the universe. And the problem only gets worse for more distant stars. This is indeed an acknowledged problem. Continue Reading
A Resurrection Day Meditation
The Apostle Thomas has been under-appreciated and unfairly characterized as “doubting” – as we understand doubting. Rather than doubting, Thomas is better described as the ultimate realist. He doesn’t put on rose colored glasses and see an idealized world. He sees things as they are in the real world. As such he provides one of the best proofs of the resurrection recorded in the Bible. A good thing to realize as we celebrate resurrection day. Let me explain why. Continue Reading
The Bible states that the heavens and the earth were created in six literal days. God created Adam and Eve and placed them in a garden called Eden. Adam and Eve sinned, bringing sin into God’s perfect creation, and sin brought with it the consequence of death. The Bible goes on to state that:
“The LORD saw how great man’s wickedness on the earth had become, and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the time.” (Gen 6.5)
So God elected to start over, wiping all the wicked people off the face of the earth and begin again with the family of one righteous man: Noah (Gen 6:8-10).
What is the best evidence of this creation account? The first question to answer is what kind of evidence should we be looking for? The first criteria is that it should be evidence that is accessible and acknowledged by all – on both sides of the debate. The second criteria has to do with the explanatory power of the evidence, which is explained below. Continue Reading
This is another installment in the series on how to answer atheists – in light of the many atheist memes out there. This article is a bit of a departure – instead of looking at graphical memes we’ll look at some of the overused but fallacious arguments. And since I was looking for the toughest arguments atheists present – you may or may not find memes for these: these particular arguments from atheists don’t necessarily lend themselves to a simple graphical presentation – though some are indeed out there. Continue Reading
Many atheists proclaim themselves to be bastions of reason and logic. They consider themselves to be free thinkers who are correct in their rejection of God. They believe themselves to be superior in their thinking when it comes to matters concerning God. That’s ironic since it can be easily demonstrated that 1. Many atheist claims are illogical and 2. an atheist cannot live consistently within an atheistic worldview. Since many will miss this second point, let me emphasize it by repeating it, atheists cannot live consistently within an atheistic worldview. In fact, no one can live consistently within an atheistic worldview. That is a sign that the atheistic worldview is not true.
Case in point: memes on morality and sin. They are problematic for atheists, though atheists apparently have not realized that yet. Let me explain why. Continue Reading
We’ve called many things evil before. For example many agreed with then governor Dannel Malloy when he said of the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary school shootings which killed 20 innocent students and 6 adults at the school that “evil visited this community today.” Well if evil merely visited Sandy Hook that day, then evil has taken up permanent residence in New York state where governor Andrew Cuomo has signed a pro-abortion bill into law that can only be characterized as evil by those who still recognize that killing innocent children is evil.
This new law – The Reproductive Health Act (RHA) is so radical, so diabolical that even babies who managed to survive an abortion are not safe. No, this new law allows women and medical professionals who should be caring for newborns – helping them to live – to instead neglect them and assure they die. Make no mistake: this new law is evil. If you have any doubts about that consider the following: Continue Reading