Know that the Bible HAS NOT been translated into every single language on the earth; there are still thousands of tribes out there that have not heard the gospel and do not have the Bible in their language.

Please be careful when making such assumptions. If you are going to disagree, again, you are simply wrong on this point. I know people right now who are out in Papua New Guinea, Indonesia, and the Philippines that are translating the Bible into languages that do not have it, RIGHT NOW.

Sincerely, The Linguist

Dear The Linguist,

The statement we made concerning translations can be found in this post. We said, “Now that the New Testament is complete and has spread to every nation and language, there is no need for miracles.” Though it is true that there are literally thousands of dialects that the Bible has not been translated into – the Bible is translated so that over 99% of mankind can read it in a language that they are fluent in. This doesn’t even account for people receiving the gospel message through someone preaching and speaking the Word. We often forget that many people depend on the gospel being spoken to them because they are illiterate. Many of these obscure settlements only have spoken languages – not written ones. The United Bible Society puts the total amount of languages and dialects that the Bible has been translated into at 2,479 as of Dec. 31, 2008.

Places like the Philippines do have pockets of aboriginal people with isolated dialects and cultures, but that notwithstanding, the process of translating the Bible into all the major languages of mankind is considered a resounding success. This fact is not intended to undermine the importance of bringing the Bible to as many of these aboriginal cultures as possible; it is simply to say that using the term ‘all’ is appropriate. When we say the Bible is translated into all languages, we are using the word ‘all’ in a non-technical sense. It is the same as saying, “I cleaned all of my house today” even though I’m sure dust could be found in some unseen corner. The Bible has indeed spread to all nations under heaven. We appreciate your zeal for the topic though.

This relates to your post on Ida, the supposed "missing link" fossil. Would it be possible that this animal (and other fossils, dinosaurs included) never actually lived and walked the earth but were simply placed by God as fossils to test our faith? I know there is an animal in the Old Testament that sounds similar to a dinosaur, but couldn't it have been an elephant or some other large animal?

Sincerely, Planted Evidence

Dear Planted Evidence,

The problem with God placing the fossils in the earth on the first several days of Creation is that it would be a willful act on the part of God to deceive mankind. God never deceives (Tit 1:2). He also says that the Creation is evidence of His existence (Rom 1:19-20). Evolutionary “missing links” being planted in the geologic strata would be a direct contradiction of God’s promise.

No, fossils aren’t planted evidence against God. Most creation scientists will tell you that fossils are a great example of what would have happened to animals under the intense pressure created by the Great Flood of Noah’s day (Gen 7:17-24). Geology, like all fields of science, screams of God’s existence. It isn’t science that is against the Bible; it is scientists that are against the Gospel.

As for the creature from the book of Job… it isn’t necessarily a dinosaur, but it sure isn’t an elephant. Elephants don’t have tails the size of cedar trees (Job 40:17). There are no guarantees that the ‘Behemoth’ of Job 40:15-24 or the ‘Leviathan’ of Job 41:1-10 are dinosaurs, but they certainly don’t match the description of any animals we see roaming around today.

My husband and I are currently setting up a saltwater fish tank.  In doing so, it made me think about Noah's Ark and the flood. At that time, the entire surface of the earth was covered with water.  We know that freshwater fish cannot live in saltwater, and saltwater fish cannot live in fresh water; yet at this time, God in His wisdom was able to have all fish survive inside His giant aquarium.  The beauty of God never ceases to amaze me.  Do you have any thoughts on this?

Sincerely, Fish Friend

Dear Fish Friend,

Your question is more of a scientific one than a Biblical one… but it certainly has pertinence. The Bible says that God flooded the whole earth (Gen 6:17) and that Noah only saved the land-based animals on the ship (Gen 6:19-20). The fish, saltwater and freshwater, would have been left to fend for themselves. There is an excellent technical article on this subject here at AnswersInGenesis.

The short version is that most fish didn’t survive the cataclysmic disasters of the flood. Just like the land-based animals, most of the aquatic life would have been destroyed under all the upheaval (hence all the fossils we have today). However, some did survive, probably in ‘pockets’ of freshwater in various areas of the globe. Even today, we can find areas where freshwater and saltwater meet and pockets of freshwater are formed. Nobody definitively knows the answer to how the fish survived, but many scientists have studied the topic and have proven that the science does not contradict the Biblical account of the flood.

I'm sure you have seen the “47-million-year-old” fossil of the "human" that evolutionists found.  I mean, it is ridiculous; it doesn't even look human. It looks like an animal. I don't understand how they can say they found a 47-million-year-old human.

Sincerely, My Uncle Isn’t An Ape

Dear My Uncle Isn’t An Ape,

From time to time, evolutionists proclaim that they have found some spectacular new evidence that demonstrates that we evolved, and therefore the Bible is wrong. Every time they do this, the media becomes enamored, and a gigantic whirlwind of publicity ensues. Publicity is not the same as reality. Just because evolutionists say that ‘Ida’ (the name of the fossil) is a 47-million-year-old ‘missing link’ between mankind and primates doesn’t make it so.

The Bible answer is the same today as it was yesterday. God says He made the whole world in six days (Gen 1) and did it roughly 6,000 years ago. We were created and designed. I’m more inclined to believe God who was there than a bunch of scientists with an agenda.

Having said that, there is plenty of scientific evidence to refute ‘Ida’ being our evolutionary ancestor. I highly recommend reading this article from the scientists at Answers in Genesis. They specialize in studying these issues and the science behind them. The story is still fresh, and few scientists have had a chance to really take a look at the evidence, but as far as it looks now, ‘Ida’ is just another fossil of an extinct lemur species. ‘Ida’ would have been created on day 6… just like all the other lemurs.

How can I know that God really exists?

Sincerely, The Wonderer

Dear The Wonderer,

I could spend pages answering your question. The most difficult part of your question is trying to summarize the thousands of evidences for God’s existence. Please consider the following list as an abridged look at the topic.

Top 5 Reasons There is a God

1. The world was either created, or it came from nothing. If we are created, then there is a Creator. Consequently, one of the most basic rules of science is that something never comes from nothing (see an explanation of the first law of Thermodynamics here). The energy that exists in our universe had to come from somewhere.
2. Life never comes from non-life. All living things come from other living things. There is no such thing as spontaneous generation. Evolution teaches the opposite. Evolution states that all living creatures descend from one-celled organisms that were randomly created from inorganic material billions of years ago. That is scientifically impossible.
3. Life is complex. Complexity requires design - and consequently a Designer. Blood cells, dragonflies, oak trees, giraffes, etc. are all IMMENSELY complex and intricate things. It doesn’t make sense to say that they were randomly formed – they have far too much design.
4. Humans feel shame. Shame and guilt are uniquely human conditions that make no sense from an evolutionary standpoint. If we evolved to survive, and only to survive, there would be no reason for humans to have ethics. Why would we care about right and wrong unless we were created by a Creator who instilled these beliefs in us?
5. Humans hunger for religion. As a rule, human beings are religious. We crave spiritual knowledge and eternal wisdom. We often seek it in all the wrong places, but the fact still remains that we desire eternal purpose for our lives. A case can be made that there is nothing that we desire that can’t be fulfilled. We hunger; there is food. We thirst; there is water. We want companionship; there is the opposite gender. You are incapable of having a desire that cannot be slaked. This is more of a philosophical argument, but it can be argued that since we all seek God – God must exist.

I can guarantee you that I did not even begin to do the subject of proving God’s existence justice. If you would like to look at the issue in-depth, I recommend going to www.answersingenesis.org to get further scientific evidence for God. I also recommend the books Case for a Creator by Lee Strobel and Icons of Evolution by Jonathan Wells. And last but not least, I highly recommend the movie Expelled featuring Ben Stein. All of these resources will provide you with an intimate and compelling argument that God most definitely does exist.