Feedback: Teaching By Example
Bodie Hodge,
M.Sc., B.Sc., PEI
Biblical Authority Ministries, September 29, 2025 (Donate)
To start off, I wanted to do something different: to show you how I break down a hostile letter and how to look at it biblically. Hopefully, this will give you some pointers as to how to respond to such inquiries in the future, whether in person, email, or on forums, before we jump into the bulk of the responses.
One of the first things I do is pray for wisdom and discernment in responding. My prayer is that each response I do will honor and glorify God. Then I read the letter and try to discern what the person believes while pointing them to Christ.
When reading R.B.’s email (see below, unedited), he is very hostile toward the Bible, appearing to be a non-Christian. He is likely an atheist (or unaware of being a variant form of atheist called a “humanist,” who, perhaps inadvertently, sees humans as the ultimate authority—for instance, on a subject like morality as opposed to God being the authority).
He has obviously encountered Christians who were not well versed in apologetics—or he is basing his claims on common caricatures of creationists from skeptics.
This gives us a head start as to how to handle the response: use the Word of God, but also show why we use it. We may also have to use some philosophy to show that the view the inquirer is using is not well grounded.
Remember that each hostile email is an opportunity to share the truth. Here is RB’s letter exactly as it arrived.
Letter, Unedited:
i would just like to
comment that the only proof of creationism is the bible. the bible was written
by men. men can lie. man is capable of the most horribly attrocities on the
planet. you ask us not to believe in the word of God, but the word of men who claim
that they are speaking for God. most people pick ad choose what they want to
believe in the bible. if you believe one part of the bible, you have to believe
every single word. you can't take parts word-for-word, and change the rest of
it through your own interpritation. all i hear is that science is all wrong
because it disputes the bible, but the bible itself is the only evidence of any
creationist claims. dinosaur bones were burried by the devil to test our faith.
you can just discredit any scientific evidence by saying "it doesn't say
that in the bible." it doesn't say anything about chemistry in the bible.
does that mean that all chemists are wrong because their explanation is not in
the bible?
R.B., U.S.
Response:
Thanks for the inquiry. I am responding below with both sincerity and respect.
[Note: I like to start many letters like this to show the author that I am not trying to be harsh by any means. It is difficult to read the tone of a letter or email, so be up front and say (and mean!) that it is written with kindness. Even though someone may send a hostile email, we should not treat them as an enemy. The false philosophy and false principalities are the enemy (Ephesians 6:12).
We need to keep in mind that all Christians were once enemies of God who were saved by grace through faith in Jesus Christ (Romans 5:10; Ephesians 2:8). God first loved us, setting the example for us to pass along love and respect for others created in His image (1 John 4:9; John 15:17). In fact, we are commanded to use gentleness and respect (1 Peter 3:15)]; this response will also be done in a point-by-point style.
i would just like to comment that the only proof of creationism is the bible. the bible was written by men.
Of course, the Bible was written by men, but his claim here is that God was NOT involved. He has no way of substantiating the validity of his claim (no God involved in the production of the Bible) except by blind faith which is arbitrary. For someone to truly make this statement, he would have to be transcendent and omnipresent.
He would have to be able to “see” into the spiritual realm and verify that God did not influence the writers of the Bible many years ago. Such attributes that this person is inadvertently claiming are attributes of God. So, in essence, R.B. is claiming to be God, or just repeating what he has heard from others, who claim to know more than God.
This is a worldview issue right from the start. One can believe R.B., or any human, is “god” (i.e., humans seen as the ultimate authority), or one can place his faith in the true Creator God and His eyewitness account in His Word, seeing Him as authoritative. One can respond by pointing out that he is claiming to be God with this statement.
men can lie.
This is true, but not because R.B. is saying it. It is true because God says it (Romans 3:4). And R.B. apparently believes that lying is morally wrong. In a response, one can point out that for R.B. to say this; he is borrowing morality from the Bible by at least admitting to the concept of moral truth.
But interestingly, one could ask R.B., “Were you lying when you claimed the Bible was written merely by men?” What this shows is that, logically, by the writer’s own standards, he could be lying. Of course, this should be done with gentleness and respect (1 Peter 3:15).
man is capable of the most horribly attrocities on the planet.
Again, this is true, but not because R.B. said it. In fact, I am glad that he recognizes this, because it gives us two ways to respond.
1. Originally, God made the world perfect, and there were no atrocities. But because of man’s sin, the world is now subject to such things. It serves as a reminder that we need a Savior from sin and this sin-cursed world.[1]
2. Many people often try to blame God for such atrocities, yet the reader rightly recognizes that man is involved. Man’s sin, again, is why such things exist.
Both of these answers lead into the gospel message.[2]
Another thing that is useful is to show that R.B. is borrowing Christian morality to argue against it. Consider the illustration below:
He is borrowing from the Bible’s morality to say such things are wrong.
you ask us not to believe in the word of God, but the word of men who claim that they are speaking for God.
Note the fallacy here. He is assuming that his statement above (that leads to a human claiming to be God) is true; hence, he is building on it. We need to point out the fallacy and then show what this philosophy leads to (the “don’t answer, answer” strategy from Proverbs 26:4–5). One could say:
I don’t accept your proposition that God had nothing to do with His Word, but let’s assume for a moment that you are correct. How do you propose to save yourself from sin and death if salvation has not come through Jesus Christ?
Also, why would you be upset with horrible atrocities and lies? By saying lies and horrible atrocities are wrong, you are borrowing from a biblical worldview. In a worldview that does not acknowledge the God of the Bible, why are such things wrong? Such things would be governed by chemical reactions in the brain. Why would anyone be upset about titanium reacting with boron?
most people pick ad choose what they want to believe in the bible.
Sadly, this is true, and it reveals how much humanism has influenced Christians. In essence, what happens is that people (even Christians) use their own ideas to pick and choose what they want to believe from the Bible.
So, Christians, take note of what the real authority is in this situation: a person’s own ideas, not God’s Word. The real authority to those who “pick and choose” is a human, not God, i.e., humanism. Sadly, many Christians in today’s culture are mixing Christianity with humanism (recall Exodus 20:3). As Christians, we should always use God’s Word as the authority, not our own sinful, fallible reasoning.
In response to R.B., one could point out that R.B. is doing the same thing. He is opting to believe that lying and horrible atrocities are wrong. He is picking and choosing these things from the Bible to believe, whether he realizes it or not, yet rejecting the rest—including its authority statements.
if you believe one part of the bible, you have to believe every single word.
If R.B. really believed this, then why doesn’t he believe the whole Bible, since he already borrowed from its morality and concept of truth?
you can't take parts word-for-word, and change the rest of it through your own interpritation.
Take note of R.B.’s assumption here. He assumes that the entire Bible is written in the same literary style. A remedial look at the Bile reveals poetry, metaphors, literal history, prayers, genealogical data, etc. So, he gives a false assumption and tries to build on it, so his entire argument breaks down.
The issue is letting God interpret His own Word (Scripture interprets Scripture). This is why understanding the context and the complementary nature of Scripture is so important. It has nothing to do with human interpretation. Many, such as R.B., may be assuming “no God,” and therefore that God cannot interpret so people must. But this is not the case.
Proverbs 8:8–9 and 2 Corinthians 4:2 reveal that the Scriptures are to be taken plainly or straightforwardly. I like to put this in simple terms: Metaphors are metaphors; poetry is poetry; literal history is literal history; and so on. So, there should be no reason for outlandish interpretations, unless one does it of their own mind (e.g., mixing it with humanism).
all i hear is that science is all wrong because it disputes the bible,
I wanted to cut this phrase off here and explain two things. First, science is not all wrong. It is a methodology that actually confirms the Bible and most fields of science were developed Bible believers.
And second, R.B. is confusing the term “science” with secular interpretations of science and evolution.
but the bible itself is the only evidence of any creationist claims.
In reality, the Bible is the foundation for creationists’ claims. But all facts can be used by creationists as evidence. For example, dinosaurs are often taught as evidence for evolution and millions of years, but they are used by creationists to teach that God created them on Day 6 and that the bulk of the dinosaurs died in the Flood of Noah's day leaving their fossils behind (that is those that were not on the Ark).[3]
dinosaur bones were burried by the devil to test our faith.
If this is intended as a caricature of our position (or a general creationist position), it’s just a plain straw man argument. As just stated, dinosaurs existed and their bones were buried in the Flood. Interesting that for someone who is arguing against the Bible, R.B. seems to adhere to biblical teaching that the devil exists!
you can just discredit any scientific evidence by saying “it doesn’t say that in the bible.”
Again, take note that R.B. is equating interpretations with “scientific evidence.” We do not dispute dinosaur bones, we dispute the dates given for them, and we have reasonable doubt for those dates.[4] Scientific models and interpretations offer great support for the Bible. However, at the ministry we like to point out that scientific models can change with new information, but the Bible is still the inerrant framework within which to interpret scientific facts.
it doesn’t say anything about chemistry in the bible.
When there are absolutes (i.e., “doesn’t say anything”) in a statement, it is good to re-read it and see if that absolute is true. As a side note, in an atheistic worldview, in which absolutes do not exist, it is interesting that absolutes are used quite often!
Regardless, the Bible does touch on chemistry, but the Bible isn’t a chemistry textbook. Consider passages about iron, bronze, and copper. To purify such items and mix alloys requires some chemistry. In fact, materials processing requires considerable amounts of chemistry. Naturally there are some subjects not mentioned in Scripture, but that is not a problem. For example, the Bible doesn't say that using a club (or gun, or rope, etc.) to kill someone is wrong; it says murder is wrong. The framework is in place.
does that mean that all chemists are wrong because their explanation is not in the bible?
Note another absolute (all) that tries to set up that creationists think all chemists are wrong. Of course, there are creationists who are chemists, and because of God’s attributes that we know from the Bible (logical, non-contradictory), we know that chemistry is possible. So, it has little to do with this, even though R.B. claims that it does.
Now that we have answered the inquirer, it is good to sum up with the gospel—whether a few lines or even more in-depth. It is always good to close with some encouraging words about what to do next and even an invitation to learn more about Jesus Christ and the Bible. Remember the great commission at the end of Matthew. We want to see people saved. Perhaps something like:
I can see that you have a strong moral conscious (lying is wrong, atrocities by man are horrible, etc.), and this is good, since it comes from the Bible. R.B., I hope that this response has challenged you to consider the truth of the Bible, which seems to be your biggest stumbling block. I want to encourage you to study this further and consider the claims of Christ.
Then perhaps link to an article or chapter that explains the Gospel to make it a little easier for them and close with:
With kindness in Christ,
Bodie Hodge, a sinner saved by grace.
□
Bodie Hodge, Ken Ham's son in law, has been an apologist since 1998 helping out in various churches and running an apologetics website. He spent 21 years working at Answers in Genesis as a speaker, writer, and researcher as well as a founding news anchor for Answers News. He was also head of the Oversight Council.
Bodie launched Biblical Authority Ministries in 2015 as a personal website and it was organized officially in 2025 as a 501(c)(3). He has spoken on multiple continents and hosts of US states in churches, colleges, and universities. He is married with four children.
Originally at Answers in Genesis; Edited; Republished by permission.
[1]
For more on this, please see Biblical Authority Ministries: Why Is
There Death And Suffering?.
[2]
For more on this please see: The Gospel of Jesus Christ, Biblical
Authority Ministries: Being Saved.
[3]
Bodie Hodge, Dinosaurs,
Dragons, and the Bible, Master Books, Green Forest, AK, 2023
