I have often hesitated to write the following because I believe the answer to our own gaps in knowledge go beyond taking a fish (i.e. just giving the answer) to learning how to fish (i.e. formulating your own reasonable answer).  As I have been meeting with churches and schools over past couple years there has been a request for the fish and how to fish.  So, for the fish I offer the conversation below.  
 
It is a pretty standard conversation that I have with students.  Of course, no two conversations are alike but perhaps it will give some hooks on which to hang your own thoughts.  The fishing part comes after the conversation where I hope to explain the principles behind my method.
 
Moral Relativity is the belief that right and wrong are only defined by the person defining them.  In other words, doing that which is right in one’s own eyes.  A Bible believing Christian on the other hand believes that there is an absolute standard for right and wrong regardless of whether or not we think it is right or wrong.  That standard is God, the Prime Lawgiver, and by extension the Holy Scriptures.
 
For our purposes the parties involved are the Evangelist (the Christian) and MR (the Moral Relativist.  Although this discussion does not lead immediately to the cross of Christ still all such endeavors have as their point to lead a non-Christian to saving knowledge in Jesus.  As a result, anyone who engages in like conversation is an evangelist, properly so called.
 
Evangelist: Is there any thing that is morally absolute?
MR: No.
 
Evangelist: Why?
MR: Because what I say is right, is right and no one has the power to impose on me otherwise.
 
Evangelist: So is murder wrong?
MR: Weeelll... Not in time of war, or self defense so I think that killing is ok sometimes.
 
Evangelist: Ok, is rape wrong?
MR: Yes.
 
Evangelist: Why is it wrong?
MR: Because it harms another human being.
 
Evangelist: Why is harm wrong?  Physicians need to cut in order to repair.  Athletes need to run and lift to the point of pain in order to get faster and stronger.
MR: Ummm...because I don't want harm done to me so I don't want it done to others.
 
Evangelist: But that sounds like imposing your idea of wrong on others.  How about the rapist? Presumably he is not being harmed by raping.  What gives you the right to say the rapist is bad?
MR: Perhaps I don't have the right to tell the rapist but I do have the right to govern myself morally.
 
Evangelist: Do your morals change?  I mean, we are fundamentally creatures of change.
MR: Yes.
 
Evangelist: Is it possible that you could change your mind on abortion by tomorrow?
MR: Yes, it is possible.
 
Evangelist: Is it possible that you might change your mind about rape tomorrow? Not that you will, but is it possible?
MR: Yes, it is possible.
 
Evangelist: By your own admittance and because only you are said to govern your morality, are you a safe person then?  Tomorrow it might be that rape is ok, so should your girlfriend go out on a date with you this Friday?  Is it possible that tomorrow pedaphilia is ok with you.  Is it safe to leave my kids with you?
MR: Well in that case it would be ok for me to rape but not for society.
 
Evangelist: In the end what does society have to do with this? You began the discussion with what you say is right, is right, for you.
MR: Society gets a say if I let it.
 
Evangelist: Sure but let's be clear, only if you let it.  So if you disregard society and you come to the conclusion that maybe rape is right, are you a safe person?
MR: No, I don't think so.
 
Evangelist: If you are the sole governor of your moral system and you change your mind about rape who can tell you rape is wrong?
MR: I guess, no one.
 
Evangelist: If there is nothing morally higher than yourself and it is possible that rape can become morally right then are you a safe person to be around?
MR: Maybe not.
 
Evangelist: If you are not a safe person to be around then would it be fair to say that you are dangerous?
MR: I suppose...
 
Evangelist: What makes a person or thing dangerous?
MR: The person or thing is disposed to cause harm.
 
Evangelist: Indeed, so then has your moral relativism become the catalyst for the very thing you say is fundamentally immoral - to cause harm?
MR: Maybe it does.
 
Evangelist: I agree.
 
There is of course the Christian side of the discussion where truth, absolutes, and God are front and center to the discussion.  The purpose of this exercise what to test the internal coherence of Moral Relativism, and in the end this is but one way of proving it is not.
 
Method:
 
Primary to my method is to ask questions.  Get use to asking questions, lots of them and for two reasons: 1. To understand your conversant's position and 2. To build relationship through the question because in the end you must have care for their soul, so really and truly desire to understand where they are coming from.  
 
Next, I like to begin with a question rather than a declarative sentence.  It can give the sense of putting the other person in control.  Then meet the person were they are at.  If they say, "What's right for me is what's right, for me." then meet them there.  
 
Sooner or later you will need to introduce the Christian worldview, but if you are able to put a crack in the dam that is their worldview prior to offering your position, it helps.  Although it is tempting to chase the disjunction between the person's idea of murder vs rape it is important to stay on the core issue which is moral relativism.  In the above example I did not include a foray into the Christian worldview properly so called because I believe moral relativism is intellectually canniblistic - it eats itself and it's undergirding principles.  
 
Still from here I would begin to talk of God as the Prime Lawgiver and sin’s relationship to divine justice.  If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask.  If it's been a help at all, praise the Lord.  If not, I will endeavor to do better next time.
 
 
Blessings.

In Dr. James White’s book entitled The King James Only Controversy, he goes about to dismantle the KJV-onlyism of Peter Ruckman and Gail Riplinger with as much grace as he can muster. Still, early in White’s book he makes clear that “there are a number of Biblical translations [he] would personally not recommend” [18] while at the same time proclaims that he has “no desire to get everyone to read the NAS (New American Standard Bible), or the NIV, or the NKJV (New King James Version), or the RSV (Revised Standard Version) or any modern translation.” [17]
 
White appears willing to recommend some English Bibles and refuses to recommend others. In this case, White and others seem to approve of a plurality of English Bibles for English speaking Christians. The question for today’s post is, “Is such a plurality rational, given the theological content of Christian orthodoxy?”
 
Before we ever get into the nuts and bolts of exegesis, theology and textual criticism there seems to be one glaring question of the elementary sort. How does the Law of Non-Contradiction comport with the espousal of plural Bibles for the English-speaking community?
 
The Law of Non-Contradiction is one of the most basic laws of logic and it states that:
 
“A” cannot be “A” and “non-A” at the same time and in the same way.
 
For example: Peter cannot be Peter and James at the same time and in the same way.
 
Even though Peter and James bear many similarities (caucasian, male, facial hair, two eyes, two feet, two ears, one nose etc), Peter cannot be Peter and James at the same time and in the same way.
 
Thus, when asking the question, “What is the word of God in English?” and our options are KJV, ESV, NKJV, NIV, NASB, RSV we seem to run into a simple but exceedingly problematic situation.
 
To say that the KJV, ESV, NKJV, NIV, NASB, RSV are all the word of God is at best a gross conflation violating the Law of Non-Contradiction.
 
For example:

1. (Logically) The ESV cannot be the ESV and the NIV, RSV, KJV etc at the same time and in the same way.
2. (Logically and Theologically) The word of God cannot be the word of God and not the word of God at the same time and in the same way.
3. Therefore, if the word of God is the ESV, then the word of God cannot be the NIV, RSV, KJV etc.
4. If it is postulated that the word of God is all of them, and they are different in the Greek and English (albeit little or much), then on the aggregate level (i.e. words and sentences) to say that the KJV, ESV, NKJV, NIV, NASB, RSV are all the word of God is to violate the Law of Non-Contradiction.
5. It is possible at this point to say that each of these words of God contain in a large portion the word of God, but it is illogical to say that they all ARE the word of God in the Greek or English.
6. The language of “contains” is of course terribly problematic when preaching from the pulpit, teaching from the lectern, and worshipping around the kitchen table.

 
The Forward of Dr. White’s book begins with these words, “In the age of uncertainty, the last thing we need is the suspicion that the Word of God is somehow faulty and misleading.” [11]
 
If Dr. White and those who speak in similar conflations seek to avoid uncertainty and suspicion, they have not done so. Saying that a plurality of canons in English or Greek ARE the word of God is illogical, unreasonable, and unbiblical. The Church is in need of a standard sacred text and scholars and theologians speaking in terms of a plurality of God's word impede that aim and goal. Your move Dr. White and company. 

11. Can what is "only a little" false be the object of faith?
    No. "[N]othing false can be the object of faith." (Turretin, Institutes, 71)
12. Should the notion of divine creation be an object of faith?
    Yes, because the Jesus Christ made it. (John 1:1-3)
13. Should 13.6 billion years be the object of faith?
    No. Such a conclusion is based almost entirely if not entirely on human observation which is at best "only a little" false, i.e. not absolutely true.
14. Should 6,000-10,000 years be the object of faith?
    No. This also contains an aggregate of human observation.
15. Should 6 days be the object of faith?
    Yes, because there can be no doubt via faith that Scripture says 6 days.
16. Why is faith more trustworthy and therefore more certain than observation?
    Because faith is a supernatural gift of God which moves the will to move the intellect to assent to the seemingly impossible (e.g. the parting of the Red Sea, the resurrection of the dead, and the feeding of the 5,000.)
17. Example: Should seeing and touching the resurrected Jesus count as faith?
    No. Faith is the "substance of things hoped for and the evidence of things not seen." (Hebrews 11:1) Faith moves the will to move the intellect to assent to the truth that fullness of the Godhead dwells in what appears to be a common Jewish man.
18. When the Creator was manifest in the flesh He was despised, rejected, and crucified because of a lack of faith. Why then is it reasonable to conclude that reason via observation will do any better when view the Creator's creation?

In sum, TE predicates ~13.6 billion years and therefore predicates primarily on human observation. Take away the ~13.6 billion years and the argument for TE disappears. It loses its distinction and ability to oppose other Christian positions on the topic. TE maintains that God created the universe in ~13.6 billion years. Without the "~13.6 billion years" all that remains is, God created the universe. Whereas the Bible says "6 days," therefore by faith the believing community can say with certainty, God created the universe in 6 days. On the one hand, ~13.6 billion years cannot be the object of faith. On the other hand, 6 days can and is an object of faith and is therefore more certain and authoritative.

"Although reason concurs in educing consequences, it does not follow that faith is established by reason; as, although faith cometh by hearing, yet the senses are not the foundation of faith; faith uses reason, is not built on it." (Turretin, Institutes, 40)

See Theistic Evolution (TE) and Six Literal 24 hour Sequential Days (Part I) for the first installment of this argument.

The following is a scrap and thread I chased in thinking about the topic of ultimate beginnings and the larger ecclesiastical discussion on the topic of Creation in Genesis 1. 

Theistic Evolution vs. 6 Day Creation
1. Either both of these position are wrong or one is right.
2. Are both equally binding on the saint as revealed truth?
    No. See line 1.
3. Both could be wrong but that would lead to either:
    A. As the believing community we have not been guided into all truth by the Holy Spirit.
    B. Science is wrong.
4. I do not accept either A or B as true.
5. Which is more certain and therefore more authoritative?
    A. "6 Days" maintains that "day" means literal 24 hour day thus leaning on Scripture exclusively.
​    B. TE accepts the observation of ~13.6 billion years + Scripture = God superintended evolution.
6. Why is B more reliable, certain and authoritative than A?
    Because B incorporates what we observe.
7. Does what we observe strengthen our position?
    It does to a point.
8. Is what we observe absolutely true?
    No. It is only a collection of experiences and rational conclusions that fit the current set of accepted facts.
9. Therefore TE as a system must be somewhat false (intrinsically) because of the aggregates of human experience and rationality.
10. How false? To what degree?
    Let us assume "only a little."

See Theistic Evolution (TE) and Six Literal 24 hour Sequential Days (Part II) for the conclusion.