News
Saturday Selections – July 25, 2026
When they mock the Bible, question the question
One of my friend's university professors had, as a clear goal – if I recall right, he even stated it to his class – to convince his conservative Christian students to stop believing in a literal 6-day creation.
His tactics involved undermining their trust in the Bible's accuracy, scientifically-speaking. So, in one of his tests he asked students to explain why the Bible only applied the word "barren" to women. After all, we know today that men are as responsible for infertility as women. The answer he wanted students to give? That back in biblical times, they just didn't know better, so they presumed that it was only and always women who were the cause and never men. Thankfully, in our more modern scientific age we, of course, know better than the Bible writers did. That, then, was an example of why we shouldn't trust the Bible over science.
My friend found this compelling – though she still believed Jesus was her Savior, the professor's question seemed to convince her that when it came to origins, we should go with the millions of years over the Bible's six-day account.
But what if we questioned the question?
His students presumed the question was fair, but the prof had an agenda, so why would we simply take his word for it? Does the Bible only speak of women as being barren? And if so, might there be a reason for that, other than that the Bible is unreliable? How might we approach this question if we weren't trying to undermine the Bible? Well, we might ask at least three questions:
1. Do we think the human authors of the Bible were idiots?
The question presumes that in OT times, people didn't know men could be responsible for infertility. But these were farmers, raising stock, so they would have known about bulls and rams that couldn't breed. We also read about eunuchs – males made deliberately infertile. Or what of Ruth, whose had no children by her first husband, Mahlon, but had a child, Obed, when she married Boaz? Do we think nobody knew that males could be infertile?
2. If the Bible does only use it with women, why might that be?
There are only about a half dozen women in the Bible specifically described as barren, or not able to have children: Sarah, Rebekah, Rachel, Hannah, Elizabeth, and Manoah's wife. Then of these six, half – Sarah, Rachel, and Hannah – were in polygamous marriages where their husbands had at least one other wife who was able to have children. So in three of these six we know the man is fertile. Of the other three marriages, is it possible that the woman was infertile and the man was fertile? It could be, couldn't it? So, then, one possible answer to the prof's question – an answer that doesn't concede the Bible's reliability – is that these women might have been described as barren because they were barren.
3. Is the prof's question even true? Does the Bible only describe women as barren?
There is at least one instance in which the Bible speaks of males as among those who won't be barren. In Deut. 7:14 Israel is told that if they keep God's commands in this new land “You shall be blessed above all peoples; there will be no male or female barren among you or among your cattle" (NASB).
The professor's question wasn't fair and instead of answering it straight up, his students should have challenged the premises. And as this video below highlights, there's other instances too, where Christians really need to question the question.
Seventeen babies born alive — and then left to die in Alberta
"Seventeen babies were born alive in Alberta following labour-induced late-term abortions in 2025 and left to die..... As a columnist more than 25 years ago, Danielle Smith called such second- and third-trimester abortions a 'horrific practice,' describing how 'nurses used to induce labour then withhold fluids from the baby until it died.'”
But now they are happening under her government.
Social media pushes pornography on children within minutes, report finds
"Social media is now one of the primary pipelines to porn addiction for both children and young adults."
3 thoughts on how to choose your career
John Newton, and Tim Keller had this trio of questions:
- Affinity: Do you enjoy it?
- Ability: Do others think you can do the job well?
- Opportunity: Is there an open door?
Transgenderism - why we need Logic 101 in our schools
"Would you rather have a live son or a dead daughter?"
Parents around the world, wondering and confused about whether they should let their daughters "transition," got hit with this question. But was the only way to keep their daughter alive to allow the doctor to put her on experimental drugs to derail her puberty? Did they have to let the surgeon remove her healthy breasts? Dead, or drugged and disfigured? Were there any other possibilities?
A false dichotomy is when someone presents an either/or situation when there are actually more than just two choices. Here it's being used to push people in one direction, by highlighting the only other possibility as even more unattractive.
But it can show up in other ways. Rick, an abortion advocate, thinks pro-lifers can only speak up for the unborn if they're willing to adopt the children. Shut up, or adopt, he says, those are the only two options. But if someone attacked Rick, would he only expect people to come to his aid if they were also willing to provide food and housing for him? Nope – he'd be happy for any help, even if it didn't come with room and board.
Beethoven's wig is very big (Symphony #5)
Our school's music teacher had my youngest listening to selections from Beethoven's Wig, a clever musical group who sings lyrics set to the classical music you already know. If you liked this one, be sure to check out their Beep beep beep, also known as Beethoven's Moonlight Sonata.
