Nothing New at CMU

Canadian Mennonite University Still a Leader in Evangelical Compromise

Years ago a young student at CMU expressed his deep concern that the university had abandoned the clear teachings of scripture and had embraced the fallen and fallacious opinions of man instead. In Jan 2007 members of the CARE team attended a course at CMU on Creation, Evolution and the Bible. From this course we learned that that young student's concerns were certainly well founded. The instructors (Glen Klassen, former microbiology Prof. at U of M, and Dan Epp, Prof. of Old Testament) made their distain for the clear teachings of Genesis abundantly clear. This is striking, since in class one, Klassen stated at the beginning of his lecture that we must "never base our faith on science." This is curious since his reasons for rejecting the clear teachings of Scripture were "scientific." There's a name for people who preach one thing and they themselves do another. I believe the word is hypocrite.

Throughout the class I made constant appeals to the Scriptures, showing that if we choose to regard Genesis as merely figurative, a good deal of the New Testament becomes confusing if not downright meaningless. For the Christian, the implications are huge. I was absolutely amazed at the opposition I received, not only from the professors, but also from the class in general. The mantra seemed to be "that's just the way you interpret Genesis." That may be true, but why do I choose to interpret it so? As this article will hopefully demonstrate, I do so because that's the way the original language indicates that it should be regarded. Furthermore, that's the way the New Testament writers regarded it, along with the Lord Himself! As if this weren't enough, the testimony of the early church is almost unanimous that Genesis ought to be taken literally.

Below is a list of factual errors that were propagated throughout the course. Most of the material here was prepared in the days following each class and handed out to the students in the following session. Most were cordial enough to take the information (though I doubt they read it). Few were actually happy to receive my handouts, while others were definitely not. I present this material here (as I did in the classroom) hoping that it will encourage folks to simply take God at His word. This is pleasing to Him and safer for us. I also want my readers to understand just how slippery the slope of unbelief can be. Once the Genesis account of creation and the flood is relegated to myth (as Klassen and Epp maintained), watch how many other essential biblical truths become eroded, distorted, or downright denied. The implications are troubling - in fact - they are downright frightening.

If we were to just simply read the Genesis account of creation, without any regard for modern scientific opinion, we would come away with the impression that the entire creative process took place in six literal 24-hours days (note also Ex 20:11; 31:17 and their respective contexts).

"In Genesis 1, yom [day] comes with 'evening' and 'morning', and is modified by a number. So it is obvious that the Hebrew text is describing a 24-hour day…' Dr. Tim Wang, Creation Magazine, vol.27 No. 4, Sept-Nov., 2005. Wang earned his M. Div. from Westminster Seminary in California, and his doctorate in Biblical Studies at the Hebrew Union College, Jewish Institute of Religion (Cincinnati. OH). He now lectures on biblical Hebrew at Stanford University. He is a member of the Society of Biblical Literature and the National Association of Professors of Hebrew.

"Probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1-11 intended to convey to their readers that creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24-hours we now experience…" Hebrew scholar James Barr, Letter to David Watson, 1984, cited in John D. Morris, "The Young Earth", Master Books, 1994, p. 31

In class one, many scientific / historic arguments were put forward to support the idea that Genesis should not be taken at face value. At least 10 factual errors were made. I offer the following points for your consideration and edification:

Causes for concern in Class One

1.Young Earth Creationists believe in decreasing complexity

Wrong - Degeneration can and does lead to an increase in complexity. We believe in a net decrease in information (i.e. no increase in specified complexity). We allow for an unfolding of genetic potential over time so that new varieties of animals are seen. But this is just recombining old genes in new ways.

2.Animals that become carnivores are examples of macro evolution

Klassen sought to show an inconsistency in the traditional creation position by stating that we don't believe in macroevolution. This is correct. He then went on to mention our belief that many animals had become carnivores over time. Isn't this macroevolution? Not at all - Macro evolution is described as animals changing into a fundamentally different kind. To go from a herbivore to a carnivore does not necessitate this kind of change. Field paleontologist Joe Taylor reported that he observed carnivorous behavior in sheep, and received a first hand account from a rancher whose horse had taken to killing and eating chickens! (See: "Talking Heads: Notes on the Interpretation of the Skulls of Terrestrial Animals", Blanco Publishing, by Gregg Thompson, Preface by Joe Taylor). In both cases, the sheep were still sheep and the horse still a horse! Interestingly, cretaceous crocodiles have been found with a complex herbivore tooth and jaw structure. Today crocs have simple teeth and hinged jaws. This fits the view that all the animals were once vegetarian (Genesis 1:29-31) but because of sin and the curse, some resorted to meat eating. The change is degenerative in accordance with Romans 8.

3.Young earth creationism is implausible on scientific grounds

Meaningless statement - First, there are plenty of good scientific reasons for trusting God's word as it is written. Even if this were not so, Klassen's claim is meaningless coming from a guy who told his class not to put their faith in science.

4.Radiometric dating proves the earth old / Young-eathers have been unsuccessful in undermining this truth

Wrong and wrong - Radiometric dates on objects of known age have been repeatedly shown to be unreliable. Scientists themselves admit that the accepted dates are really the selected dates. The young-earther's "inability" to undermine radiometric dating is due to secular science's commitment to their belief system. Robert Gentry, for example, was employed with the US government as an expert in the area of nuclear decay and radioactive waste disposal. His findings indicated that radiometric dating was not reliable, and that the only conclusion that could be fairly drawn was that the earth's granites (basement rock) had to have been formed in minutes. His evidence has gone without challenge for almost 30 years. The evolutionist response: "It's a tiny mystery." Gentry's book "Creation's Tiny Mystery", chronicles his important work. His website is www.haloes.com. You may also want to read the two volumes (these are technical) published by the RATE group to read of their results, or "Thousands…Not Billions" by Dr. Don DeYoung (a layman's summary of the RATE work).

5. Ice Cores from Greenland and Antarctica prove the earth is old.

Wrong - Bob Cardin who helped excavate one of the lost squadron planes stated that it was covered in many hundreds of layers of ice, a total depth of 263 feet in just 46 years. The idea that these layers represent annual rings and are supported by volcanic "event horizons" is refuted by the very scientific community in which Prof. Klassen trusts. See a great article by Dr. Sean Pitman at www.detectingdesign.com in which many scientists, including Professor Zibigniew Jaworowski, chairman of the Scientific Council of the Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection in Poland, are quoted as being unconvinced about the accuracy of the ice core dating method.

6. The Geological Column proves the earth is billions of years old

Wrong - The geological column is a mental abstraction, an interpretation of the fact that the earth is layered. Numerous features of these layers indicate that they simply could not have been laid down over millions of years. Some examples: a) Fossils that run through multiple layers, b) layers that are sharply bent without fracture, c) perfectly horizontal layers (why no sign of erosion?), d) no bioturbation (no evidence of any burrowing creatures), d) surface features (i.e. footprints) between layers (which cannot last even weeks before being eroded away.

7. Fossils prove evolution

Wrong - The only thing we know about a fossil is that it died. No fossil can be said to be ancestral to anything because it cannot be demonstrated that any fossil had offspring - let alone offspring more "evolved" than itself. Fossilization is a rare event. An animal or plant must be buried in mineral rich sediment in the presence of water in order to fossilize. Fossil fish were mentioned - yet fish don't fossilize under normal conditions (they are scavenged before that can happen). Also note that fossil fish are found squashed to the thickness of a piece of paper beneath numerous thin layers of sediment. How could these have been laid down over millions of years? An aquatic disaster is the best explanation for the layering of the earth.

8. Genetic / protein comparisons support previous family trees based on morphology (how organisms look). If this were not so, evolution would be falsified

Wrong and wrong - Because evolution is a religious system, absolutely nothing can falsify it. It is something that is simply believed, and all the data - even contradictory data - is interpreted in reference to it. Klassen's claim that the evolutionary trees based on the molecular data perfectly match the previous trees based on morphology is ambiguous at best. Numerous scientists, equally as qualified as Professor Klassen, have taken the very opposite position. For example this report from Science Daily News (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1999/06/990625074421.htm):

"For more than a hundred years, scientists have depended on morphology, the form and structure of animals, to determine their place on the family tree. But over the past few years, a new tree has been proposed based on comparisons of themes found in animal genes. "In the last four or five years, this tree has been totally reorganized and if you're interested in evolutionary relationships, that's really important," said Sean B. Carroll, a professor of molecular biology at the Howard Hughes Medical Institute at the UW-Madison and a co-author of the report in Nature."

Or this one:

"Clarification of the phylogenetic relationships of the major animal phyla has been an elusive problem, with analyses based on different genes and even different analyses based on the same genes yielding a diversity of phylogenetic trees." Woese, Carl. 1998. The Universal Ancestor. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 95:6854-6859.

One more:

"Animal relationships derived from these new molecular data sometimes are very different from those implied by older, classical evaluations of morphology. Reconciling these differences is a central challenge for evolutionary biologists at present." Maley, Laura E. and Charles R. Marshall. 1998. The Coming of Age of Molecular Systematics. Science Vol. 279 Issue 5350, p.505-506.

Remember, Prof. Klassen said that if the family tree based on morphology didn't match the one based on DNA / protein comparisons, the theory of evolution would be falsified.

9. A Seventh Day Adventist in the 19th century was the first to suggest that the Genesis Flood was the cause of the fossils.

Wrong - Proffesor Klassen was adamant about this, even after attempts were made to correct him. For the record, John Woodward appears to be the first to suggest that the flood was the cause of the fossil record. Woodward expressed his views in several volumes "An Essay Toward a Natural History of the Earth" and "Terrestrial Bodies, especially minerals" (1695; and ed. 1702, 3rd ed. 1723). This was followed by "Brief Instructions for Making Observations in All Parts of the World" (1696) He was author also of "An Attempt Towards a Natural History of the Fossils of England" (2 vols., 1728 and 1729). Woodward was not alone. In 1731, Johann Scheuchzer (1672-1733), a Swiss philosopher, published an engraving of a fossil he had found in 1726. He called it Homo diluvii testis (man who witnessed the biblical flood).

10. No reputable science publication has published on "out of place" artifacts or fossils

Wrong - Michael A. Cremo and Richard Thompson spent eight years compiling data on this subject. Their massive 800-page volume "Forbidden Archaeology" documents the discoveries of numerous artifacts and fossils that were extracted from rock layers supposedly millions of years too old to fit the evolution story. Some examples:

"For if you believed Moses, you would believe me; for he wrote about Me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe My words?" John 5:46-47

Causes for Concern in Class Two:

1. "In the beginning God did not create the heaven and the earth?"
Professor Dan Epp claimed that Genesis was not describing God creating out of nothing, but instead, that He relied on pre-existing materials. When questioned on this his answer was that all creation myths of that day had the gods operating that way. This is a lame answer. If God didn't create the universe out of nothing, then our modern English Bibles are horribly mistranslated. The writer of Hebrews was also in error: "Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things that do appear." Hebrews 11:3

2. We can read Genesis "any way we want"
Epp denied what the Bible seems to clearly say, that is, that God created the sun, moon and stars on the fourth creation day. I asked him what it was about the text that makes it impossible to take it literally. His answer, "You can read it any way you want." How can this possibly be so? Remember 1 Timothy 2:15: "Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth." What's the obvious implication here? That if we don't handle the word of God correctly we ought to be ashamed! This idea that a verse can be interpreted any way we want is not only ridiculous, but it is an affront to God Himself. Can God communicate? Does God intend to communicate?

3. Genesis portrays a false cosmology (picture of the ordered universe)
Epp claimed that Genesis described a flat earth that rested upon pillars. He asked, "What does the Bible say the earth rests upon?" I answered him, "The book of Job (26:7) states that God hangs the earth upon nothing" - which by the way is scientifically correct. Though he heard my comment, he ignored it so that he could proceed with his argument that the Bible is incorrect. His main argument came from 1 Samuel 2: 8: "He raiseth up the poor out of the dust, and lifteth up the beggar from the dunghill, to set them among princes, and to make them inherit the throne of glory: for the pillars of the earth are the LORD's, and he hath set the world upon them."

The passage must be read in context. It is part of Hannah's prayer of praise to God for her son Samuel. It is full of imagery, and really has nothing at all to do with the creation. The pillars in this passage speak of those whom God has set to be in authority on the earth. The same terminology is seen in Galatians 2:9 and Revelation 3:12 Or, more generally, the physical and spiritual laws that govern life on earth (see also Job 9:6; and Ps. 75:3) i.e. foundations.

4. The New Testament view of Genesis is irrelevant.
Not only is the Genesis account of creation written like historic narrative (as opposed to allegory or myth), but the New Testament witness also regards it as actual history. Remember that this was pointed out to Prof. Epp, who simply shrugged off the fact that the Lord Himself was quoted (Mark 10:6) as referring to the Genesis account as literal history. This blatant disregard for the word of God is most troubling indeed. In the chart below I've outlined where the New Testament comments upon Genesis chapters 1-11 as literal history:

5. God calls suffering and death "good"
Both Epp and Klassen see no contradiction between Genesis and evolution. But think for a moment what evolution entails: Darwin said:

"Thus, from the war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of the higher animals, directly follows." "Origin of Species," last paragraph

According to Carl Sagan,

"The secrets of evolution are death and time - the deaths of enormous numbers of life forms that were imperfectly adapted to the environment; and time for a long succession of small mutations that were by accident adaptive, time for the slow accumulation of patterns of favorable mutations" "Cosmos", 1980, p. 30

Remember it was Prof. Epp that drew our attention to the fact that everything God made was "good". Can we really suppose that evolution was the process that He used? This question was put to Prof. Epp and his response was that since God created carnivores, why not? The answer is, God did not create carnivores. Genesis 1:29-31 states that all the animals were plant eaters at the beginning. Remember also that I asked him if God really created a world full of suffering and death before anyone had ever sinned. His reply: "I don't want to go in that direction."

6. The Genesis account is just a modified version of the Babylonian creation story.
Epp argued that this must be so because the Babylonian creation story is older than Genesis. This argument is flawed. The Bible is God's word, regardless of when it was revealed to man, and must be regarded as true. Of interest is the fact that the tablets found at ancient Ebla in 1975 preserve what appears to be a creation story much closer to Genesis - a story that predates the Babylonian fable by 600 years. The translation reads:

"Lord of heaven and earth:
The earth was not, you created it,
The light of day was not, you created it,
The morning light you had not [yet] made
Exist."

Isn't it much more likely that the Genesis account of creation is the true account, which was modified by the Babylonians?

The translator, Paolo Pettinato, stated that "…the affinity with Genesis 1 appears evident." "Ebla and the Bible", Biblical Archaeologist (BA) 43 (1960), p. 208

7. Young-earth creationists are imposing a modern agenda on Genesis
You can't be serious! Not only does Genesis sound like literal history, but the New Testament also regards it as such. As if that weren't enough, throughout the history of the church the vast majority of writers who commented on the subject also regarded it this way (see following chart). It is the evolutionists who are trying to impose a modern (and ridiculous) idea onto the text.

• Josephus (37-95) Antiquities 1:1 (not a church father, I know, but donated considerable space to explaining the Genesis creation account).
• Irenaeus (125-202) Against Heresies 5.28.3,-six literal days of creation
• Origen (182-251) Against Celsus 1.19 (affirmed that the earth was very much under 10,000 years old)
• Theophilus of Antioch (180) in Autolycus 2.11-12
• Lactantius (240-320) Institutes 7.14
• Victorinus of Pettau (d. c304) On the Creation of the World

8. Young-earth creationists "hate" Hugh Ross
Absolutely false. We disagree with Ross on a number of important issues but to say that we "hate" him is not only wrong but quite presumptuous. 1 John 3:14 states: "We know that we have passed from death unto life, because we love the brethren. He that loveth not his brother abideth in death." The CARE team loves Dr. Ross, and longs for him to come to a right understanding of Genesis.

9. God is not involved
This was Prof. Klassen's "theistic" argument. He asked, "Is God that much of an interventionist?" He then added, "Not in my life." I feel sorry for Him. Jesus is my best friend, and He is involved in my life. Is God an interventionist? To say He isn't is to deny the hundreds of miracles the Bible describes. I strongly suspect Prof Klassen would deny the virgin birth and the bodily resurrection, not to mention the "trivial" miracles such as turning water into wine. Jesus sounds like an interventionist to me.

10. The Flagella could have evolved
This is an absolutely amazing claim coming from a man who told us not to put our faith in science. His argument was that since some of the structures found in the flagella are found in the type III secretory system in other bacteria, the flagella could have evolved in steps. This is ridiculous. It's like saying that I know people walked from Los Angles to Tokyo because we found the Hawaiian Islands. There is still no plausible way something as intricate as the flagella could evolve in steps. Interestingly, many biologists feel that the secretory is actually a degenerative form of the flagella. This doesn't help Klassen's case one bit, but supports the young-earth position that the world has been degenerating since the fall and the curse. Attempting to surpass the problem of irreducible complexity in one design by appealing to another irreducibly complex design just shifts the problem.

11. We are mice
Throughout the course Klassen has ridiculed and misrepresented the traditional creation position. In class 2 he told us that the traditional creationist was like a weak little mouse, who wants to fight for his cause but really hasn't a chance of winning. He on the other hand represents the intellectual class who are far too educated to take the Bible at face value. Allow me to conclude by reminding us all of 1 Corinthians 1:25-29:

"Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God stronger than men. For you see your calling brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called: But God has chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; And the base things of the world, and the things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to naught things that are: That no flesh should glory in his presence."

"If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of
heavenly things?"
John 3:12

Causes for concern in Class Three

1."Genesis can't be taken literally - no matter what"
Though this is not a direct quote from Klassen, it is most certainly the message that he preached. In class three he tried to defend his belief in theistic evolution, but was forced to admit that this belief was contrary to many biological facts (not to mention the clear teachings of scripture!). He stated that he was an agnostic when it came to natural selection being the driving force of evolution. Whatever the cause, he maintained, it was purely naturalistic. "Trial and error" he said, was the ultimate driving force. But notice his other interesting confession concerning the apparent irreducible complexity of a living system: "It's hard to believe the complexity of the cell is by trial and error." What sort of nonsense is this? Why would a professing Christian purposely embrace a worldview that not only contradicts the Scriptures, but that also requires a faith blind to the obvious facts of nature? I see no reason for it at all

2.Creation is "flawed", so evolution must be the cause
This argument may be reduced to, "Things aren't working the way I would have done it if I was God, therefore God didn't do it." Some of his specific arguments were:

a.The Giraffe's larynx extends downward and "loops" around near the heart. This loop serves no function, but is an evolutionary leftover from when the giraffe had a short neck

Response: Evolutionists believe that the giraffe's long neck somehow gave the animal selective advantage. I could agree. However, the idea that the neck could have evolved in step-by-step fashion is absolutely incredible considering the staggering complexity involved. For instance, the heart would also need to evolve into an incredibly powerful pump 2 feet in diameter (!) in order to shoot blood, against the force of gravity, all the way up into the brain (17 feet in the air!). Note that the giraffe must also bend down to get a drink. Without a complex network of valves running down its neck, hindering the flow of blood, the poor animal would blow its brains out every time it bent over. Not only that, but the giraffe must have also evolved the "sponge" around its brain which holds onto the last pump of blood. This allows the animal to assume its upright position quickly without blacking out from lack of oxygen. In this way the giraffe can get bolt upright in a flash and break into a full gallop before the lion can get it. It's incredibly hard to imagine that all of these features could have evolved in step-by-step fashion. So what about the larynx "loop"?

If we look at the amazing variety that exists within the dog kind (from Great Danes to Chihuahuas), it's not hard to suppose that such variety may have existed within the giraffe kind as well. Perhaps within the gene pool the information for short necks did exist. I see no problem believing, along with the evolutionist, that the long neck variety had a selective advantage. What we disagree on is not survival of the long neck giraffe, but its arrival. The evolutionist believes, against all common sense, and observable evidence, that the information for the long neck evolved from random mutations and natural selection. I would argue that since so many interdependent systems are involved, it is far more likely that the original giraffe kind was endowed by their creator with the information to produce both the long and short neck varieties.

b.The mouth is used for eating and breathing - poor design (the cause of choking)

Response: A student in the class raised a good point regarding this claim, which was totally down-played by Klassen, but is significant nonetheless. The gag reflex provides for the risk of "something going down the wrong tube". Little babies don't consciously think about coughing forcefully to get something out of their throats; they do it naturally. How and why did this "gag reflex" evolve? Think about it. Why would a gag reflex evolve unless there was a need for it? And when the need arose and the reflex wasn't there, the animal would die and all the evolutionary "experiments" up until that time would have been totally wasted. The gag-reflex was raised in class but, as expected, Klassen addressed it with the catchall phrase "evolution did it."

c.The genome is a mess. Some chromosomes are fully of functional genes while others are not. Coding sequences are sometimes interrupted by "junk" DNA. The genes for hair color are apparently scattered throughout the genome. According to Klassen the whole thing looks like "trial and error".

Response: It is absolutely arrogant to claim to have a perfect understanding of something as staggeringly complex as the human genome. As time goes by and knowledge increases, scientists themselves have admitted that many sections of DNA once designated as "junk" have turned out to have functions after all:

"The term 'junk DNA' is a reflection of our ignorance."
Gretchen Vogel, "Why Sequence the Junk?" Science, Vol. 291, 16 February 2001, p. 1184.

"Non-coding RNAs (ncRNAs) [so-called junk DNA] have been found to have roles in a great variety of processes, including transcription regulation, chromosome replication, RNA processing and modification, messenger RNA stability and translation, and even protein degradation and translocation. Recent studies indicate that ncRNAs are far more abundant and important than initially imagined."
Gisela Storz, "An Expanding Universe of Non-coding RNAs," Science, Vol. 296, 17 May 2002, p. 1260.

"The failure to recognize the importance of introns [so-called junk DNA] may well go down as one of the biggest mistakes in the history of molecular biology."
John S. Mattick as quoted by W. Wayt Gibbs, "The Unseen Genome: Gems among the Junk," Scientific American, Vol. 289, November 2003, pp. 49-50.

"What was damned as junk because it was not understood may, in fact, turn out to be the very basis of human complexity."
John S. Mattick as quoted by W. Wayt Gibbs, "The Unseen Genome: Gems among the Junk," Scientific American, Vol. 289, November 2003 p. 52.

Klassen's claim is therefore not only arrogant, but downright foolish.

e. Purposelessness abounds in nature. The example given was that of a tree. What is the purpose of a tree? Klassen saw no purpose whatever, but simply regarded it as the product of evolution.

Response: Talk about the height of arrogance. Several questions were put to Klassen in class (which he ignored), "Do you live in a house?" "Do you have furniture?" "Have you ever used a tool?" Of course he has. And "guess what", most of these things were fabricated with wood - from a tree. "Do you breathe oxygen?" "Eat any fruit?" "Have you ever sat by a fire?" (Need I go on?) Klassen wants to believe that human kind is nothing important - at least not so important that God would fashion a planet, much less the universe with him in mind. Of course this is consistent with the evolutionist mindset, which constantly devalues human life. Such a view is totally contrary to the scriptures. Genesis 1:14-18 tells us that the very reason for created the sun, moon and stars, was to give light on the earth, and to establish a clock/calendar system. Clearly humans were in mind. The same sentiment is seen in Psalm 8: As far as the plant kingdom goes, Psalm 104:14-15 states:

"He causeth the grass to grow for cattle, and the herb for the service of man: that he may bring forth food out of the earth; and wine that maketh glad the heart of man, and oil to make his face shine, and bread which strengtheneth man's heart."

3.The New Heavens and Earth will simply "evolve" into existence
Klassen made it clear that the only difference between his worldview and the atheists is the ultimate destiny of the universe. The atheist sees the whole thing disintegrating in what is known as a "heat death" billions of years in the future. Klassen on the other hand argues that God will cause the universe to evolve in gradual fashion into a new creation. It's easy to see that his evolutionary presuppositions have caused an almost total abandonment of the scriptures. The Bible is ever so clear that the new heavens and earth will not evolve. The Bible predicts sudden, supernatural and cataclysmic events which will precede, accompany, and follow the second coming of Jesus. Even Dan Epp stated that Klassen views conflict with the scriptural record. One notable example, among many in the Bible, comes from the great apostle Peter:

"But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up." 2 Peter 3: 10

Clearly the Bible pictures global catastrophe at the hands of our Holy God at some point in the future.

4.Christians will not experience bodily resurrection
One could hardly ask for a more heretical claim. This statement is a flat rejection of most of 1 Corinthians chapter 15, in which Paul goes to great lengths to equate the physical resurrection of Jesus Christ with the physical resurrection believers are to look forward to. The text is so clear it hardly needs comment. Why on earth would someone - especially a professor of the Bible - deny such a clear teaching of scripture? Dan Epp's reason was that the human body is mostly water. When a person dies, that water escapes back into the environment and is absorbed by other organisms including people. "Now how can God reassemble a person physically when that water has become part of another organism?" The problem may be insurmountable for the god of Klassen and Epp, but not for the God I worship.

The God of the Bible was able to create this entire spectacular universe in six days. When he sojourned here, He changed water into wine in the blink of an eye. He raised more than one corpse to life, including one man that had already begun to rot in the grave. The God of the Bible can handle the problem. There is no need at all to shrivel the great doctrine of the physical resurrection of the believer into something spiritual in order to make it more believable.

5.Genesis chapters one and two are contradictory creation myths
Epp argued that since the order of creation events was different in the two chapters they must be two different accounts that were compiled into the Bible. Considering that the Lord Jesus Himself regarded Genesis as factual history, and quoted from both chapters in the same breath (Matthew 19:4-5, Mark 10:6), I think it's wise to consider the matter more fully before making a pronouncement as hasty as Epp's.

Read any newspaper and note how the stories are written. The major facts of the story are given in the headlines and in the first few lines of the story. Then the writer backs up and fills in the details. Genesis is no different. Chapter one gives us the basic facts about God's creative efforts over a span of six days. Chapter two flashes back and focuses on the events of day six. The exact same format occurs in Genesis chapters ten and eleven. In chapter ten we read about the division of people groups after the great flood. Chapter eleven flashes back and recounts for us the Tower of Babel event, which was the catalyst for the division.

6.The Apostle Paul was guilty of factual error in his writings
At one point I asked Professor Epp point blank if Adam and Eve were real people who were placed in a real garden. His response was an unequivocal "no". I then drew his attention the writings of Paul, who undoubtedly regarded Genesis as factual history:

"For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression." 1 Timothy 2:13-14

"For the man is not of the woman, but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man." 1 Corinthians 11:8-9

Epp responded by saying that the people in Paul's time regarded Genesis as literal history, and so did he. I asked him, "Are you saying that Paul was in error?" Epp nodded, "Yes".

This is an almost unbelievable response. The writings of Paul are nothing less than the inspired word of God (2 Timothy 3:16, 1 Corinthians 14:37). They were endorsed by the great apostle Peter who, fittingly, warned us about the certain destruction that awaits those that would twist the Scriptures:

"And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other Scriptures, unto their own destruction. Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own steadfastness."

7. The New Testament contains factual errors
This is a continuation of the above point. In response to Epp's claim that Adam and Eve were not real people, I questioned him regarding the genealogy of the Lord Himself. Luke chapter three records the lineage of Jesus Christ, all the way back, son to father, to the first man, Adam. Epp's response was that genealogies in the Bible are not there to provide us with historic fact, but to simply make a theological statement (though he neglected to tell us what exactly the theological statement is). The whole idea is preposterous.

Earlier in the course Epp spent considerable time explaining to us the concept of "intended audience". The idea here was to convince us that the Bible was written for people long ago and far away. This being the case, it is incorrect to take portions of Scripture (like Genesis) and regard them as literal history. But how did the people the Bible was intended for, the Jews of old, regard the Old Testament Scriptures? Epp admitted that the Jews, including the learned apostle Paul, saw Genesis as literal history. It is absolutely incredible that this teacher of the Bible would chose to reinterpret the Scriptures based in the opinions of godless men, bent on the destruction of the Christian faith altogether.

8. Genesis is fiction, meant to explain common phenomena
Professor Epp claimed that Genesis was written, among other reasons, to explain common cultural practices and natural phenomena. A woman's pain in childbirth for example, needed to be explained, so an explanation was woven into the Genesis narrative. The whole idea is so sacrilegious that it hardly deserves comment. Perhaps Proverbs 13:13 is appropriate here:

"Whoso despiseth the word shall be destroyed: but he that feareth the commandment shall be rewarded."

9. Where can we start trusting the Bible?
One student in the class asked Professor Epp where the Old Testament could start being regarded as factual history. His response was "Somewhere around Genesis twelve." What a tragedy. This supposed Bible teacher couldn't even tell us which portions of Scripture were fable and which were historic. Truly the slope of unbelief is a slippery one.

10. The opinions of men supercede the declarations of God
As the final class dismissed, the subject of Mosaic authorship came up. Professor Klassen was adamant that the Pentateuch wasn't compiled until the time of the Babylonian captivity (586 BC). I was shocked. Not only is the Pentateuch itself replete with claims of Mosaic authorship, but the entire Bible as well. "Josiah's guys found the Law in the temple in 621 BC," I protested, "Your claim that the Pentateuch was not written until after the exile can't possible be true." Klassen blew me off with a wave if the hand, "Nobody believes that."

Klassen then told me that I needed to read what the scholars have to say. "If they contradict the clear teachings of Scripture", I stated flatly, "I don't give a rip what they say!" Klassen was adamant, "You should, John, you should." At that a couple of our team members threw out the names of well-respected scholars who affirmed Mosaic authorship. "They're all fringe," Klassen declared. One of our team quipped, "Excuse me, Professor, but when was Jesus ever not fringe? When was He ever 'mainstream?' That's a good point. The Bible states that we live in a world that loves darkness rather than light. In case you forgot, the world took the only begotten Son of God and crucified Him. One can hardly read the Scriptures and not come away with the distinct impression that our world is one that will largely reject Christ and His claims. Is it any wonder that "mainstream" academia scoffs at biblical history? The sad thing is that these so-called Christian teachers have chosen to follow suit. Psalm 94:11 is appropriate here:

"The LORD knoweth the thoughts of man; that they are vanity."

Summary and Conclusions

The main argument here is not whether the earth is young or old, or whether God used evolution or not. The main argument is whether or not the Bible is telling us the truth. It's a question of authority. Everyone looks to someone as his or her authority. We trust our dentist when he tells us about the condition of our teeth. We trust our doctors, our mechanics, and the pilot that flies us to our destination. Everyone trusts someone. There is simply no other way to function in this life. So the question is: "Who do you trust?"

Where does the Bible fit into all of this? For those of us that have put our faith in the Christ of the New Testament, it is only logical that we also place our complete trust in the entire scriptural record. Why? Because the Lord Himself did (and so did those that wrote and propagated the New Testament, I might add). This approach, if not popular, is at least logically consistent. But what of Klassen and Epp's approach? These men have chosen to embrace the opinions of godless individuals who care nothing for Christ and His claims. Where conflict exists, Klassen and Epp see no problem whatever finding the Bible in error. In other words, secular science has convinced them that creation in six days is impossible, so therefore Genesis must be regarded as allegory. But take note of how this affects the whole of Scripture, and the way we look at God in particular. If Genesis is not factual history:

1. Then it is a lie, because it certainly presents itself as factual history.
2. The New Testament writers were in error.
3. The Lord Himself was in error.
4. We can never be completely convinced of the factual nature of any portion of Scripture.
5. God's character as loving and merciful is called into question (Why would a loving God create a world purposelessly filled with suffering and death?)
6. The Gospel becomes confused (how could the death of Jesus be the payment for sin if death was in the world before sin existed?)
7. There exists a real temptation to write off everything miraculous as allegory

Klassen and Epp illustrate the last point particularly well. Because secular academia has declared that Moses was not the author the first five books of the Bible, these men have chosen to follow this erroneous notion like a couple of mindless lemmings. They likewise deny the physical resurrection of the believer as well as the clear teaching of scripture regarding the eventual obliteration and subsequent re-creation of the universe. Why? Apparently these doctrines have been deemed impossible by secular science. I have news for these two men. Secular science sees the virgin birth as impossible. It also sees the miracles that accompanied our Lord's ministry as impossible as well, including the most significant of them all, namely, His glorious resurrection from the dead.

I think I understand what many Christians are trying to do in relegating portions of Scripture to the realm of allegory. In doing this they feel they have somehow managed to harmonize the Bible with scientific "fact", thereby making it more believable. The cost however is a high one. It means twisting up the Scripture so that it becomes totally unrecognizable, and key Christian doctrines become obscured, almost to the point of obliteration. The sad irony here is that these attempts at harmonization with current scientific opinion actually wind up destroying the faith these men sought to defend.