apologetics – La Vista Church of Christ

A Mere Ignorant Apocalypse Preacher?

Jeffrey Hamilton — Sun, 25 Oct 2026 19:29:13 +0000

by Terry Wane Benton

Atheist: The New Testament Jesus believed in a bunch of Old Testament nonsense. He was an ignorant apocalypse preacher, at best.

Reply: Maybe all the real ignorance is yours, and you're the one who's believed a bunch of nonsense. How did an “ignorant apocalypse preacher” manage to get His death and resurrection written in the Old Testament ahead of time? The whole Old Testament tells of one who is “wounded for our transgressions” (Isaiah 53), and after His soul is made an offering for sin, “His days would be prolonged” (risen from the dead). Never has a mere ignorant apocalypse preacher been able to fit himself into such an amazing scenario where his hands and feet are pierced, his enemies cast lots for his garments, his burial is among the rich, and his tomb is empty in three days according to scripture and increase his credibility on such impossible odds to fulfill.

How did he manage to get his kingdom in motion for 2000 years and have it prophesied that “of the increase of his government and peace there will be no end” (Isaiah 9:6f)? I would wager that regular “ignorant apocalypse preachers” can’t pull it off to have their name mentioned and revered for 2000 years. How did an ignorant apocalypse preacher manage to get himself crucified according to prophecy, get himself raised from the dead according to prophecy, and get a kingdom of believers memorializing him on a new day (Sunday) for 2000 years according to command and prophecy?

Think of what it would take to change a covenant of Levitical priests for a different priesthood (Psalm 110; Hebrews 7-8) and a different ruler (someone becoming priest and king all in one) and pulling off such a change of covenant but all as just an “ignorant apocalypse preacher”.

Jesus believed the Old Testament all right, but that was not ignorance. It was proof of wisdom from above, and proof of His deity. To be an ignorant apocalypse preacher, he would fail at being born at the right time and place, fail at being crucified and raised from the dead, fail at being witnessed with an empty tomb and His witnesses willing to suffer and die to tell what they saw. It is ignorance to think a mere man, an ignorant apocalypse preacher, could retrofit these kind of prophecies into actions that would be believed and never exposed as false in 2000 years.

You cannot be credible and give yourself a proper lineage to king David, give yourself the proper birth place, the proper place to die as a sacrifice, the proper timing of resurrection after crucifixion, and retrofit yourself to a prophecy that after your death Jerusalem would be destroyed again (Daniel 9:24ff), and after your resurrection your kingdom would increase and never be destroyed (Daniel 2:44f; Isaiah 9:6-7). No mere “ignorant apocalypse preacher” would pull off any of these things much less all of these things perfectly. No person could be credible and retrofit these prophecies to a mere man and pull off such a story with any credibility.

I truly believe that the only “nonsense” in this review is the skeptics, but you still have a chance to repent and bow the knee to Jesus now, before you will have to do it in the end. Please give it proper thought.

Is the canon of the Scriptures infallible?

Jeffrey Hamilton — Sun, 18 Oct 2026 03:05:22 +0000

Question:

Hello brother,

I have appreciated the material you make available on the La Vista website, and it has helped me greatly over the years.

We are currently dealing with a brother who has left the Lord’s church for the Greek Orthodox Church. I would like to ask for your help with a question.

How would you answer this question…?

Question: Is the canon of the scriptures infallible?

Roman Catholics and Greek Orthodox often pose what they call “The Canon Conundrum.”
They allege, “If the canon is infallible, then you admit to an infallible source other than Scripture itself, and you forfeit Sola Scriptura. If it is not infallible, then it can possibly be added to or diminished (which we are not to do, Deuteronomy 12:32; Revelation 22:18-19).”

Answer:

Let's start with the Old Testament. These books existed long before the Roman Catholic or Greek Orthodox churches. Yet the list of Old Testament books remained consistent among the Jews. There were other Jewish writings, but they were rejected by the Jews; so what were the criteria?

The Old Testament actually gave the rules. The primary test was the book's author. Was the author a known prophet of God? Moses was recognized as the founder of the Jewish religion. Millions of people witnessed many miracles done by Moses, showing that God's power was with the prophet.

Later books confirm the canon of Moses’ work.

Joshua was to learn the law Moses commanded (Joshua 1:7).
Joshua copied the law onto stone and references Exodus 20:25 (Joshua 8:30-32).
Israel was warned to follow the book of Moses (Joshua 23:6).
David charged Solomon to keep what Moses wrote (I Kings 2:3).
David talks about what God made known to Moses in Psalm 103:7 and then quotes Exodus 34:6-7.
Amaziah follows Moses' commandments, quoting portions of Deuteronomy (II Kings 14:6).
The book of Moses was found in Josiah’s reign, and Passover was reestablished as detailed in Exodus and Deuteronomy (II Kings 23:21-25).
Chronicles and Ezra are full of references to the law God gave Moses, such as Ezra 7:6.
Daniel testifies that the prophecies Moses received from the Lord have come true (Daniel 9:11-13).
We could continue by citing Isaiah, Jeremiah, Hosea, Amos, Micah, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi, all of whom state that Moses recorded the law of God.

The first five books were not canonized because of their antiquity, their linguistic style, or the beauty of their words. No royal command or priestly decision did so. The books were accepted because God’s spokesman, Moses, wrote them.

None of the books or their authors who followed Moses created the Old Testament canon. They all acknowledged and reaffirmed what was already known. The authors of these later testimonies were also acknowledged as prophets based on the criteria Moses set out. The foundation for these criteria is that God cannot lie; therefore, His spokesmen will reflect His truthfulness because they are not speaking their own words, but God's.

A true prophet will not lead the people away from God or contradict what God previously stated (Deuteronomy 13:1-5).
A true prophet’s words will always come to pass (Deuteronomy 18:20-22). A prophet’s message is not solely about future events, but where an event is mentioned, it will always come true.

Let's look at a recorded example: a false prophet arose, contradicting Jeremiah’s message (Jeremiah 28:2-4). At first, Jeremiah didn’t know what to make of this. If it was God’s word, he was thrilled (Jeremiah 28:6). But Jeremiah pointed something out to the people. This prophet’s message contradicted the message of earlier prophets. In other words, this prophet failed Moses’ first test (Jeremiah 28:8). Jeremiah said the ultimate test would come when they saw whether his words were true. It would only take two years to find out (Jeremiah 28:9). God then told Jeremiah that the other prophet was false (Jeremiah 28:15-16). Jeremiah offers proof of his word by predicting when the false prophet would die. Jeremiah’s word proved true (Jeremiah 28:17). Because of this, the people knew that the rest of Jeremiah’s statements were from God and that Hananiah’s words were false.

As we go through the Old Testament, only verified prophets’ words were accepted as God’s. The priests taught the words of God, but they were not the source of God’s Law (unless they were prophets as well as priests).

Thus, God Himself was the external verification of God's word. He supplied miracles to support His prophets. His word was verifiable through historical events and the consistency of His teachings. The canon did not rely on men. Men acknowledged what God proved.

Understanding this in regard to the Old Testament, it isn't difficult to realize the same rules apply to the New Testament. "For this reason we must pay much closer attention to what we have heard, so that we do not drift away from it. For if the word spoken through angels proved unalterable, and every transgression and disobedience received a just penalty, how will we escape if we neglect so great a salvation? After it was at the first spoken through the Lord, it was confirmed to us by those who heard, God also testifying with them, both by signs and wonders and by various miracles and by gifts of the Holy Spirit according to His own will" (Hebrews 2:1-4).

Roman Catholics and Greek Orthodox ignore the simple fact that the books of the New Testament were written within the lifetime of thousands of people who had seen the miracles of Jesus and his apostles (I Corinthians 15:1-8). Millions could examine the historical accuracy of the writings based on their own knowledge of the events. The early lists of the New Testament books did not create a canon. They merely acknowledged what everyone already knew to be true. The authority of the books rests on the evidence provided by God—not the claims of men.

For more on this topic, see: "The Canon of the Bible."

God Doesn’t Explain Evil. He Does Something About It.

Jeffrey Hamilton — Fri, 02 Oct 2026 20:52:50 +0000

by Dr. Nathan Ward
via InLight Media

Why does a good God allow evil and suffering? In this conversation, Nathan Ward explores the problem of evil, free will, suffering, God’s goodness, and the Christian response to one of faith's hardest questions.

Rather than offering an easy answer, he asks whether we may be asking the wrong question—and how the Christian story points toward hope, redemption, and God’s ultimate response to evil.

If you’ve ever wrestled with “If God is good, why does He allow suffering?”, this conversation is for you.

How Can a Good God Permit Evil?

Jeffrey Hamilton — Wed, 30 Sep 2026 19:56:23 +0000

by David Gibson

This has been called atheism’s strongest argument. And yet it is not an argument that cannot be refuted.

The Bible itself records countless cases of horrific evils perpetrated by people with no fear of God, who commit unspeakable crimes against humanity with apparently no remorse whatever. The same is true today. It is hard for many people to get their minds around how utterly depraved people can be.

Points to ponder:

God hates all evil and will punish all wickedness.
Through His prophets, God pleaded repeatedly with His erring people. “I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that the wicked turn from his way and live. Turn back, turn back from your evil ways! Why then will you die, O house of Israel?” (Ezekiel 33:11).
Even though God despises evil, He allows it to exist. Why? Because He has arranged this world so that every person has free will. We can choose to obey God or rebel against Him. God does not make anyone do right.
If we did not have free will, we would be like animals operating by instinct or robots programmed to act in certain ways.
Because God does not make us love Him, when we choose to love Him, it truly means something to both Him and us. Who would want to own a robot programmed to say, “I love you. I love you. I love you . . .”?

Passages that can help

If we feel frustrated by all the evils running rampant in our world, it would do us good to read a pair of psalms that address this issue: Psalm 37 and Psalm 73. (Note the transposed numbers.) Both psalms encourage the righteous to keep doing right because God will richly bless them. And He will punish the wicked when the time comes. He is a just God.

Living in an evil world is not pleasant, but it is necessary for our spiritual development. With the Bible as our guide and God as our helper, we can get through all the troubles of this life and live forever where only righteousness dwells.

This He has promised. This is our hope!

Many Convincing Proofs

Jeffrey Hamilton — Sat, 04 Jul 2026 15:10:33 +0000

by David Gibson

Is it just wishful thinking—the belief that Jesus did indeed rise bodily from the dead?
Or is there good, solid evidence for it? Luke says of the apostles, “To these He presented Himself alive after His suffering, by many convincing proofs, appearing to them over a period of forty days ...” (Acts 1:3 NASB).

Proof after proof

He suddenly appeared to them behind closed doors (John 20:19).
He showed them the scars of His crucifixion (Luke 24:36-40; John 20:20).
He invited them to touch Him (Luke 24:39; John 20:24-29).
He ate in their presence to prove He was not an apparition (Luke 24:36-38, 41-43).
He enabled Peter and his companions to net a huge catch of fish, which no doubt reminded them of a similar miracle during His ministry (John 21:1-11; Luke 5:4-11).
He predicted they would be baptized with the Holy Spirit in a few days, which happened just as He said (Luke 24:49; Acts 1:4-5, 8).
Finally, they watched in awe as He ascended out of their sight into heaven (Luke 24:50-51; Acts 1:9-11).

From unbelief to absolute certainty

Jesus made these appearances not only in Jerusalem but also in Galilee, where He had told them to meet Him (Matthew 28:10, 16-17).

One more thing: The apostles were not expecting Jesus to rise from the dead. When others told them they had seen the risen Lord, they didn’t believe it (Mark 16:9-14; John 20:24-25).
It was the “many convincing proofs” that made true believers of them. But not just believers. They were now thoroughly convinced and completely transformed by all they had experienced. Now they had a message to share, a mission to fulfill, and a Living Lord to die for.

Seeing Him changed everything.

How Would You Answer?

Jeffrey Hamilton — Sat, 04 Jul 2026 15:05:33 +0000

by David Gibson

A friend asked how I would respond if someone said he did not believe the Bible is inspired. This is what I told him.

If the person is open to the truth, I would first prove that Jesus rose from the dead.

“Nothing is more crucial in the field of Christian evidences than the question of the divinity of Christ. Nothing is more crucial in establishing the divinity of Christ than His resurrection from the dead” (Batsell Barrett Baxter, I Believe Because…, p. 223).

“If our Lord said frequently… that after He went up to Jerusalem He would be put to death, but on the third day He would rise again from the grave, and this prediction came to pass, then… everything else our Lord ever said must also be true” (Wilbur M. Smith, Therefore, Stand, p. 419).

Jesus taught that the Scriptures are indeed God’s word and therefore authoritative (John 10:35; Matthew 4:1-11; 15:3-9).

It’s only logical. Everything hinges on His resurrection. His resurrection validates all He claimed to be. It also validates all that He taught. If He did not rise, then we can dismiss Him as a deluded religious fanatic at best, or at worst a deliberate fraud. In either case, we could not say, as so many do, that He was a good man or a great teacher, but not the Son of God.
But if He did rise, then our only logical recourse is to admit He truly is God’s Son (Romans 1:4).

And then the next step: submitting to Him as our Savior and Lord.

It only makes sense.

Explanations for the Empty Tomb

Jeffrey Hamilton — Wed, 01 Jul 2026 21:54:15 +0000

by Kenny Chumbley
via Sentry Magazine, Vol. 21 No. 3, September 1995

Paul’s belief in the resurrection, shared by early Christianity, was absolute and categorical; nevertheless, the apostle’s exuberant faith has not been universally shared, and a literal resurrection of Jesus’ body has been denied not only by non-Christians but also by liberal theology. The opposition stems from this basic argument: a physical resurrection, like the other so-called miracles in the Bible, could never have happened, since natural laws simply cannot be suspended. The dead are not raisable today, nor then.

Since, however, something must have taken place that morning after the Sabbath to ignite the spiritual explosion called Christianity, critics have advanced the following hypotheses to explain some of the phenomena of the first Easter.

The stolen-body theory

This is the oldest and simplest explanation for an empty tomb. Jesus’ body was removed by the disciples either in order to protect it from possible desecration or to hatch the myth of a risen Christ. Perhaps Joseph of Arimathea, who had first hastily buried Jesus in a cave near the execution site, later gave the body a permanent, secret burial in his own tomb. Conversely, he may have had second thoughts about his charitable action in burying a criminal and therefore removed the body so it would not contaminate his tomb. Or Pontius Pilate may have ordered its secret removal to forestall any cult of martyrdom at the grave.

The wrong-tomb theory

Because of Jesus’ hasty burial and the dim morning light, the women were not sure which of the many rock-hewn tombs in the area was Joseph’s. When they examined the wrong one, which was empty, they were startled by the gardener or grave worker (whom they thought was an angel) who guessed their mission and tried to correct their mistake. *He is not here,’ the gardener advised, and then pointed to the correct sepulcher, ‘See the place where he lay.’ But the women panicked, fled, and later announced an empty tomb.

The 'lettuce' theory

The ‘lettuce’ theory is an alternative to the above. The gardener was so piqued at curiosity-seekers trampling over lettuce seedlings he had planted in the garden around Joseph’s tomb that he removed the body of Jesus and reinterred it elsewhere. Crude as this hypothesis sounds, it was, in fact, one of the early non-Christian explanations for the resurrection.

The psychological or hallucination theory

The various visions or appearances of Jesus were merely the psychic effects of profound wish fulfillment. When one of the women claimed to have seen the resurrected Jesus, the experience became contagious, and soon others ‘saw’ him. Jesus’ prophecies of his triumph over death had primed his followers to expect exactly that, and so the whole myth began with the visions of a half-frantic woman, according to Celsus.

Others, such as the nineteenth-century German scholar David Strauss, have suggested that one of the disciples, perhaps Peter, sustained the original hallucination. According to this scenario, the Eleven fled Galilee after the crucifixion, where they finally calmed down and reflected on Jesus. The impulsive Peter, in particular, was meditating on his dead master when suddenly he had a sensation or vision of Jesus’ surviving presence. Peter himself could not know that this was just a fantasy of his own imagination. He would have been unable to distinguish between a real incursion from another dimension and a subjective hallucination. Peter’s enthusiasm quickly became contagious, and when confused and exaggerated reports came in from the women in Jerusalem, the disciples, clutching at every resurrection rumor, returned joyfully to the Holy City and proclaimed the new faith. They did all this, not as frauds or liars, but in good faith.

The twin-brother theory

Jesus had an exact twin brother who occasionally substituted for him but generally stayed out of sight. When Jesus truly died on Friday, the twin emerged triumphantly from seclusion on Sunday, and people beheld the risen Lord."

This article is taken from The Historical Jesus by Gaalyah Cornfeld, a Jewish historian and writer. Cornfeld does not believe Jesus was raised from the dead, but after listing these alternative hypotheses for the empty tomb, he is at least honest enough to write:

"Certainly these various theories stand as tributes to human ingenuity. And they have surely stood the test of time: although all of them are still in current use, nearly all were advanced in one form or another many centuries ago. The different explanations also have this in common: they all require at least as much faith to believe in their validity as in the resurrection itself. For the overpowering weight of all the sources, all circumstantial evidence from the first Easter, and logic itself stand against them."

Do Warring Factions Mean Christianity Is False?

Jeffrey Hamilton — Sun, 28 Jun 2026 17:10:58 +0000

https://www.lavistachurchofchrist.org/cms/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/Do-Warring-Factions-Mean-Christianity-Is-False.mp3

by Jeffrey W. Hamilton

Download Audio

Text: I Corinthians 11:17-22

I. You hear all sorts of excuses when you attempt to talk to others about Christianity.

A. “Well, I can’t take that Christian stuff seriously. You folk are all suppose to worship the same god, love your neighbor, and things like that, yet look at all the fighting going on between factions.”

B. I had a similar argument made to me by a couple of Mormons. “Look at Christianity, it is fractured, what, three thousand different ways? Surely this cannot be God’s doing and God’s people.”

C. A Muslim couple want to say that there was something wrong with Christianity because it is so divided, unlike Islam, which they state was united.

II. It is not that the charge is without merit. There have been and are numerous infightings and fractions among those calling themselves Christian.

A. Over the centuries, Catholics and Protestants have been killing each other, sometimes with the support of the local government.

1. Even today Catholics and Protestants kill and maim each other in the province of Ulster, Ireland.

B. Christianity is fractured into numerous denominations with contradictory beliefs and doctrines.

1. Even these denominations split over issues such as women priests, homosexuality, or even the literal truth of the resurrection.

C. Among our own brethren, divisions have occurred over a variety of issues.

D. Unbelievers see Christianity in such a sorry state that they conclude that it does not deserve continued existence.

III. To answer this charge, we must first recognize that there are two separate charges rolled up into one.

A. First is the charge that there are disputes among brethren

1. Disputes are not a new phenomenon.

a. The herdsmen of Abraham and Lot disputed over grazing land - Genesis 13:6-12. This led to Abraham and Lot agreeing to go separate ways to avoid future disputes.

b. Paul and Barnabas had a disagreement over taking John Mark with them to preach as he had left them before in Pamphylia - Acts 15:36-40

c. There was a dispute between brethren from Judea and those from Antioch over circumcision - Acts 15:1-2

d. The church at Corinth had internal disputes - I Corinthians 1:10-12

e. A dispute arose between Euodia and Syntyche in Philippi - Philippians 4:2-3

2. Disputes occur among any group. It is not limited to Christians

a. Republicans disagree with Democrats

b. Marriages end in divorce

c. Singling out Christians as having occasional differences would be unfair. Christians acknowledge that we are all sinners and are imperfect.

3. There is a big difference between Christians and other groups.

a. We expect Republicans to dispute Democrats. Our system of government is actually set up to encourage such disagreements.

b. However, Christians teach that disputes among Christians are wrong!

(1) Discord is listed among the deeds of the flesh in Galatians 5:19-21

(2) Proverbs 17:14 - Abandon quarrels.

(3) Proverbs 20:3 - Honor is in ending strife.

c. Instruction is given on how to solve problems between brethren

(1) Sort it out quickly, preferably that very day - Ephesians 4:26-27

(2) Seek a solution - Matthew 5:23-26

(3) Steps to take in reaching agreement - Matthew 18:15-17

(4) Disputes should be settled among brethren and not before non-believers - I Corinthians 6:1-8

4. Disputes occur, but it does mean Christianity is the cause of the disputes. It means that one or more people are not following the principles laid down in God’s Holy Word.

B. The second part of the charge is that there is factions among those calling themselves Christians.

1. This, too, is not surprise as fractions occur in most groups

a. There was a faction between the Pharisees and the Sadducees.

(1) The Pharisees were a party among the Jews who placed great emphasis on the observance of rites and ceremonies. They saw themselves as superior to common people. Some of their beliefs were the immortality of the soul, the future resurrection of the body, and the existence of angels and spirits.

(2) The Sadducees drew members from the ruling class of Jewish society. They denied the possibility of a resurrection or the existence of angels and spirits

b. The Corinthian church was rebuked for the factions developing within them - I Corinthians 1:11-16

c. We see nations re-aligning borders, joining together, and then fractioning apart.

d. Division is not unique to Christians.

(1) The Mormons have two major branches. One based in Salt Lake City and another based in Independence, Missouri. Estimates are that there are over 400 groups under the Mormon belief system according to a Wikipedia article.

(2) Islam is much the same. It is divided between Shia and the Sunni. Within these are over 70 different schools of thought.

2. But what is important is that divisions among God’s people are condemned.

a. There should only be one body (Ephesians 4:3-6) with Christ as its head (Colossians 1:18)

b. The very term “denomination” means a dividing, a separation which should not exist.

c. God never gave approval to dividing his church.

3. If Christians followed the teachings of God, then there would be no divisions. We would be united.

a. It is the altering of God’s will that causes division because these alterations are man-made.

b. If you can make a change, then why can’t I make a change. Who says your change is better than mine?

c. When many men become involved, there many divisions result.

IV. In any group of people, there will be differences of opinion and separation into “us and them”

A. The church recognizes that disputes will happen, but it condemns them and teaches how to overcome them.

B. Denominationalism is condemned as well. Those who wear the name of Christ should not be dividing into splinter groups.

C. The argument against Christianity, as given, is a result of the bad practices of those who do not follow the true teachings of Christ. Christianity does not cause disputes and divisions, it teaches how to remove them.

The Apologetic Value of Prophecy

Jeffrey Hamilton — Fri, 19 Jun 2026 17:47:51 +0000

by Kenny Chumbley

“(As it is written, I have made thee a father of many nations,) before him whom he believed, even God, who quickeneth the dead, and calleth those things which be not as though they were” (Romans 4:17).

According to Paul, prophecy—the ability to call things which are not, as though they were—is one of the chief evidences of deity. True prophecy is neither educated guessing nor weather forecasting, in which predictions are made based on past trends or empirical data. True prophecy is the ability to accurately foretell that which is beyond the scope of human knowledge. Consider this analysis of genuine prophecy from Paley’s Evidences of Christianity, by William Paley, edited by Richard Whately:

“It is important to keep in mind that there are four points requisite to establish the claim of any alleged Prophecy to proceed from a divine revelation:

It must have been prior to the event.

It must correspond precisely with the event, and must not be in such vague and general language as the predictions in vulgar Almanacs; that 'a certain great personage is likely to have cause for uneasiness,' etc.

It must be something beyond mere human sagacity. This rule precludes the predictions of eclipses, etc.

It must be a prediction that could not have caused its own fulfillment, by suggesting to someone who knew of it, a corresponding procedure” (217).

So powerful is the force of prophecy as an argument for the existence of deity that God Himself cites it in throwing down the gauntlet to idolaters. “Produce your cause, saith the Lord; bring forth your strong reasons, saith the King of Jacob. Let them bring them forth, and shew us what shall happen: let them shew the former things, what they be, that we may consider them and know the latter end of them; or declare us things to come. Shew the things that are to come hereafter, that we may know that ye are gods: yes, do good, or do evil, that we may be dismayed, and behold it together” (Isaiah 41:21-23).

Prophecy is indeed an undeniable sign of deity. And it’s for this reason that skeptics have savaged prophetic sections of the Old Testament. For instance, liberal critics frequently talk about “DeuteroIsaiah,״ i.e, someone other than Isaiah who wrote certain sections of the book. The simple reason for the critics’ creation of a second author is prophecy.

To illustrate: in the eighth century BC, Isaiah predicted that the Medes would destroy Babylon (Isaiah 13:17ff). At the time Isaiah wrote this, Assyria was the dominant power; Babylon had the national status of a third-world country, and Media was barely a blip on the political radar screen. But some three hundred years after Isaiah's prediction, a Medo-Persian named Cyrus (see Isaiah 44:28; 45:1) divided his army into three groups. One was stationed on the north side of Babylon, where the Euphrates River entered the city. A second group was posted on the south side where the river exited the city. And the third group marched upstream, where it diverted the river into an adjoining swamp. When the level of the river fell, Cyrus' army waded into the Chaldean capital.

Skeptics can’t handle the implications of Isaiah’s prophecy; it is just too good. Therefore, they argue the prophetic sections must have been written after the fact by someone using Isaiah’s name. Let it be noted that they have no historical evidence to back their assertion. But they nevertheless assert it, based on nothing except their a priori presuppositions against God.

Don’t overlook the apologetic value of the prophetical sections of Scripture. For they are powerful arguments for the existence of God.

What They Want Me to Believe

Jeffrey Hamilton — Fri, 19 Jun 2026 17:26:32 +0000

by James D. Bale
via Sentry Magazine, Vol. 21 No. 3, September 1995

I know that I am a dependent being who has not existed forever. I was born to mighty fine parents. They, too, had parents, and so on ad infinitum. Since each of us was dependent, it was obvious that there could not be a line of dependent creatures existing forever. Someone or something had to start this fine of dependent creatures. And science agrees with this. Science agrees that life did not exist forever on this earth. But it does exist now. Human beings have not existed forever, but they are here now. So man had an origin in Someone or Something.

And thus it occurred to me that the difference between my atheistic friends and me... was not that I believed in a creator and that they did not. Instead, we differed over the nature of the creator. They believe that the creator was matter; I believe the creator is Spirit (God).

Why is it that the atheist and materialist must believe that matter is the creator of life? The answer is evident when you realize two basic facts. First, something now exists. Second, you cannot get something out of nothing. Out of nothing comes nothing. Since out of nothing one gets nothing, and since something now exists, something must always have existed. If there was a time when absolutely nothing existed, nothing would exist today, for nothing could not be the cause of something, and yet something exists today. I, for one, am here, and so are you. The material world around us is here. So, since something now exists, something has always existed. The real question between the atheist and the believer in God is: What is the nature of that eternal something? Is it a thing or a Being? Whatever it is, it has been the cause of all else.

The fact that something has existed eternally shows that a problem which some unbelievers have raised is not really a problem for the believer in God. They have asked: How is it possible to really grasp the idea of an eternal God—One who had no beginning but who has always existed? I confess that it is difficult for the human mind to grasp the idea of eternity, but everyone must accept the idea that something has existed from all eternity. Otherwise, at one time, there was nothing that was the cause of something. Thus, the atheist faces the problem of how to grasp the idea of the eternal existence of matter. It seems obvious that since each of us must accept an eternal reality, there is no reason for either of us to make an argument against the position of the other on the ground that the other person has to accept something eternal.